Hello all, just found this forum (see below for why I was looking). I am starting to get back into music and I was reading about the loudness wars (I have not been a serious music listener for the past 10 years or so), today I finally heard what all the fuss was about:
I was listening to Judas Priest's 2005 release Angel of Retribution on CD then I switched to Screaming for Vengeance, Judas Priest circa 1982, and I was shocked at how "bad" the 2005 AOR sounded (obviously a victim of the loudness wars) in comparison (not nearly as clear and dynamic, almost a grating quality).
My question is if I search out that same 2005 AOR album on either the original vinyl release or the Back on Black reissue, will they suffer from the same issue? And overall will buying vinyl releases of new material have the same issue (so will I be able to bypass the loudness war by purchasing LP's instead of CD's and turning them into CD's myself)? Is it all just case by case depending on who mixed it?
Thanks for any input.
Just out of curiosity, I bought Depeche Mode's "Playing the Angel" and Lady GaGa's "The Fame" on both CD and vinyl a little over a year ago.
From both listening and viewing the waveforms, it was plainly obvious that the vinyl was made from the exact same brickwalled master as the CD.
I also picked up Pink Martini's "Splendor In the Grass" on double LP, which came with a download code for a 320 kb/s MP3 of the album.
The vinyl sounded very good, and examining the waveforms of both the vinyl and decoded MP3s showed that the vinyl master had zero brickwall limiting, while the MP3s were "punched up" a little bit, with some very carefully applied limiting on the loudest parts.
So, I think the answer is: it depends on the release, and I don't think there's really any way to know for certain unless the artist/label specifically says something about it, such as with the multiple re-release of Wings' "Band on the Run."
Ironically, it is the vinyl that would benefit the most from dynamic range compression, having much less dynamic range than CD.
Is it all just case by case depending on who mixed it?
Yes, it's hit-or-miss. I don't have statistics, but I believe the CD and vinyl are usually from the same master. And, it might be hard to get the truth about any particular recording because there are vinyl fanatics who will always say vinyl sounds better (or "more natural, or "more open" etc.).
The idea of mastering (and re-mastering) is to improve the sound... So, if they
think they've improved the sound by smashing the dynamics and making it louder and more "modern sounding", they are likely to do the same thing to the vinyl.
BTW - Most of the "loudness" usually happens during
mastering, rather than during mixing. Especially with older recordings, there will usually be only one mix, but there may be more than one master/remaster.
You are right, I meant mastering not mixing.
I just hate to drop more money if I am going to end up with essentially the same thing as I have now?
What is the point of all of the "audiophile quality" 180g releases that I am seeing if they are the same thing that I can get on CD for 1/3 of the price?
How can I ever figure out which new releases offer me anything beyond a bigger package and higher price? I am willing to pay for quality, but how do I know its there?
I guess I just have to try an research anything I buy, which presents a bigger problem online as there are 1,000,000 opinions but no way to tell which are educated.
For instance I ordered Judas Priest Nostradamus "Super Deluxe" package on sale from Best Buy (includes 2 CD and 3 LP version), am I going to find out that I paid for the same thing twice?
What is the point of all of the "audiophile quality" 180g releases that I am seeing if they are the same thing that I can get on CD for 1/3 of the price?
My guess would be profit.
What is the point of all of the "audiophile quality" 180g releases that I am seeing if they are the same thing that I can get on CD for 1/3 of the price?
Yeah... Like I said, vinyl fanatics. CD is a superior format, and if they were serious about sound quality, they would release a less-compressed "audiophile" CD (or other digital format) similar to what Paul McCartny did...
And of course, LPs are good for DJ "scratching".
I don't have any
modern vinyl. I assume modern LP releases have better quality than the older records did... People have higher expectations after being exposed to digital. But, I haven't bought a record since I got my 1st CD player (maybe 25 years ago). CDs (and MP3s) just sound better and they don't deteriorate like vinyl.
And unlike vinyl, CDs don't require expensive equipment to sound their best. So, I'm no longer constantly upgrading like I was in the vinyl days.
The idea of mastering (and re-mastering) is to improve the sound...
No, the idea is to sell more records. IF the seller thinks that better sound will improve sales then and
only then will they master for the best sound. This is Capitalism we live under, remember?
Based on the products they actually sell these days, one can I think conclude that they believe that improved sound is not what sells records, but that loudness is. Whether they have empirical evidence for this I do not know.
We live under corporatism. True capitalism is a free market. If the artist isn't in the top-40 then the vinyl version will likely be a completely different master.
We live under corporatism. True capitalism is a free market. If the artist isn't in the top-40 then the vinyl version will likely be a completely different master.
So I am talking Judas Priest here, not a top 40 act, is there anyway I can tell without buying if the LP mastering will be superior to the loud CD version? Will anything be indicated on the packaging? Has anyone had good / bad experiences with Back on Black? Here is what their website states:
The rich, organic feel and warmth that you hear in a great record comes from a good vinyl cut. Many masters are not suitable for vinyl, as today's modern digital music formats such as compact disc work in a very different way - and this is why we take the time to have them expertly re-mastered for vinyl production.
A cutting stylus cannot cut the square waveforms found in many recordings that would result in a terrible sound. The re-limiting process, individually tailored for every release, smoothes the wave peaks to produce a cut that brings out the colour of the original recording. Filtering the frequency extremes to more closely suit vinyl sound reproduction reintroduces energy to the signal at both ends of the frequency spectrum. And phase issues are rectified by slightly narrowing the stereo image – bringing clarity that would otherwise often be lost.
These highly skilled techniques have been developed over many years to bring the best possible sound to vinyl lovers, and are expertly applied to all our releases!
You could check out http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ (http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/) to see if the album you seek is on there in both forms. The Sublime album I have is one of those Back in Black ones, and so is Appetite for Destruction, and they both are not compressed. Those are both remasters, though, and the original albums on CD were nicely done. From my experience, if the vinyl gets released at the same time as the CD in the last few years then the vinyl is going to be exactly the same compressed crap.
You could check out http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ (http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/) to see if the album you seek is on there in both forms. The Sublime album I have is one of those Back in Black ones, and so is Appetite for Destruction, and they both are not compressed. Those are both remasters, though, and the original albums on CD were nicely done. From my experience, if the vinyl gets released at the same time as the CD in the last few years then the vinyl is going to be exactly the same compressed crap.
Good site, this confirms what my ears told me:
Judas Priest Angel of Retribution 2005 6 (bad)
Judas Priest Screaming For Vengeance 1982 12 (transition)
But no way to tell if the LP version of AOR is any better.
Being from 2005 and not being unpopular it is most likely going to be the same as the CD. The only way to find out is to find out for yourself or scour the internet for reviews.
A cutting stylus cannot cut the square waveforms found in many recordings that would result in a terrible sound.
If by that they mean that they're banging against the maximum 16 bit values with their level and compression settings, then it doesn't sound good on CD either.
I say vote with your wallet. If they aren't making albums you like, or are making you buy vinyl by deliberately making a bad CD then just say no and buy a different company/artist's offerings. Otherwise you're just encouraging the practice.
Well just dropped the $20.00 for the vinyl, for no other reason than to see how it compares, I will post my findings.
... if for no other reason than to see how it compares, I will post my findings.
Make sure to match levels when you A/B.
And if you want to report your results, consider digitizing the vinyl which will make it easier to perform a proper
blind ABX test[/u] (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295) to avoid running afoul of
TOS #8[/u] (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974#entry149481). (I may have crossed the TOS #8 line when I said "CDs sound better", but hopefully nobody will question my claim that I can hear clicks & pops on my 30-year old records. )
I suspect you
will hear a difference in an ABX test, and then there's the subjective opinion of which sounds better...
P.S.
I'd say it's easier to make a CD sound like vinyl, than it is to make a record sound like a CD. So, your original idea of making your own CD is a good idea, if the record does actually sound better.
Izotope[/u] (http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/) has a free plug-in to degrade an audio file and make it sound like a record!
Depeche Mode, Playing the Angel...
From both listening and viewing the waveforms, it was plainly obvious that the vinyl was made from the exact same brickwalled master as the CD.
That is what I realized too. The same goes for 'Sounds Of The Universe'.
It is just a pity such disgraceful modern mastering technics overthrown the common sense.
Depeche Mode, Playing the Angel...
From both listening and viewing the waveforms, it was plainly obvious that the vinyl was made from the exact same brickwalled master as the CD.
That is what I realized too. The same goes for 'Sounds Of The Universe'.
It is just a pity such disgraceful modern mastering technics overthrown the common sense.
So when I get both the LP and CD versions, a good way to test would be to record the vinyl (I will be going Sanyo TP-1010-->TC750 Preamp-->Soundblaster XFi USB-->PC) and open its waveform and compare to the waveform of the same song from the CD? If that is the case I will post the pics and some sound samples, probably take a week or two before everything arrives.
pbiancardi,
The waveforms will not be the same. They have been normalized and "tweaked", you will see more peaks on the vinyl and the CD will be brickwalled. The vinyl versions of PTA and SOTU are more pleasant to hear, however they are not that exciting at all, since they don't have any outstanding peaks. They're just a little better but far from ideal.
Well I am very curious now, so there is no way to tell if the Vinyl is the same master as the CD?
What are PTA and SOTU?
No, the waveforms can't be "the same," but if they vinyl was mastered from the CD master, they should be "quite similar."
A heavily brickwalled CD's waveform will look like a rectangle, sometimes referred to as a 2x4 (a reference to the lumber).
The waveform from a record mastered from that same master will look like a fuzzy rectangle, or a 2x~4.
I have begun to hear Painkiller
so its lucky that you know the original sound
and I'm envious of you!
What are PTA and SOTU?
Respectively latest Depeche Mode releases.
I emailed the label (Back on Black) regarding the Angel of Retribution album and was told that it was remastered for vinyl from the digital masters provided by Sony.
So the big mystery is what they do to the digital masters to remaster them for vinyl?
So the big mystery is what they do to the digital masters to remaster them for vinyl?
Well, a good mastering engineer is going to listen to the recording and treat each track individually to get the sound he's looking for, or as close as he can get.
And you already told us -
The re-limiting process, individually tailored for every release, smoothes the wave peaks to produce a cut that brings out the colour of the original recording. Filtering the frequency extremes to more closely suit vinyl sound reproduction reintroduces energy to the signal at both ends of the frequency spectrum. And phase issues are rectified by slightly narrowing the stereo image – bringing clarity that would otherwise often be lost.
Of course, those things could also be done to the digital master, if it seems to enhance the sound. But, if you are starting-out with a "perfect" recording, all of those things will
degrade sound quality.
The more well-known mastering steps for vinyl include:
- Summing bass to mono, to reduce vertical modulation levels on the cut. (This may be more elaborate than a simple summation, in order to avoid reducing bass signal energy.)
- Lowpass filtering, or a fast limiter/compressor only applied to high freq content. Excessive sibilance can both make tracking harder (due to pinch effect and acceleration limits), and cutting harder (due to overheating).
- A possible treble boost to counteract various treble losses in the recording/playback chain, most notably towards the inner groove.
And of course, the vinyl mastering process can omit certain steps that were in the CD process, like those related to compression/limiting, but those are by no means absolutely necessary. Similarly, all the steps listed above can be avoided or minimized if the recording level is set low enough, or if the source material does not require it. But lowering the level also lowers the SNR and some material really does need this sort of thing.
If you're looking for a specific answer as to whether or not any hypercompression exists on the vinyl vs the cd, besides getting a direct answer from the mastering engineer, the next best thing is to record the vinyl to a WAV, look at the waveforms sample-by-sample and try to match up areas of hard clipping on the CD to the places they ought to be on the vinyl. For several reasons, you probably won't see a horizontal flat line of clipping on the vinyl - if it's there, it will probably be "skewed" and appear like a straight line with some nonzero slope. But if the number of consecutive clipping samples appears to be the same between the vinyl and the CD, the common wisdom is, that's a fairly conclusive result that the vinyl is similarly hypercompressed.
Potential first issue.
I just received the Judas Priest Nostradamus set and the (3) LP's were in a plastic liner which was stuck to the LP's and appears to have left some sort of film on them, is this ok? I can take them back but I am assuming that they all ship that way??
Here is what it looks like:
(http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/3945/photogay.jpg) (http://img38.imageshack.us/i/photogay.jpg/)
I've never seen anything like that... But like I said, I haven't purchased a record for 25 or 30 years.
It looks like peel-off protective cover like you see on TV screens & computer monitors when you un-box 'em. If it peels-off easily, that's what I'd guess it is.
It does peel off easy but it leaves kind of a film on the LP itself, not sure if it is in the groove and damaging or not.
Here is the LP out of the plastic sleeve:
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/6417/photovsf.jpg) (http://img28.imageshack.us/i/photovsf.jpg/)