Pearl Jam - Backspacer: Another Release Ruined By The Loudness War!

The first step is to admit when an album has been hurt by bad mastering. Does not matter to what degree it has been hurt, only that is has been. The compression on this particular CD is quite bad. How one can see it any other way is beyond me.

At any rate, we will not agree. I do like this album and am looking forward to spinning the vinyl and giving it a good listen.

 

this is the correct response.

 

could someone post the vinyl waveform of "supersonic" for comparison?

 

Time to use Audition to lower the overall volume by -3dB.

Not the perfect solution, but it would make the songs more listenable--I've done it on several recent CDs, and now I can stand to listen to 'em.

 

funny you say that - I actually rip everything to 320kbps mp3s and then use MP3Gain to lower the volume - for this release, I am lowering by 6dB. I agree, it does make the album sound a little better...but that could just be my imagination.

 

Exactly. Why would it matter how anything else sounds? This thing, judged in and of itself, should sound better. The end! I'd rather see people go over the top about poor sound quality (which I don't think they're doing) than to be apologists for it.

 

Black... round... hole in the middle. Doesn't the phrase "I'd like to see what the vinyl looks like" just seem wrong?

 

ugh. I'd like to see what the vinyl WAVEFORM looks like. I felt that was pretty obvious in the context of the sentence, but I'll spell it out for the logically challenged.

 

I don't see what lowering the volume will do...especially when somethings already clipped. Surely you're just doing the same thing that turning the CD down is doing.

 

Seems that way to me too. It would be like converting an MP3 back to a WAV. All the info that was tossed out from the initial MP3 compression would still be missing when converted back to a WAV.

 

Anybody do a needledrop yet? Is the vinyl squashed as well?

 

This is silly. The loudness race started years before the first iPod was released.

 

I think this thread proves SH.tv is not an audiophile forum.

 

Geez... it was a joke, which some folks don't recognize without a smiley. It was also a comment on how you may may judging the sound by looking at a waveform rather than actually listening to the record. Sorry it all went way over your head.

 

i gotcha -- thanks for explaining. you're correct, there's no dynamic range. i was listening for the tonality, since I never expect a PJ release to have dynamic range in the first place. thanks for the post!

 

Here it is. Not a bad sounding record, although that first song wails you right out of the gate. Not a mastering thing, IMO, it's just an intense song. The drums sound great on this one, which is my #1 reason for getting the vinyl and doing needledrops.

TB

 

Thanks. Can you upload a larger version of that image to a filesharer like imageshack?

 

But is it the final mastering or the actual master tape that's the problem? I find it hard to believe that Pearl Jam recorded a set of gentle multi-tracks and mixed them down to a lovely dynamic two track master tape, and then Bob came along and compressed the hell out of it. Surely the excessive compression is a result of the way the album was recorded and mixed? And I suspect that type of sound is what the band/producer wanted from the get go, and it's not just Bob's tinkering at the end of the chain.

If a recording has been excessively compressed at the recording and mixing stage, then no mastering techniques can fix it.

What do people think?

 

Being an audiophile doesn't mean giving up music just because it isn't audiophile quality.

Not all of us want to hear Dire Straits 24/7.

 

Just being curious.
Has any of you ever been to a Pearl Jam concert?
Was it loud? Did it bother you?

 

I've said recently on this forum how I think In Rainbows by Radiohead sounds great, even though if you look at the waveforms, it looks like a compressed mess. I have albums that are the other way around, too - wavs look great, but the sound is crappy. I have listened to Backspacer 2 or 3 times and it sounds better than their last album or the Ten remix, but is still compressed and could sound better (just like most of their albums).

 

This is a Beatles forum masquerading as an audiophile site...

I'll take good music over good sound any day. Obviously, I'd like to have both at the same time.

 

Bob Ludwig has gone on record countless times against the 'loudness' trend, but he does in the end work for clients. If they want it loud, or hand him a loud master, what choice does he have?

I still have a ton of respect for the guy. His name is on so many great records. Even his 'loud' masters seem to make the best out of tonality, warmth and clarity.

I think he's riding out the 'loudness wars' with everyone else, and to me this record looks like we're heading in the right direction.

IMHO of course. And I haven't heard the record yet, but I hope to pick it up this weekend.

dan c

 

I listen to everything on a computer. You can ReplayGain, WaveGain, MP3gain, or AACgain everything so it is almost the same perceived loudness. On many modern rock CDs this will involve a reduction of 6 - 10 dB. CDs released more than 20 years ago often don't need any adjustment.

That vinyl waveform looks like it was cut from a source that has had digital limiting applied.