-
Remasters and Audiophoolery?
I find it hard to start this thread... I've attempted it a few times over the past few months but when I do I ultimately hit the "back" button and punt. This time, I'm gonna make an attempt at being coherent and short(ish) winded here.
For as long as I can remember I've been a huge fan of music. Who isn't right? I mean, that's why we're all here. Everyone I know loves songs. But I sometimes feel like my love for music is more than just a love for "songs". This hobby at times clouds my passion for just enjoying the music. After last weekend's show (The Vinny MECA comp) my passion for listening to music was reignited by all the awesome systems I heard. It turned that spark back on for me.
Now, here's where I'm gonna skip all the mooshy talk and get right to the good stuff.
We as audionuts often find ourselves entrenched in gear swapping. However, my gear swapping has rarely been with the hope of a gain in sonic bliss. Rather it was done out of necessity... you know... I just needed to do something. Idle hands and whatnot. I never really get in to the "amplifier sounds" or "DAC sounds" side of things even though I do believe there are legitimate points to be made. An extreme example would be tube amps not being able to drive a complex load loudspeaker as well as a solid state amplifier.
Enter, the plight of album masters. Even though I'm not a gung-ho equipment sonics guy, I do believe there are differences in the source material that can often lead one to hear different things by simply swapping the disc for another of the same name but different release date or country it's released to. The most obvious example would be something like a common-day Remaster where an album with previously high dynamic range has been brickwalled to satisfy the 'loudness wars'. We know this scenario all too well by now (if you don't, here you go).
However, dynamic range aside, there are many cases where an album/disc may be flat out mastered differently. I ran in to a fine example of this some years back when I was researching Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms Mobile Fidelity Soundlabs remaster (note: herein Mobile Fidelity Soundlabs will be referred to as "MoFi"). There were some fellas on a recording/engineer forum, http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/, discussing the difference in mastering between the MoFi (SACD/CD Hybrid) version and the original album release. Some presenting their case for why the MoFi version is superior and others stating their fondness for the original. Ultimately, totally subjective opinions on which they liked the best. So, naturally I'm thinking it's all conjecture... typical crazy audiophile talk. Until I saw that someone actually provided proof there is indeed a difference between the two versions beyond just the loudness wars aspect. Below are two screengrabs provided in the discussion of the proof. You'll see the delta illustrates the frequency response differences between the two. Actual, objective and quantifiable difference in two different versions of the same original source material.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...2A26F0072E.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...935C301FC6.jpg
You can see from the above that one version of "So Far Away" (I believe it was the SACD version) has a +4dB bump at 80hz and some dips in the higher frequency end. Right. So definitely a case for audible differences.
That opened my eyes... the argument that one album can sound different from another of the same title is totally plausible and isn't just audiophoolery. Since then I've cruised that forum countless times before purchasing a CD looking for tips on which version of an album I should buy. To give a pretty typical example consider an album with (3) different versions: 1) the original 1985 US Pressing, 2) the original 1985 Japan master, and 3) the 2010 remaster. Sometimes the consensus is the Japanese master is the better version and sometimes not. When there's a new mix provided there will be discussion comparing the new mix vs some of the previous. Usually objective data comparing track vs track is provided to illustrate differences. But, over time I've learned to trust these guys at their word on the 'fact' there is an audible difference between the versions being discussed.
Another further example is a 2014 remaster of Tears For Fears' Songs From The Big Chair. I recently purchased this mix and compared it to my MoFi version. I'm told the MoFi version is in many ways similar to the original with some key differences. The thing that stood out to me about the 2014 release is how much more defined the transients were. I thought that odd... figured I was tricking myself in to hearing things. But, lo and behold, I found this interview and subsequent quote from Steven Wilson, the guy who remixed the album off the original analog recordings, discussing the differences between his mix and the original and I realized that what I heard was likely due to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Wilson
It’s a matter of taste whether it sounds better than the original mix,” he says. “More clarity in places perhaps, but the original mix is great and definitive, so I would say the new mix just sounds different, not better. However, one thing that does differ very slightly to the original is that I backed off some of the extreme use of reverb on some mix elements. The trend in the mid 80’s was definitely to have everything bathed in massive arena-sized reverbs, and I certainly have not changed that approach or the overall sound world of the album, which is supposed to sound huge and epic after all. It’s more a subtle tweak that just gives the impression of the instruments and vocals being slightly more present or “up front” in places.
If you read the whole article above you'll also find some neat info about how "Shout" was basically put out with reversed stereo. The new mix got it right based on how the musician played the toms; the original version was incorrectly swapped.
While we all understand that remixes can and often do sound different for some obviously audible reasons, there are cases where the changes are much more subtle. Furthermore (and most importantly to me) is the fact there even released versions of a disc put out in the same year sound different depending on the market (the US vs Japan example I gave above).
Like I said, before I get ready to purchase a CD I'll spend some time doing some research on the better options. For example, before I purchased Michael Jackson's Thriller, I wanted to determine just which version I should get. I already had the remasters but felt like I could get something better. I go to http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/ and search for "Thriller" and read and read... sometimes the threads are short and sometimes they are long and there's tons of them. As you can imagine, Thriller has a lot of threads discussing it. Once I determined that catalog number EK38112 was the one to get, I went shopping. I buy used albums/discs from discogs.com. Discogs is an incredible source for used/new media. I've purchased the majority of my music through them then I'll resell it on eBay once I've ripped it to my computer (lossless format). All these darn "Erin's Mix" CDs I give out at meets and whatnot are almost entirely comprised of original pressings that I sourced through discogs... and I put a lot of effort in to finding the "best" versions of the albums through the SteveHoffman forum. So if you have one of those meet discs, just know that I put serious effort in to making it a good disc. It's the first time I'm telling this out loud ... and subsequently giving away my insider info. ;) :D
Now, you would think that a lot of these "best" versions would cost quite a bit given some of their age (remember, I am more fond of 80's pop/rock than I am anything else) but mostly I find the used CDs are <$10 shipped in mint or very good condition. That's not bad, considering. Of course, if you want Madonna's self-titled German-master then you're gonna pay a bit.
But, I digress. A lot of the 90's era rock/alternative stuff I was in to typically stays under the $10 target as well with an occassional oddity (typically cult classics or rarities such as Matchbox 20's Yourself Or Someone Like You LP that continually goes for $300+ (seriously, I love MB20 but I would have never expected their LP to go for so dang much!... did you notice the Mint condition for $750?!).
So that's it... my tip for sourcing the best albums of a given artist/title I can is simple but sometimes involves a bit of work to weed through specific catalog numbers to make sure I'm getting the 'correct' version. This may seem silly to some. That's cool. But I rather enjoy it.
Just for kicks, I snapped some pictures of a few of my favorite purchases. These are all original pressings. Tears For Fears' Hurting is a West German 'Atomic' pressing. Songs From The Big Chair is my 1985 US Pressing. The Wang Chung album is a Japanese pressing. And finally, rounding out my quad that I refuse to sell is Michael Jackson's Thriller original 1982 US Pressing (EK38112).
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...6D7051EB22.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...CA8DB80B3E.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...09F7702C21.jpg
and my parting shot of my silly collection of SFTBP (I don't have the physical CD version of the MoFi version):
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...02FB640655.jpg
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Wow! I have a lot to read.....you are a scholar and a gentleman (and a bikinpunk[emoji12]). Thank you so much for posting this, although my PayPal account may suffer [emoji6]
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Ha! Well, I apologize in advance. And please don't tell your wife it's my fault... I don't want her shanking me the next time I'm at one of your meets!
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
I'm gonna give another example, real time, about my 'process' here. I may be making too big a deal about said 'process' but it kind of gives a clearer example to the ADHD above.
Last night I was listening to Apple Music's mix playlist of 80's hits and George Michaels' "Faith" came on. I flat out just dig this song. Side note: if you haven't noticed it, the intro to "Faith" has a throwback to GM/Wham's "Freedom" song via pipe organ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFwOs-jy53A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0
Now, I already have a ripped version of the original US album but it got me curious if there may be a different version or two out there that might be noticeably different. So I pull up the Steve Hoffman forum and do a search. I get quite a few hits. Notably these:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread....160779/page-2
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...t-2010.223185/
The first discusses the SQ of GM's first two albums and the latter discusses the 2010 Remaster release. I do a bit of digging in the threads and find that for the original release, the preferred versions are 32•8P-231 (original Japanese pressing) and the original US version (catalog number/barcode number CK 40867/074644086720).
As for the 2010 remaster, it's received pretty well. I didn't find a consensus on the remaster being excellent but just some posts here and there saying they liked it. So... yea.
With all that said, buy the one that fits your needs best. I wound up getting the Japanese pressing for about $8 shipped (it was the last one they had at that price).
The cool part about doing this process is the other things you run in to. For example, I found this article discussing the recording of the album that was really quite cool:
http://www.soundonsound.com/people/c...-michael-faith
And if you read through the 2010 Remaster thread linked above you'll find all sorts of little nuggets. For example, this post:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...#post-11816079
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Good stuff erin! Thanks for the source of mix quality discussion, didn't know it existed, lol. I've purchased several mofi releases over the years, found some better than the origional, some not. It's nice to know you can research the differences through that site tho. I do know that some of the versions on your mix discs do sound stupid good tho.....I never noticed such fidelity in the "water song/Jamie's got a gun" version on one of yer mixes, in the recordings I have owned.........
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
I have to give some credit to Jason B for me posting this. We had a convo yesterday and at some point I began telling him about my new Tears For Fears disc and that went on to me talking about the Steve Hoffman forum. He expressed interest in knowing a bit more about my whole 'process' here regarding the forum and discogs. I was going to just text him the site's but decided to sit down and really write this up last night instead. :)
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
claydo
Good stuff erin! Thanks for the source of mix quality discussion, didn't know it existed, lol. I've purchased several mofi releases over the years, found some better than the origional, some not. It's nice to know you can research the differences through that site tho. I do know that some of the versions on you mix discs do sound stupid good tho.....I never noticed such fidelity in the "water song/Jamie's got a gun" version on one of yer mixes, in the recordings I have owned.........
I honestly don't even remember which version of that disc I used. But, I agree, the opening sequence is very ... fidel? lol... it certainly has a hi-fi sound to it.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
The biggest problem that I have is that a lot of my music was ripped from compilation CDs that I got back in the 90's (Now That's What I Call Music, Billboard Top Hits, etc). I don't know if whoever mastered these compilations did remastering of the original songs, or just copied them over verbatim. It also has me wondering about 'Greatest Hits' albums that bands put out. I'm one of those guys who hated to buy a whole album for just 2-3 good songs, so I would always buy a CD with numerous hits...but even I've noticed sonic differences between multiple versions of a song on my PC. I can tell from personal experience that the only version of Axel F you'd want to own is the one from a copy of the original Beverly Hills Cop soundtrack.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Lol, al, you know what always bothered me about "greatest hits" albums was the varying mixes from song to song. That has me thinking most of them are direct copies of the pre-existing mixes. The change in sound from song to song seemed to mirror the origional album mixes, which of course were different from each other. Now some best of albums are labeled as remasters, to address my complaint of differing mixes above, me thinks, as I don't believe I was the only one who disliked the varying sounds from one track to the next on the same album.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Here I was reading that long post, saw the tears for fears bit and thought "I need to show erin this"...
Kept reading and realized I needed to facepalm for myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
That's funny Robert. Thanks Erin for sharing...now go work on your car.
:cool:
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Thanks Erin, I now feel totally inadequate by merely walking into BestBuy and picking up Gary Clark Jr's latest CD because it was there.
But it does give me the idea to search deeper for versions of some Jethro Tull and ZZ Top CDs I have that seem to sound disappointing.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Cool! Yea, all I was trying to do is to make people aware that a 'Remaster' isn't the only version of an album that can be different. There can be numerous version of the same album released in the same year and have differences in the mix.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
That hoffman site is very very dangerous for my usage of time and my wallet. Its great, thanks!
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Just a word of caution on something I forgot about until recently...
Sometimes sellers on Discogs will be located overseas. You'll notice it by the shipping price because typical domestic shipping is only a few bucks where international shipping is more than $7-10. If you are looking for a disc in a hurry make sure you check the seller's location. I ordered a disc nearly two weeks ago. It was shipped 9 days ago and it still hasn't arrived. Luckily, I wasn't in a hurry. ;)
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
a new discovery for me...
I'm a fan of Madonna. Her singles that were played on the radio back when I was a kid were and have always been 'fun' to me. I've used her song "Live to Tell" from the greatest hits album The Immaculate Collection (TIC for short) on a few of my demo discs because of the large sense of space in the recording. I noticed the track doesn't sound the same on the album it was originally in: True Blue. Now I know why...
I got to researching her music and found out TIC was remastered in Q-Sound and I found this blurb on the SH forum which came from allmusic.com:
Quote:
Everything on the collection is remastered in Q-sound, which gives an exaggerated sense of stereo separation that often distorts the original intent of the recordings.
So that would explain why I hear a difference in that track and others on TIC vs the original album versions, beyond the obvious remixing of sounds and track lengths. Just another example of how re-releases, greatest hits, etc tracks can be different from their originals.
For those who don't know, Q-Sound I pulled this from their site (http://www.qsound.com/):
"QSound’s proprietary audio algorithms truly deliver a fuller, more natural and immersive audio experience - users hear the difference!!"
Wiki link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSound...d_in_QSound.22
As far as I can tell, the Q-Sound purpose is to basically emulate surround sound, of sorts. Apparently some recording engineers hate it, judging by this thread started by Steve Hoffman himself:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...lready.238632/
For those interested, here's a list of Artists who use QSound in their recordings:
http://www.qsound.com/spotlight/user...ng-artists.htm
That list doesn't appear to be complete, however, because this link shows others that aren't on the list above. For example, Michael Jackson's Dangerous... another track that I like to use for the sense of space (the beginning guitar riff sounds WAY out there). Makes sense now that I know how it was mixed.
Further discussion regarding this album's original 1991 release vs the 2001 Special Edition release here: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...s-2001.307016/
Alright... brain dump off.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
I too had The Immaculate Collection cd and enjoyed the music of that time. I remember Vogue being one of those must have bass demo tracks that everyone had :)
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
I'll have to dig up the jewel case for the Dire Straits BIA remaster I have. Intrigued now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
keeping this going...
I'm a huge fan of Matchbox Twenty (or Matchbox 20, depending on what year you're talking about ;)). I have been since I heard "Push" off their first Album Yourself or Someone Like You. But they really got their claws in me when I heard "Real World" for the first time. I bought the CD that day and it was the only CD I took with me on my trip to Europe that summer. I never got sick of it.
I have lots of great memories shared with their various albums over the years. The first concert my wife and I went to turned out to be the night they were filming their DVD "Show". So that was a really great time and helluva show.
I recently found a Japanese CD pressing of Yourself or Someone Like You, catalog # AMCY-2325, on eBay which I haven't seen before. Knowing how expensive this album can be (seriously, the LP sells for $350 (used) to as much as $750 (new)!) I decided to go ahead and buy this CD and see if it had a different or better master than the one I already owned. I didn't realize it when I ordered it but it turns out it's a Japanese Sample which are provided to radio stations and are not meant to be sold. There's actually a collector's market for these. Being the fan I am, I find it really cool that I inadvertently found one. Some people call it fate. LOL.
I ripped the disc using Exact Audio Copy (EAC) as I do with all these albums and then ran it through the Dynamic Range Database's (DRDB) Dynamic Range (DR) scanner. This does what you probably think it does: scans your songs and provides you the dynamic range information that you see on the DRDB site. You can download the tool for the PC/Mac via the "links" button at the top right of the DRDB site page. I posted a link to the DRDB results for this album here:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/114709
Which you can compare to the original version here:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/6996
Though, my DRDB results yield similar results to the others already posted there, it does seem mine has ever-so-slightly more DR on the majority of tracks (by about 1dB if that). I also did some spectrum comparisons between the Japanese disc and the US version I have. I compared "Real World" and "Back 2 Good" and at most, the difference was about 0.1dB and typically above 10khz. I found that interesting, but not convincing enough to think that this may just be pressing differences and not at all related to the mastering process. So, basically, I wasted $30 trying to get a 'better' version of the disc but ultimately I got a Japanese Sample which has a market in it's own right. Kind of cool!
I did a high quality scan of the cover at work so I can have the Japanese OBI* as part of the cover for my album art instead of the standard album cover. I also scanned the disc to show you what I mean about it being a Sample. Look at the inner ring and you'll see "Sample" written on it.
*Note: OBI is the insert that is slipped in the CD wrapper on the left of the CD case. The Japanese CDs with the OBI usually run a bit more than the ones without simply because they're a collector's piece as well.
Cover in the CD case:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...07415FF7FD.jpg
Cover without case:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...448C893459.jpg
Disc:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...48d2507364.jpg
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
just to show what I mean about why I scanned the album cover with the OBI, this is what I see when I play this on my iPhone:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...0D6B07BEA7.png
As opposed to this:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...B77ACD652E.png
I just plain think it's cool to see the Japanese strip on the side. I know, I know... nerd status.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
alright, you Rage Against the Machine fans...
Stop what you're doing now. Buy this album:
https://audiofidelity.net/product/ra...gainst-machine
https://img.discogs.com/bVN_ThRYktGJ...-9575.jpeg.jpg
Yes, it's SACD. BUT it's Hybrid SACD which means it has two layers: one SACD and one audio CD. This means it will play on regular CD players as well.
This came out in June and I had no idea until recently. I finally ordered it last week and have been listening to it back and forth over the weekend compared to the original and I have to say I love this version. This one is more dynamic than the original album and is less bright on the top end. It sounds incredible. Steve Hoffman, the dude who owns the forum I've linked and discussed in my OP is the dude who remastered this album and he did a heck of a job. You can find discussion here:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...coming.530305/
He said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Hoffman, post: 14210246, member: 2
I enjoyed mastering this.
DSD right from the September, 1992 original analog masters from Quantum Sound Studios, Jersey City, NJ!
Here's the DRDB info for the various S/T albums:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/li...st+the+machine
Look at how this Rage Against The Machine (Hybrid SACD, CD Layer) version rates higher than any of the other CDs; about 2dB better than the original disc.
*Especially note how bad the DR of the "HD Tracks" version is... Looks like it is the same version as the 2012 20th anniversary release that is brick walked to hell). that really bucks the notion that the HDTracks 24-bit stuff is the absolute best in every case, but that's a different post for a later time.
If the link above is out of stock, I advise you look at eBay or Discogs. If you're a die-hard RATM like I am, this is a no-excuses-must-own version. This was a limited, numbered run of 5000 copies and I'm not sure that Audio Fidelity will do another run. I'm considering buying a backup copy just to keep as a collector's edition.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
I was super disappointed the high res formats didn't take off. I invested in a player that would play both, figuring one would stick around........then watched both formats completely flop......I've got several discs of sacd, and DVD audio, somewhere......gathering dust since that player got replaced with a blue ray compatible device......
Nice find on the rage sacd!
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
I didn't get invested in to the high-res stuff (SACD, DVD-A). I really just couldn't afford it at the time it came out.
It's kind of funny that I've gotten more and more in to collecting different masters of albums. But I tell you, some of them are flat out gems. And it keeps my demo discs interesting to me because it drives me to pursue better versions than the ones people are used to hearing. I still have people comment to me about demo discs I made years ago and I get a kick out of that. Cool knowing people enjoy those discs years later. Wish I could share them more freely but that's not quite legal so... lol.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigAl205
I'm one of those guys who hated to buy a whole album for just 2-3 good songs
Funny thing is I am the complete opposite, or at least was. Typically in the UK it would cost about £2-£3 for a CD single, while I bought a ton of those I usually preferred to spend the £10-£12 on a full album in the off chance there might be other songs I liked. Made for some pretty dud CD's in my collection, but also some other songs I did not know about. At some point it would be nice to pull all mine out of storage and rip them properly, most are MP3 of 128kb - 320kb but it would be nice to rip them all to FLAC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erinh
And it keeps my demo discs interesting to me because it drives me to pursue better versions than the ones people are used to hearing. I still have people comment to me about demo discs I made years ago and I get a kick out of that.
I love getting the different demo discs from the meets, its always interesting to me hearing what other people like to listen to and especially finding something new. I should also add, I really appreciate the time people take to make a demo disc, I wanted to make one for the meet I had last month. Got as far as putting together about 6 songs I wanted to include, but it can be tough figuring out exactly what to put on there, especially when you have almost 10,000 songs to look through (and then in my case would have to hunt down the CD in order to rip those particular tracks).
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
I make my discs with music I like and I try my best to find the highest quality/best remasters of them. I know a lot of the 'audiophile' mixes have stuff I just plain don't listen to. Others might, but it's not my preferred music. I figure if I put music on that I enjoy then maybe others will dig a few of the tracks as well. Most of the stuff is 80's but some of it is newer. It's a pretty wide variety.
The way I pick the songs is to simply keep a 'note' on my iPhone that I update as I hear or think of a song that would be fun to put on a demo disc. Right now I've got a lot of tracks ready for my next meet disc. Some I've used before but they are different masters. For example, "Take the Power Back" by RATM. I've been using that for years (2008 at my first GTG) and have found a lot of people using it as well. With the new remaster I posted about above, I'll probably either put that track on my new one or pick a different one off that album.
Same thing goes for the latest CD I bought: The Cars - Heartbeat City, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Hybrid SACD version. It came out in July, I believe and I just got it Monday. So far, I'm really happy with the purchase. I'll probably use either "Drive" or "You Might Think", both of which I've used in the past but this version is different enough to warrant re-using them. :)
https://www.musicdirect.com/store/th...on-hybrid-sacd
Basically, if it's on my disc, it's something I'm digging at the time either because it's new to me or I have 'rediscovered' it and I try to use the best version of whatever song it is that I can find. I really do put a lot of effort in to making my discs... song choice wise I know people don't dig them all but my goal is to provide the best version they could possibly hear.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Exactly how I planned to make a disc, stuff I listen to that I figured would be fun to put on a CD for others. Same method as well, keep a note on my phone of things I hear while driving that I think would be neat to use for one reason or another.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erinh
Same thing goes for the latest CD I bought: The Cars - Heartbeat City, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Hybrid SACD version. It came out in July, I believe and I just got it Monday. So far, I'm really happy with the purchase. I'll probably use either "Drive" or "You Might Think", both of which I've used in the past but this version is different enough to warrant re-using them. :)
https://www.musicdirect.com/store/th...on-hybrid-sacd
I finally got some time to listen to this album tonight. My family went to bed and I have been sitting on the couch in the dark listening to this on my iPod through my IEM's and am in auditory nirvana. Lol.
http://www.isb-audio.de/bilder/produ...ybrid-SACD.jpg
This is an incredible remaster. I have the original version in ALAC and compared the two. I don't think the new SACD is necessarily light years ahead but goodness, it's certainly better, IMHO. Everything about it sounds so dang good. I'm not in the industry at all. I don't know all the terms (heck, I had to google remaster vs remix earlier when I was talking to Chad just to make sure I knew the difference when Chad asked me about the disc). But I do really appreciate music and the way that the nostalgia of it can really put a smile on my face. So here's my humble-enthusiast take on this remaster.
The bass lines are sharp and defined. Kick drums have great impact at varying volume levels. I hear distinct separation in instruments and an expanded soundstage ... (Maybe one of these aspects has improved and causing me to feel the other has as well. Either way, that's the impression I'm left with.).
Take, for instance, "Magic". The panning effects at the beginning define the acoustic boundary. The kick comes in and sounds smooth. Bass pluck is crisp and defined (I will say that in my head I would imagine the kick drum should sound louder than the bass guitar but it doesn't on the track and I'm probably wrong for this assumption anyway). Ric's little click-clock sound with his mouth at ~1 minute mark pans out wide on the left and is a cool example of the little extras I enjoy in music. Tons of layering effects throughout that really set the imaging cues to make the stage seem large.
Just really cool stuff here. I'm digging the heck out of this album. It sounds so good that even the songs I didn't necessarily care for have gotten multiple plays tonight.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ErinH
Look at how this Rage Against The Machine (Hybrid SACD, CD Layer) version rates higher than any of the other CDs; about 2dB better than the original disc.
*Especially note how bad the DR of the "HD Tracks" version is... Looks like it is the same version as the 2012 20th anniversary release that is brick walked to hell). that really bucks the notion that the HDTracks 24-bit stuff is the absolute best in every case, but that's a different post for a later time.
So now it's a later time and I'm ready for a different post.
As I said above, it's often assumed that HDTracks.com has the best versions one can get of an album but this isn't always the case. For evidence, just look at the DRDB results for the RATM S/T album.
Original 1992:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/5073
2012 anniversary reissue:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/56873
HDTracks 24-bit:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/113401
2016 remaster (SACD/CD Hybrid):
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/112871
You can clearly tell the HDTracks version is just the 20th anniversary release. It's actually 3dB LOWER than the original album. And 5dB lower than the new remaster. Those who spent $20 on that download wasted their money, IMHO. You'd have been better off just keeping the original disc in it's "inferior" 16-bit state.
However, on the other hand, I purchased a Matchbox Twenty's North album from HDTracks because it's about 4dB more dynamic than the CD. Here's the proof:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/li...ty&album=north
As you can see, the HDTracks version is about 4dB more dynamic than the original CD pressing.
Those are just two examples, then. As you can imagine, HDTracks is hit or miss as far as getting the best quality version of an album.
I'm telling you guys, when it comes to that site it really behooves you to do some research. Even just a quick search on the DRDB site can save you money. I found that out the hard way.
You expect something when you buy from them. But that's not always what you get. It's not necessarily their fault, per se. It's just... Maybe a bit disingenuous. But now you've been warned...
https://media4.giphy.com/media/Y2nbrJyAR6RiM/200_s.gif
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
RIP George Michael. This quote/bump is for you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erinh
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Saw the last post about GM and remembered how much I used to demo "Faith" when I worked in AV back in the 90's. I had itunes up on my computer and searched and was surprised that I didn't have a copy of it. So, I did a quick search and picked it up on discogs for about $6 shipped. One of my other favorite demo songs for rock back in the day was "Dancing in the street" by Van Halen off of Diver Down. I have it on one of the VH greatest hits compilations but always felt that it was compressed to hell. After reading this thread several weeks ago I searched the loudness wars site and found that the original Diver Down pressing was the one to get. Quick search and discog and I had a mint copy a few days later.
Thanks for the info Erin! I had been in the habit of buying anything new on HD tracks but had found that some of the "remasters" sounded worse than the original CD on the home system. The loudness wars site helped to confirm my suspicions and saves some money. HD tracks needs to do a better job.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rockinridgeline
Thanks for the info Erin! I had been in the habit of buying anything new on HD tracks but had found that some of the "remasters" sounded worse than the original CD on the home system. The loudness wars site helped to confirm my suspicions and saves some money. HD tracks needs to do a better job.
You're welcome, man. Glad you found it helpful and useful. I wish HDtracks was more selective about what they put on their site. But ultimately I think what they're doing is akin to what the music industry is doing with Hi-Res: putting out everything and trying to convince people that Hi-Res is indeed superior to make a buck. Even when you have cases where you're much better off going with a copy of the original disc.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Erin I read this thread way back when but I just started listening to Michael Jackson in the last 6 months. I wound up buying new versions of Thriller and Bad because it was all I could find and they were only like $7 each new.
My question is about Thriller. The 38112 pressing you have, have you been able to compare it to any of the HD Tracks versions?
I am wondering if it is on par or better than the version you have. If so i am thinking of getting the HD Tracks version instead of trying to track down the pressing you have.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Hey, Rich. I haven't listened to the HD Tracks version of Thriller yet. Personally, I'm just not a fan of Hi-Res audio for a number of reasons; partly because I'm lazy (I use Apple products and they don't natively support hi-res and I don't feel like dealing with a fragmented collection/playback method) and partly because most of what I would buy in Hi-Res, based on genre, is just remastered garbage or upsampled from the original and a total waste of money. I'd rather spend my money on older originals or *proper* remasters and rip them myself. In fact, I've recently gotten a couple really good albums: Duran Duran's "Decade" from Japan (incredible mix - the staging and layering is awesome - and mastering on this one) and the MFSL remaster of Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" which I've not gotten to really sit down with yet but am excited about.
But I'm glad you asked because I meant to post this a looooong time ago and completely forgot to share... And seriously, I hope everyone reading this thread pays attention to what I'm about to say because this is legit information that a LOT of people are not aware of...
Something to consider when purchasing and ripping old albums for your digital audio collection is pre-emphasis and de-emphasis. In short, some CDs through the late 80's/early 90's were made with a boosted top end, called "pre-emphasis". This was done basically to counteract the falling response of the limited resolution in the day. Thriller was one of them. And a lot of the albums from Japan were apparently made with pre-emphasis as well.
You can find a great article written about pre-emphasis here:
http://www.audioxpress.com/assets/up...s/galo3025.pdf
And here is a graphic of what the pre-emphasis boost is and correlating de-emphasis curve needs to be:
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Emphasis-Pre-De.gif
Why this matters:
As you can see from the image above, if you were to rip a digital version of a song or an album which contains pre-emphasis without the pre-emphasis removed, what you'd wind up with is a very bright version of the album. Look at that curve... let's use 1khz as a reference, saying it has about 0dB boost. At 5khz the signal is +5dB and at 10khz it's +7dB. Yowza! So it reasons what you hear would absolutely sound different than a version you've bought from HDTracks (where the pre-emphasis is not there, hopefully). Therefore, in a listening comparison an unknowing person would proclaim an audible difference. The difference is real certainly due to the pre-emphasis from their ripped album. However, once you remove the pre-emphasis* you'd likely find no difference in sound... or no appreciable difference, since undoing pre-emphasis isn't perfect.
* If you use Audacity you can use a tool to de-emphasize. I've read that iTunes will automatically detect pre-emphasis and rip accordingly. I use XLD/xACT on Mac. Here's a somewhat recent thread if you want to dig in to ripping a pre-emphasized CD correctly:
Ripping CDs with Pre-emphasis Properly | Steve Hoffman Music Forums
Here's another one:
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/f...-emphasis-mac/
FWIW, I have my original Thriller release ripped in both fashions; original pre-emphasis and de-emphasis. A/B'ing back and forth is night and day. With the pre-emphasis the tracks are MUCH brighter. It sounds very unnatural but to the regular listener they may like it more simply due to the increased treble but after a few tracks, it begins to wear on you.
I recommend if you do like I do ... buying old CDs and ripping them to your digital audio collection ... always run them through a program with pre-emphasis detection and then rip accordingly. I learned this information after I was about 5 or so CDs in to my 'vintage CD buying'. Hopefully me posting this will save you the headache (literally and figuratively) of having overly bright rips and then having to go back and re-rip them all once you discover why.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erinh
I recommend if you do like I do ... buying old CDs and ripping them to your digital audio collection ... always run them through a program with pre-emphasis detection and then rip accordingly. I learned this information after I was about 5 or so CDs in to my 'vintage CD buying'. Hopefully me posting this will save you the headache (literally and figuratively) of having overly bright rips and then having to go back and re-rip them all once you discover why.
Thanks for all of the info!! I haven't been buying anything yet but I have ripped about 200 CD's of what I already have. :doh:
I will go ahead and read more about pre-emphasis, very good info to know. Some of the info I have read in the last few day mentions about pre-emphasis but I did not know what it was.
I'm not sure I want to go down the Hi-Rez route but I have been trying to find the version of Thriller you have and it seems a bit hard to find (and make sure I get the correct version). I came across the HD Tracks version on http://dr.loudness-war.info/ and it doesn't appear to be crushed like the version I have. It has better DR than the version you have so I thought maybe it might be a good alternative.
Looks like I have a lot more reading to do.
-
Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?
https://youtu.be/EKnEIYOAALo
Bout a quarter of a century ago ^^^^
