Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression. (Read 10980 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

I was reading this thread on reddit a few days ago:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/324...d_21st_century/

Green Day's albums "American Idiot" and "21st Century Breakdown" were remastered with less dynamic compression and released on HDtracks.com for sale.

Though I think we all know about the snake oil of "hi-res" music, the idea that albums are being re-engineered and re-mastered to bring back dynamic range is incredibly appealing, and I hope it's a trend that continues.

My question for the group is, what other albums (in any genre) have been re-released with less dynamic compression?  Is there a list somewhere?  Can we start adding to this thread to make one?

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #2 –
I hope i can argue my compressed and intentionally broken cds are replaced with a corrected download for free!
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #3 –
Quote from: carpman on
Hey, I'm looking forward to the marketing fever over the NEW ORIGINAL RECORDINGS releases. When the REMASTERED market has become saturated. Marketing will make LOUD bad and sell us these "rediscovered", superior, quieter recordings with incredible dynamic range. 
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=653614

Are we there yet? ...
Nearly.

C.
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #4 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
the idea that albums are being re-engineered and re-mastered to bring back dynamic range is incredibly appealing, and I hope it's a trend that continues.

I think it is especially appealing for producers who want to make an extra buck from selling stuff again that they already sold before.

You can expect the album being sold as a CD for $10, where they have tried harder to compress the last 0.1 dB out of it, and the HDtracks download going for $20 even though it was easier to produce, since they didn't need to fight so hard for maximum loudness.

Similar things have been tried before, see for example SACD. I don't believe it'll work this time.

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #5 –
Hi all,

this is a topic in wich I'm very interested.

Even if it seems we slowly go to to the end of the infamous "Loudness war" or (Compress me more if you can/Reduce the dynamic range and sell more), I think we should think about solutions for people who own overcompressed, dynamically brickwalled media.
These can be CDs, DVDas, SACDs, downloads from HDtracks.com, or else.

There are solutions to expand the DR (dynamic range), for example by unclipping.

If there are people interested too, I may try to help bringing ideas and some solutions I found here and there.

Regards

Escritoire

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #6 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
I was reading this thread on reddit a few days ago:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/324...d_21st_century/

Green Day's albums "American Idiot" and "21st Century Breakdown" were remastered with less dynamic compression and released on HDtracks.com for sale.


A key point is that the engineers who accomplished this feat went back to some original analog tapes, and effectively started all over.

In general dynamic compression cannot be removed once applied. It has to be avoided from some point before which it was originally applied.

Furthermore we all need to be reminded that analog tape recording inherently includes both measurable and audible amounts of dynamic compression all by itself. The degree can be  changed by changing production procedures, but it is always there. 

So, someone who goes back to the original analog master tapes is not as close to the source as he would be were the production process exploiting the benefits of digital audio as can easily be done today.

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: apastuszak on
I was reading this thread on reddit a few days ago:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/324...d_21st_century/

Green Day's albums "American Idiot" and "21st Century Breakdown" were remastered with less dynamic compression and released on HDtracks.com for sale.


A key point is that the engineers who accomplished this feat went back to some original analog tapes, and effectively started all over.

In general dynamic compression cannot be removed once applied. It has to be avoided from some point before which it was originally applied.

Furthermore we all need to be reminded that analog tape recording inherently includes both measurable and audible amounts of dynamic compression all by itself. The degree can be  changed by changing production procedures, but it is always there. 

So, someone who goes back to the original analog master tapes is not as close to the source as he would be were the production process exploiting the benefits of digital audio as can easily be done today.


I totally agree.  But at this point, I'll take what I can get.

The only thing I wish is that it was released on CD, or some more affordable form.  It kills me that I have to pay a premium price to get a "hi-res" version of something that would sound identical if it was a 16/44.1 file vs the available 24/96 or 24/192.

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #8 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: apastuszak on
I was reading this thread on reddit a few days ago:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/324...d_21st_century/

Green Day's albums "American Idiot" and "21st Century Breakdown" were remastered with less dynamic compression and released on HDtracks.com for sale.


...


I totally agree.  But at this point, I'll take what I can get.

The only thing I wish is that it was released on CD, or some more affordable form.  It kills me that I have to pay a premium price to get a "hi-res" version of something that would sound identical if it was a 16/44.1 file vs the available 24/96 or 24/192.



The hi-res (HDtracks.com) releases do not assure you of a high dynamic range, some of their "products" have the one of the CD.
Unfortunately, the best sounding releases are often ...vinyl (LPs). With all their associated problems !

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
In general dynamic compression cannot be removed once applied. It has to be avoided from some point before which it was originally applied.


Why? So 100% effective (with no artifacts) "companding" isn't possible?

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Bobber on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
In general dynamic compression cannot be removed once applied. It has to be avoided from some point before which it was originally applied.


Why? So 100% effective (with no artifacts) "companding" isn't possible?



True.

When you expand dynamics there is no reliable or accurate reference. The only reference is the compressed track which is by definition already quite damaged. The other problem is that without iintimate knowledge of the actual compression that was used, it is extremely difficult or impossible to effectively undo. Only rarely is this knowledge available.

As an aside, compression can be itself rather unreliable and inherently flawed because the time it takes to come up with a suitable value for the desired gain change can easily exceed the time in which it needs to be applied to be effective.  This problem can be addressed with the use of digital delay, so digital compression provided a great new realm of potential for compression.

Most compression and expansion is only audibly tolerable because the inaccuracy of human hearing.

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #11 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
I was reading this thread on reddit a few days ago:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/324...d_21st_century/

Green Day's albums "American Idiot" and "21st Century Breakdown" were remastered with less dynamic compression and released on HDtracks.com for sale.

Though I think we all know about the snake oil of "hi-res" music, the idea that albums are being re-engineered and re-mastered to bring back dynamic range is incredibly appealing, and I hope it's a trend that continues.

My question for the group is, what other albums (in any genre) have been re-released with less dynamic compression?  Is there a list somewhere?  Can we start adding to this thread to make one?

Wasn't there a recent Nine Inch Nails album that was re-released in a version with less dynamic compression? I seem to remember reading about it - last year, perhaps? Trent Reznor's not really my cup of tea, so I didn't look further into it.

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #12 –
@JabbaThePrawn
Absolutely, you get a whopping 1 DR more!
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?art...esitation+marks
Apparently DR 6 qualifies as "Audiophile Mastered", not that I mean DR numbers somehow suggest overall sound quality..

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #13 –
Quote
Why? So 100% effective (with no artifacts) "companding" isn't possible?
It's possible under known & controlled conditions. 

Compansion was used on analog phone systems (for noise reduction), but I don't know if any of those systems are still in use.  DBX noise reduction (for analog tape) also used compansion, and Dolby noise reduction (for analog tape) used compansion on the high frequencies.

However, it's impossible to reverse limiting.    A 0dB peak on your recording may bave been 0dB before limiting, or it may have been +1dB or +12dB, or higher...  The information is permanently lost and it's impossible to know the original height or shape of the waveform.

Frequently, there is compression (and limiting) on the individual tracks before mixing, as well as compression on the mix.    The compression on the individual tracks in not reversible without access to the individual un-mixed tracks. 

Even without those things which are theoretically/philosophically irreversible.  As Arny says, in the real-practical world there are too many unknown variables for compression on commercial recordings to be reversible.  There are 4 basic variables to compression - Attack, Release, Threshold, and Ratio.  There is sometimes a variable "knee" and sometimes a variable ratio.  Multiple stages of compression and limiting (with different settings) may have been used during mixing and during mastering.  If analog tape was used, that's another potential layer of tape-saturation.    There's multi-band compression and "ducking".  And, analog compressors (and digital simulations) with a particular "vibe" or "warmth".

You may get some "improvement" with expansion, or an un-limiter, or clip repair effect.  But, I'd consider this an "enhancement"or "alteration" rather than "restoration" or "repair". 

When I tried Audacity's Clip-Fix effect it made the waveform look a little better but I didn't hear  any reduction in the distortion.    You can also improve the dynamic range measurement  of a compressed recording with an all-pass filter (or by making a vinyl record which introduces phase-shifts similar to an all-pass filter) without changing the musical dynamics that you hear.

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #15 –
Bayesian filtering and modelling may showing some promise in audio restoration.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Hotsoup on
@JabbaThePrawn
Absolutely, you get a whopping 1 DR more!
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?art...esitation+marks
Apparently DR 6 qualifies as "Audiophile Mastered", not that I mean DR numbers somehow suggest overall sound quality..


Ok, to hijack my own thread...

Tell me if I did this right.

I went and checked the DR Database for a number of artists.  I went and did a search on Queen's - A Night At The Opera.  From looking down the list, it looked like the best version of the album (in terms of dynamic range) that was released on CD was the 1991 Canadian Remaster.  I head down to the basement and dig out my Queen CD, and lo and behold, it's the 1991 remaster issued by Hollywood Records.

I pick the track Bohemian Rhapsody and rip to FLAC.

I then look down the list of other releases and see that the 30th Anniversary edition CD has 2 points lower dynamic range.  20 minutes later and I'm downloading a FLAC a friend ripped off his 2005 release for me.

So, I decide to compare.

First thing I notice is that the 2005 version is a LOT louder, and, to my ears doesn't sound nearly as good.

Run ReplayGain and listen again.  Now they at least sound a lot closer, but I think I can hear a difference, and I still think that the 1991 version sounds better.

So, it's time to ABX them.

I apologize, but I did not save the ABX results, because I did not expect to be posting this, but I can at least remember what they said.  11/16 tries correct.  Probability of guessing 10.xx% (don't remember the exact value).  I assume by these results that I could actually tell the difference.  If I am wrong, please correct me.  I am pretty new to this.

So, with some new-found confidence, I found the dynamic range plugin for foobar2000.  I compared the range of the 2 tracks. The plugin tells me the dynamic range for the 1991 release is 11, and the 2005 release is 8.

So, having gone through all this, I believe I can hear a discernible difference between the two.

Am I right, or am I off base here?

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #17 –
Assuming you decided in advance to do 16 trials, 10% is marginal.  Usually you want 5%. 

If the dynamic range is really much different, its probably not too hard to find a part of the track that is easier to ABX.  Might try listening to more of it and seeing if theres a part where the dynamic range is more noticeable.

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #18 –
Quote from: DVDdoug on
When I tried Audacity's Clip-Fix effect it made the waveform look a little better but I didn't hear  any reduction in the distortion.


This is my experience as well. The waveforms end up looking great visually, but the "restored" peaks are still grating to listen to.

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #20 –
Quote from: rednyrg721 on
Though this is quite niche music, but I feel Earache’s Full Dynamic Range series should be mentioned

http://www.metal-fi.com/interview-digby-di...arache-records/

Finding the original DATs to cut to vinyl at full dynamic range. It's both brilliant, and proof that the world has gone completely mad.


Quote from: apastuszak on
Run ReplayGain and listen again.  Now they at least sound a lot closer, but I think I can hear a difference, and I still think that the 1991 version sounds better.

The problem is that you can't loudness match two different versions perfectly with a simple level adjustment when they have different dynamics. Either the quietest parts, or the loudest parts, won't match. Hence it's likely that parts of one version are still louder than the other, and you can detect that level difference in an ABX test.

The best I've managed is to level match roughly (e.g. using ReplayGain), then compare the tracks and find out where I think the biggest audible difference is, and then try to level match that particular bit I've chosen to concentrate on. E.g. if it's on a short loud section, just level-match and listen to that short loud section. If it's on a part where it's getting slowly louder, it's harder to match because the relative levels are probably changing, but try to level-match that section on average and be aware you might not have got it right.

There can be EQ differences between releases which make them easy to tell apart, even if the difference in dynamics isn't that audible.


You don't have to get so obsessed though. If you prefer the fact that the difference between the loudest and quietest parts is greater on one release than another, and then you find that change in dynamic range means you just can't level match them whatever you do (which means you can always detect the loudness difference at some point), that in itself proves you really heard the difference, and if you prefer it, that's the whole point.

Cheers,
David.

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #21 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Finding the original DATs to cut to vinyl at full dynamic range. It's both brilliant, and proof that the world has gone completely mad.

Worse yet, they use it to "prove" that vinyl was better than CD: "Digby: Well its great! Those people who were saying vinyl sounds best, were correct all along."

Let that sink in: The original DAT tape had no better resolution than CD itself. Same with the U-matic tapes. Yet it is the vinyl, which is produced from those originals, that allegedly sounds best. They really take the piss out of everybody. Shamelessly.

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #22 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: rednyrg721 on
Though this is quite niche music, but I feel Earache’s Full Dynamic Range series should be mentioned

http://www.metal-fi.com/interview-digby-di...arache-records/

Finding the original DATs to cut to vinyl at full dynamic range. It's both brilliant, and proof that the world has gone completely mad.


Quote from: apastuszak on
Run ReplayGain and listen again.  Now they at least sound a lot closer, but I think I can hear a difference, and I still think that the 1991 version sounds better.

The problem is that you can't loudness match two different versions perfectly with a simple level adjustment when they have different dynamics. Either the quietest parts, or the loudest parts, won't match. Hence it's likely that parts of one version are still louder than the other, and you can detect that level difference in an ABX test.

The best I've managed is to level match roughly (e.g. using ReplayGain), then compare the tracks and find out where I think the biggest audible difference is, and then try to level match that particular bit I've chosen to concentrate on. E.g. if it's on a short loud section, just level-match and listen to that short loud section. If it's on a part where it's getting slowly louder, it's harder to match because the relative levels are probably changing, but try to level-match that section on average and be aware you might not have got it right.

There can be EQ differences between releases which make them easy to tell apart, even if the difference in dynamics isn't that audible.


You don't have to get so obsessed though. If you prefer the fact that the difference between the loudest and quietest parts is greater on one release than another, and then you find that change in dynamic range means you just can't level match them whatever you do (which means you can always detect the loudness difference at some point), that in itself proves you really heard the difference, and if you prefer it, that's the whole point.

Cheers,
David.


The really annoying part to me is that I have money to spend and I want to go out and buy an album of a "classic" piece of music, like "A Night At The Opera" by Queen.

As this list reveals:

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?art...ht+At+The+Opera

there are at least 20 different releases of this album.  It's impossible to ABX them all.  How is a consumer to know what version has the least dynamic compression and is going to sound good?  I've bought a number of "digital remasters" of older albums and popped them in, only to find out that digital remastering simply runs it through a few filters to eliminate some background noise and then compresses and cranks up the volume.  Then you go and read reviews on Amazon and there is a 5 star review because people keep equating loudness with better sound.

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #23 –
It is frustrating, to be sure. That's why many audiophiles (not being derogatory, I'm also including myself) track down older CD's or spring extra money for audiophile reissues from the likes of Mobile Fidelity, DCC/Audio Fidelity, or Analogue Productions. They are expensive but sound great 99% of the time. As you're finding, the mainstream remasters/reissues leave a lot to be desired as far as packaging, sound quality, etc. I've since accepted that I have to hunt down trustworthy reviews from a variety of sources on an album-by-album basis.

As far as Queen's catalog goes, many prefer the old EMI discs (European or Japanese original issues). You can usually find the Mofi reissue of A Night at the Opera relatively cheap on eBay these days too.

Remastering albums to remove/reduce dynamic compression.

Reply #24 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
How is a consumer to know what version has the least dynamic compression and is going to sound good?
The first place I look is the Steve Hoffman forum, in the music section.

You have to use some judgement as to which posters are hearing what's actually on the disc, and which posters are engaged in flights of imaginative fantasy, but it's still a good place to start.

Fans of some artists have created entire websites dedicated to this kind of thing. I'd be surprised if there isn't a Queen one. There's a Beatles one, and two Abba ones

Cheers,
David.