Red Hot Chili Peppers "Stadium" on LP getting closer to being released, look at this.

So the RHCPs know they're borking their own tracks? I don't get it.

 

My speculation:

I think there are lots of factors why the recent RHCP albums have been smashed, and I agree partly it is the band itself wanting to keep up, or stay ahead, in the loudness race. The so called 'unmastered' bootleg version of Californication is less compressed, I have no idea if this was a release candidate that was rejected by the band, but it sounds a lot better than the CD. Here are waveforms for the track Around the World, the top one is from the CD version of Californication, the bottom waveform is from the unmastered bootleg.


Note: The (so called) 'unmastered' version is longer because it is a slightly different mix, with a longer ending.

I'm not saying the unmastered version sounds "good", just better. It seems to me that way off in the never, never when this album is reissued that it may even need to be remixed to start sounding like real people playing real musical instruments.

But in general, my guess is that the band is given a few different mastered versions of each album, and they select the one they want from those. I doubt they have direct say in how the CD is mastered, so it will be varying degrees of very compressed, not "no compression" versus "heaps of compression".

Added to this, they do comparisons by playing the CDs back in the sorts of environments that most of their fans play the albums in, i.e. on boomboxes and car stereos, rather than testing on high end gear (which makes clipping all the more obvious and annoying).

Rick Rubin has talked about comparing in low fi environments. I understand why he does it, to make sure the CD has maximum oomph (most over used word in music history?) on cheap gear. I just disagree with it because I think it ruins the music.

RR = Rick Rubin, MF = Michael Fremer. Original interview is here.

My guess is John doesn't care as much for the CD version, he decided to use his influence to make sure the vinyl of Stadium Arcadium was done properly, because he prefers analog to digital.

 

How come the vinyl track has a .5 mark whereas the CD track does not? It seems as though the two are not scaled the same?

 

Maybe the .5 mark is there to show the level of the LP between .5 and 1? On the CD it doesnt look like it would be of significance since its all whited out.... just a thought.

 

And the people were amazed.

 

CD remaster to follow???

 

The RIAA curve is not compression, it is an EQ curve: the treble is boosted and the bass is reduced. Upon playback, your phono stage will undo the curve: the bass is boosted and the treble is reduced. And it is possible, even common, to master an LP directly from the original master tape. Steve and Kevin have done it numerous times. I believe Steve said in a previous thread that the new RHCP album is from the original master.

 

Well, I ask because if you were to scale the LP so that max/min limit is .5, it would look fairly similar to what the CD waveform looks like now (if it were the case that the max/min limits on the CD is set to .5)

 

If the window size for the CD waveform is a little smaller, the additional scale numbers probably wouldn't be displayed. It's like that with other software I've used.

 

Agreed. Just looking at those waveforms makes my ears hurt. I'm not a fan of the band, but I probably would've bought the cd had it been competently mastered.

 

Visual proof of the reason to buy the LP version of any modern album rather then the CD....



Evan

 

With regard to the Rick Rubin interview..... Is it possible that the mainstream music listening population has been fed ultra-compression so much now, that their judgement on what sounds good is all out of whack? Familiarity = satisfaction?

 

I'm beginning to feel the same way. Having just recently obtained a TT, I have listened to 'Morph The Cat', and Bruce Springsteen's 'Seeger Sessions', on new vinyl, and they sound incredible. It's the only way to listen to these 2 titles IMHO.

 

If the LP is cut from the same master as the CD (which it usually is), there is really no reason (SQ wise) to go LP over CD.

 

You mean if the LP is digitally mastered ? I would sort of agree with that. However, there may be a reason still to buy the LP over CD, if your TT setup is much nicer than your CD player.

 

Not if they are mastered differently. If the CD is compressed and clipped during mastering and the LP isn't, wouldn't it reason that the LP would sound better. Maybe overall "tonality" might be fairly close, but we are really talking about over-compression on the digital mastering of the CD and none to little compression on the mastering of the LP.

 

Well, the warmth of vinyl does tend to make certain types of music sound better, mostly guitar-oriented rock tat isn't too loud, layered, or heavy.

I swear, Steve, you HAVE to get permission for a CD release. Please. I beg you.

 

Why? If you have a TT, who cares, imo.

 

An impossibility with the regular issue still selling up a storm.

 

I don't have a turntable, and I don't plan on buying one.

 

Ok, sorry, I must have misunderstood your post.

 

Why do people continue to think that the CD loudness wars are going to go away? I mean, seriously, I'm not trying to flame the guy who asked this question, but after reading this entire thread, it seems to me that the Peppers personally approved the maxed-out mastering of their past few CDs. Why would they approve an alternate, non-maxed-out CD? No one band is going to unilaterally disarm, so to speak.

If you appreciate non-maximized, non-compressed music, maybe you ought to consider a turntable.

 

Well, that'd be a great idea, if I had the money and wouldn't rather spend my money on new headphones, a headphone amp, and a new CD player.

 

I feel your pain with regard to having make choices about which components to invest in. But I chose to put my (limited) funds into vinyl rather than into SACD or DVD-A.