CD maximization redux..when did it start?

Yeah. That one went from pretty good...

 

To even better...

 

To "holy crap, I can't believe this was mastered by the same guy who did such a good job on the Stones remasters."

Actual waveform from "Nirvana" compilation too big to attach for some reason, even though it's the exact same size as the others...

 

AKA,

What's the difference between the last two MFSL screen captures you posted?

 

Sam,

The board won't let me post a waveform of "SLTS" from the "Nirvana" compilation for some reason. Says it's too big, even though it's the exact same size and file type as the other two. I give up.

 

Oh, OK. BTW, I looked at the track from the Gr.Hits, and it was maximized like crazy! Very bad stuff. Only bought it for the "new" track anyways.

 

Yeah, it's pretty bad. Nirvana is one (of many) bands I've always hoped Steve could someday take a crack at remastering on SACD.

Imagine a Steve Hoffman Unplugged (I know, hard to do without drooling).

Unfortunately, this is about as possible as a remastered Beatles catalog right now. Darn Courtney.

 

Agree 100%.

I also noticed that Gn'R Use Your Illusion titles are maximized in their original CD incarnations, but the MFSL versions preserve dynamic range. It's a much more dramatic difference than the Nirvana version you showed above.

 

Brad, can you email me the waveform pic? I'll take a look and see why the board is choking on it.

 

Here's AKA's pic (I recompressed it as a jpg - it was slighly over the max size the forum allows)

 

Much obliged, Jeff.

 

Take a listen to Johnny Cash's "The Man Comes Around" from the American series. "Hurt" sounds distorted near the end. For a primarily acoustic bunch of songs, they're rather, uh... loud (Kinda like how Spinal Tap's Nigel Tufnel was working on some "very loud acoustic music" )

I personally don't mind the sound of albums from like 1994-1996. Some of them (rock-ish releases, I am talking about) have just enough limiting or whatever to give them a little power without sounding over the top and crappy. I think that little era had a distinctive sound. Some of the good ol' sound was still there but some of the bad stuff to come was creeping in. I like the sound of the Highwaymen's "The Road Goes On Forever," although ear fatigue CAN set in with that one -- and it ain't because of the music

 

If you folks want to hear it for yourselves, I've made an audio comparison, but all I had the patience to sample is the intro. It starts with the "Nirvana" compilation (2002), then goes to the stock "Nevermind" CD (1991) and concludes with the MoFi (1996).

Here ya go:

http://home.comcast.net/~bppreston/teenspirit.mp3

 

Two reasons. It'll have more presence when played on the radio, and some people equate volume with quality.

 

Indeed, but radio stations then send their signals through their own compressors and limiters, so there really isn't any need to add them to the original source. It all comes out sounding the same over the airwaves, anyway.

 

Thanks, that was very interesting. I'll have to compare that to the Greatest Hits 2LP and the current import of Nevermind LP.

This will also be great to play for a friend of mine who I don't think quite understands maximization or mastering for that matter.

 

The first CD I can remember hearing (and seeing in Sound Forge) where both the dynamics AND frequency response were slammed was Michael Jackson's Dangerous in 1991. Engineer Bruce Swedien (who I normally have great respect for) recorded, mixed, and mastered it with his exclusive "Quantum Range Recording Process ©".

Bernie Grundman is also listed as doing the final mastering so I don't know who managed to fill-up every frequency band and max-out all the levels on the disc but it sure was louder and crisper than anything else I had heard before that time.

 

I've always thought that was distortion from the recording session... an overloaded mic or something. Sometimes engineers will go for that overloaded-tube distortion on a vocal track, or something like that. I never looked at the waveform (since I have it on vinyl) so I don't know for sure.

I'd love to see a waveform! (Hint hint)

 

Nirvana's waveforms are atrocious. I mean, hasn't anyone ever realized they are actually DESTROYING the music?!?

 

Javier my friend...There are those that care/know (few), and there are Sheep (many).

 

I certainly hope that's sarcastic...

 

This forum has been a real eye-opener for me. Now that I understand what a "remaster" is, and what people are doing to music... argh.

It feels as if we were back at the time when "restoring" the Mona Lisa meant painting over it with whatever crude paints they had, without respect to the original artists' intention...

 

As I have mentioned before, the degradation of sound is a perfectly natural consequence of our crazy, unmusical, overly aggressive times. How can people living in an age that negates all forms of sensitivity be expected to relate to dynamic range? To them, it is far better to just pump the volume up artificially and drown themselves in a barrage of in-your-face noise rather than face the music (Besides, is there really much "music" coming out today in which one can even barely discern the shadows of a real melody?)

 

Um.

Or: things that sound louder register as "better" for many, at least on a surface level. I don't really think there's a societal explanation for it. It's not very Hegelian.