What to do, what to do...(Chicago VI test)

Grant · 08-21-2002, 12:04 AM

Well forum members, Once the euphoria of listing to the new remaster, I got down to business.

Upon second audition, I noticed that things didn't sound quite as clear as on even the Very Best Of CD, so I did a little DIRECT A/B comparison.

I loaded up the track "Feeling Stronger Every Day" from both the Chicago records CD and the Rhino remaster (because it's one of my favorite songs) into Cool Edit Pro 2.0. I did the test all in 16-bit

To eleminate any level differences between the two files, I then scanned the older version for it's equal loudness properties. It was -14.02. I then opened up the new version and applied the RMS setting from the old version to it. I saved the changes to the file and closed them both.

I then opened up the RMS adjusted new version and selected a portion of it and copied it to the clipboard. Then I opened up the old version, marked the exact portion of the song that I copied, and deleted it. I then pasted the portion from the clipboard into the spot.

The old Gastwirt CD was crystal clear and sounded like a straight transfer with 80s converters. The peaks probably didn't even reach 90%. The remaster was more like -11., although I did not measure it.

The results: the remaster sounded less clear, as if the playback heads were dirty. The bass sounded as if it were compressed to boost the apparent level of it. The mids and highs were slightly compressed. It wasn't terribly compressed but was enough to clearly notice even on MY gear. My soundcard also has very good 20-bit playback converters. The Gastwirt CD wins. I suspect this will be the case with all of the remasters.

Now that i've done a controlled test and not just relied on the criticism of the remasters, I am less happy now about them. BUT, I still like the sound of Chicago II!

What to do? I kept my old Gastwirt CDs because of the recommendation of all you critics. I must eat crow. You all were right.

BUT, I insist that the compression is NOT as bad as some of you claim. I did my test. Anyway, now I have to keep both the old and the new. The old CDs sound better and the new ones have the great liner notes, artwork, and bonus tracks. I HATE it when this happens!

I may at some point compare the box set and all of the compilations in this manner at some point to see how they fare, unless someone else wants to do this test.

You can say I told you so (EXEPT for Chi II)!

**Steve Hoffman** · 08-21-2002, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grant

BUT, I insist that the compression is NOT as bad as some of you claim.

People, I keep silent about a lot of issues here on the Forum, but there is one issue that I always comment on: DIGITAL COMPRESSION.

There is no reason on this earth for a mastering engineer to add digital compression to an analog master mix for CD release. None. When they do, you are being robbed of the very life of the music that you are spending your hard earned money on.

Grant · 08-21-2002, 01:22 AM

Here is a screenshot of the gastwirt version:

Grant · 08-21-2002, 01:29 AM

Uh, here it is. I can't seem to get the size right.

Grant · 08-21-2002, 01:42 AM

The Magid version:

Gardo · 08-21-2002, 05:05 AM

First, thanks to Grant for being big enough to change his mind. It's getting harder and harder to find people with the guts to do that. In our op-ed culture, it's more like "that's my story and I'm sticking to it," no matter what. I have only praise, no "I told you so."

The differences between the Gastwirt waveform and the Rhino/Donnelly/Magid waveform are typical of all the tests I ran on CTA and Chicago II. I spent many hours on those tests, the results of which I will eventually post to my website and share with Rhino.

If you check the level of the Rhino remaster of "Feeling Stronger," Grant, I'm betting you'll find it's about -9.9db average RMS or above. Peak passages (like the all-hands-on-deck ending that works in "Jumping Jack Flash") are probably even higher than that. NOT good.

If you check "Feeling Stronger" on the "Group Portrait" set, you'll probably find that Mark Wilder's remaster is far closer in level to Gastwirt than to Donnelly--and I'm betting you'll find the sound is better than Gastwirt.

I love Chicago V and VI--both of 'em--and it's galling to me that Rhino has furnished the public with screwed up transfers of this important music. These copies will be THE copies for the next decade, at least.

Two questions for Steve:

1. Measuring peak values and average RMS levels tells us something about a remaster, especially the latter value. What range of RMS level do you find acceptable, typically? And are there other measurements one can do with Cool Edit Pro or Sound Forge that will also quantify remastering differences? I find it easier to convince people with numbers and waveforms than with listening reports.

2. How do you keep your own "professional spirits" up when this kind of crap rules the record bins and so few people seem to care?

Best wishes,
Gardo

lukpac · 08-21-2002, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grant
I must eat crow.

And you're a better person for it!

Quote:

You can say I told you so (EXEPT for Chi II)!

Dear god. Every time I go back and re-listen to that it sounds worse than it did the last time...

Grant · 08-21-2002, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gardo

If you check "Feeling Stronger" on the "Group Portrait" set, you'll probably find that Mark Wilder's remaster is far closer in level to Gastwirt than to Donnelly--and I'm betting you'll find the sound is better than Gastwirt.

Actually, I have done ripped songs from the "Group Partrait" box over time and this is true. The Mark Wilder transfers are closer to the Gastwirt CDs. In fact, Legacy never used any kind of maximization that i'm aware of.

Grant · 08-21-2002, 05:43 AM

I listened to the new CD as a whole again just a couple of hours ago (I gotta readjust my sleeping patterns!) and it sounds fine on it's own IF one never suspects a thing. We're audiophiles, so we hear everything...eventually...

Track 5 does sound uncompressed, which means the Gastwirt CD should sound even better!

For years, people have been crying out for the Chicago catalog on CD to be remastered. Now, i'm sitting here wondering,...why?!? What was there before sounded fine. I mean, what were people expecting to hear that could have been better than what they had?

I did a similar test with the Foreigner Ted Jensen and Inglot CDs and at least there WAS an improvement in the Inglot/Hersh CDs. Whew!

Grant · 08-21-2002, 05:48 AM

Which all brings me to a new question. Recall me stating that the new Chicago CDs sounded like the tapes were being played with a dirty head or something? Perhaps the tapes themselves have sustained some damage or are just aged from when Gastwirt used them. Despite Rhino's claims, the Gastwirt and Wilder CDs sound like they used first generation tapes, while the Rhino CDs sound more like copies were used.

Luuuucyyy, some one has a lot of 'splaning to do!

Gardo · 08-21-2002, 06:02 AM

Well, I'm not sure the Gastwirt CDs of CTA, II, and III sound just fine. To my ears the Gastwirt CTA is only okay, and far inferior to the Wilder remaster and the Sax remaster. It also has the weird tape speed problem at the beginning of "Introduction." I haven't done a proper A/B between Gastwirt's later Chicago masters and the Wilder masters, but my money's on Mark....

At any rate, Grant's right that we have to hang onto the Gastwirt CDs, because aside from CTA no one else has done the complete albums. Sigh! (I'd put something stronger there, but it's too early in the morning to get THAT vulgar.)

This may go down as one of the worst remastering frauds perpetrated on the CD-buying public.

Gardo

TimM · 08-21-2002, 06:19 AM

This continues to be very frustrating. While the best remastering engineer in the world sits on the sidelines forced to work on things he has already done once, all my favorite music gets trashed by hacks. Thank God for the LP.

Grant · 08-21-2002, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gardo
I haven't done a proper A/B between Gastwirt's later Chicago masters and the Wilder masters, but my money's on Mark....

This may go down as one of the worst remastering frauds perpetrated on the CD-buying public.

Gardo

Er, the Gastwirt CDs were done long before the Box set ever was.

I recall how just a couple of short months ago we were all excited about these new CDs. I knew there would be a little controversey, but this takes the cake! What bites even more is that an original band member was closely involved in the mastering process!

Grant · 08-21-2002, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TimM
This continues to be very frustrating. While the best remastering engineer in the world sits on the sidelines forced to work on things he has already done once, all my favorite music gets trashed by hacks. Thank God for the LP.

Ain't it the truth? Hey Steve, what if you just consider boosting levels 2db?

lukpac · 08-21-2002, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grant
Er, the Gastwirt CDs were done long before the Box set ever was.

I think the "Gastwirt's later Chicago masters" quote was in reference to the later albums, not a later remastering job of some sort.

Evan · 08-21-2002, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grant
I listened to the new CD as a whole again just a couple of hours ago (I gotta readjust my sleeping patterns!) and it sounds fine on it's own IF one never suspects a thing. We're audiophiles, so we hear everything...eventually...

Grant, maybe something is wrong with my ears, but when I played the Rhino Chicago greatest hits CD, I immediately knew something was wrong. My ears HURT!

That is all I need to know. Still, it is nice to know that one can prove that there is something wrong with the Rhino version and it's not all in my head...

Good thing I held on to my Chicago LPs

Gardo · 08-21-2002, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lukpac

I think the "Gastwirt's later Chicago masters" quote was in reference to the later albums, not a later remastering job of some sort.

That's correct. Thanks, Luke. Grant, sorry for the ambiguous writing. Given my day job, I should know better! But of course these posts are often written at white heat--either of enthusiasm or, in this case, disgust!

Gardo

audiodrome · 08-21-2002, 09:33 AM

I also think the original CD of Chicago V sounds great. Has anyone compared this yet? I have boxes and boxes of CD duplicates/remasters that I can't make up my mind whether to get rid of. We never had this problem with LPs!!!

audiodrome · 08-21-2002, 09:35 AM

Have they taken the original CDs off the market or are they still out there somewhere? I know you can probably find most of them used because the new ones haven't been around long enough to be traded in.

Dave B · 08-21-2002, 09:57 AM

I want to thank Grant, Gardo and others for saving me some money. I was all set to go out and pick up these new remasters this weekend. Guess I'll just keep the original CDs for now. After reading the other thread concerning CTA and Chicago II I pulled out my original 360 label discs last night. Regarding II there is no doubt about it this is one sad case. Until I got my new turntable I always assumed my playback system was partially at fault but I now know that's not the case.
Steve, in your opinion is there anyway this recording could be restored or is it too badly out of phase to be corrected?

08-21-2002, 12:04 AM	#1
Grant Forum member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: If the rain comes, they run and hide their heads... Posts: 72,946	What to do, what to do...(Chicago VI test) Well forum members, Once the euphoria of listing to the new remaster, I got down to business. Upon second audition, I noticed that things didn't sound quite as clear as on even the Very Best Of CD, so I did a little DIRECT A/B comparison. I loaded up the track "Feeling Stronger Every Day" from both the Chicago records CD and the Rhino remaster (because it's one of my favorite songs) into Cool Edit Pro 2.0. I did the test all in 16-bit To eleminate any level differences between the two files, I then scanned the older version for it's equal loudness properties. It was -14.02. I then opened up the new version and applied the RMS setting from the old version to it. I saved the changes to the file and closed them both. I then opened up the RMS adjusted new version and selected a portion of it and copied it to the clipboard. Then I opened up the old version, marked the exact portion of the song that I copied, and deleted it. I then pasted the portion from the clipboard into the spot. The old Gastwirt CD was crystal clear and sounded like a straight transfer with 80s converters. The peaks probably didn't even reach 90%. The remaster was more like -11., although I did not measure it. The results: the remaster sounded less clear, as if the playback heads were dirty. The bass sounded as if it were compressed to boost the apparent level of it. The mids and highs were slightly compressed. It wasn't terribly compressed but was enough to clearly notice even on MY gear. My soundcard also has very good 20-bit playback converters. The Gastwirt CD wins. I suspect this will be the case with all of the remasters. Now that i've done a controlled test and not just relied on the criticism of the remasters, I am less happy now about them. BUT, I still like the sound of Chicago II! What to do? I kept my old Gastwirt CDs because of the recommendation of all you critics. I must eat crow. You all were right. BUT, I insist that the compression is NOT as bad as some of you claim. I did my test. Anyway, now I have to keep both the old and the new. The old CDs sound better and the new ones have the great liner notes, artwork, and bonus tracks. I HATE it when this happens! I may at some point compare the box set and all of the compilations in this manner at some point to see how they fare, unless someone else wants to do this test. You can say I told you so (EXEPT for Chi II)!

08-21-2002, 09:33 AM	#18
audiodrome Forum Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: North Of Boston Posts: 7,195	I also think the original CD of Chicago V sounds great. Has anyone compared this yet? I have boxes and boxes of CD duplicates/remasters that I can't make up my mind whether to get rid of. We never had this problem with LPs!!! __________________ Paul

08-21-2002, 09:35 AM	#19
audiodrome Forum Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: North Of Boston Posts: 7,195	Have they taken the original CDs off the market or are they still out there somewhere? I know you can probably find most of them used because the new ones haven't been around long enough to be traded in. __________________ Paul

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-21-2002, 01:22 AM	#3
Grant Forum member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: If the rain comes, they run and hide their heads... Posts: 72,946	Here is a screenshot of the gastwirt version:

08-21-2002, 05:05 AM	#6
Gardo Forum All Star Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 3,416	First, thanks to Grant for being big enough to change his mind. It's getting harder and harder to find people with the guts to do that. In our op-ed culture, it's more like "that's my story and I'm sticking to it," no matter what. I have only praise, no "I told you so." The differences between the Gastwirt waveform and the Rhino/Donnelly/Magid waveform are typical of all the tests I ran on CTA and Chicago II. I spent many hours on those tests, the results of which I will eventually post to my website and share with Rhino. If you check the level of the Rhino remaster of "Feeling Stronger," Grant, I'm betting you'll find it's about -9.9db average RMS or above. Peak passages (like the all-hands-on-deck ending that works in "Jumping Jack Flash") are probably even higher than that. NOT good. If you check "Feeling Stronger" on the "Group Portrait" set, you'll probably find that Mark Wilder's remaster is far closer in level to Gastwirt than to Donnelly--and I'm betting you'll find the sound is better than Gastwirt. I love Chicago V and VI--both of 'em--and it's galling to me that Rhino has furnished the public with screwed up transfers of this important music. These copies will be THE copies for the next decade, at least. Two questions for Steve: 1. Measuring peak values and average RMS levels tells us something about a remaster, especially the latter value. What range of RMS level do you find acceptable, typically? And are there other measurements one can do with Cool Edit Pro or Sound Forge that will also quantify remastering differences? I find it easier to convince people with numbers and waveforms than with listening reports. 2. How do you keep your own "professional spirits" up when this kind of crap rules the record bins and so few people seem to care? Best wishes, Gardo

08-21-2002, 05:43 AM	#9
Grant Forum member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: If the rain comes, they run and hide their heads... Posts: 72,946	I listened to the new CD as a whole again just a couple of hours ago (I gotta readjust my sleeping patterns!) and it sounds fine on it's own IF one never suspects a thing. We're audiophiles, so we hear everything...eventually... Track 5 does sound uncompressed, which means the Gastwirt CD should sound even better! For years, people have been crying out for the Chicago catalog on CD to be remastered. Now, i'm sitting here wondering,...why?!? What was there before sounded fine. I mean, what were people expecting to hear that could have been better than what they had? I did a similar test with the Foreigner Ted Jensen and Inglot CDs and at least there WAS an improvement in the Inglot/Hersh CDs. Whew!

08-21-2002, 05:48 AM	#10
Grant Forum member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: If the rain comes, they run and hide their heads... Posts: 72,946	Which all brings me to a new question. Recall me stating that the new Chicago CDs sounded like the tapes were being played with a dirty head or something? Perhaps the tapes themselves have sustained some damage or are just aged from when Gastwirt used them. Despite Rhino's claims, the Gastwirt and Wilder CDs sound like they used first generation tapes, while the Rhino CDs sound more like copies were used. Luuuucyyy, some one has a lot of 'splaning to do!

08-21-2002, 06:02 AM	#11
Gardo Forum All Star Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 3,416	Well, I'm not sure the Gastwirt CDs of CTA, II, and III sound just fine. To my ears the Gastwirt CTA is only okay, and far inferior to the Wilder remaster and the Sax remaster. It also has the weird tape speed problem at the beginning of "Introduction." I haven't done a proper A/B between Gastwirt's later Chicago masters and the Wilder masters, but my money's on Mark.... At any rate, Grant's right that we have to hang onto the Gastwirt CDs, because aside from CTA no one else has done the complete albums. Sigh! (I'd put something stronger there, but it's too early in the morning to get THAT vulgar.) This may go down as one of the worst remastering frauds perpetrated on the CD-buying public. Gardo

08-21-2002, 06:19 AM	#12
TimM Forum Addict Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dayton Ohio Posts: 1,368	This continues to be very frustrating. While the best remastering engineer in the world sits on the sidelines forced to work on things he has already done once, all my favorite music gets trashed by hacks. Thank God for the LP.

08-21-2002, 09:57 AM	#20
Dave B Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hudson Valley, NY Posts: 963	I want to thank Grant, Gardo and others for saving me some money. I was all set to go out and pick up these new remasters this weekend. Guess I'll just keep the original CDs for now. After reading the other thread concerning CTA and Chicago II I pulled out my original 360 label discs last night. Regarding II there is no doubt about it this is one sad case. Until I got my new turntable I always assumed my playback system was partially at fault but I now know that's not the case. Steve, in your opinion is there anyway this recording could be restored or is it too badly out of phase to be corrected?