Modern "Mastering" - We need to stop them!!!

[PewterTA]

Okay.

Maybe I'm going to go on a little bit of a rant here (but it shouldn't be too bad).

First, let me start of by what is causing all this...

I originally thought that I had lost a couple CDs, they were my Poison collection. I've known that one of the discs had been missing, but recently couldn't find the other two I had. So I found the remaining two the other day (as it hasn't been recently that I've listened to them), and knew there was some good songs off the third that I was missing. Well I'm going to go to the store to pick up the old missing disc, but in the mean time I borrowed my friend's greatest hits cd, which is 'remastered'. So looking forward to the 'remastering' done to the old songs, I popped it in and started listening.

This is where my frustration begins... upon listening I found myself disinterested in the music. Which for me is odd, especially since I love listening to old music that I haven't heard in many years. So out of my own curiosity, I popped in my old CDs (early 90s printed) and the sames songs I listened to on the greatest hits disc I found much more pleasing on the old CDs. Things I noticed is the remastered version, while louder, seemed to have very little dynamics to it, which is where I think my disinterest came in.

So now I moved into trying to figure out why this was... I ripped both CDs down to my PC using EAC (Exact Audio Copy) with Accuraterip and then opened the similar tracks with Adobe Audition. I went into the multitrack mode and lined up the tracks so they are beat for beat identical. *note see picture below*

The first thing I did was move the 'remastered' track to the Right channel by 100% and move the Original to the left track by 100%. I think matched the tracks beat for beat and started to play around. Being that the original track as mastered back in the mid 80s ('86 to be exact) its over all volume is much lower. To compensate for this, I lowered the 'remastered' track by -6.5dbs (circled in blue) and to my well trained ears (lol) both channels sounded Identical. I repeated a section of the song and used my sound meter just to make sure I was dead on. I then played and found a decent example of a spot in the track(s) that really shows how "limiting" the remastered copy is. Circled in Red is what I mean it's the same beat and you can see where the last beat was (noted by the small line) and the current volume is. There is almost a 6dB difference, where the remastered version has less than 2dB.

If I had a video of the bars moving you would see that, except for the drastic silence to loud parts, the bars stay typically within about a 5 - 7dB range. However, the original mastering goes over a much more dynamic range of almost 10 - 18dB. You can completely tell a difference in the kick drum and the "power" it has behind it in the original recording over the remastered version.

One thing I did do was increase the volume on the original master by 2.5dBs and it was amazing close (volume wise) to the remastered track but it still had all the dynamics to it... Why then can't they just remaster the disc by making sure it sounds the best it can instead of just upping the volume and running limiters on it so it doesn't clip?!?!

This really got me depressed that they (the recording industry) considers this type of thing 'remastering'. I mean, yes, I know that technically it IS remastering...but it's not a BETTER version of the track. I went through a couple of my other 'remastered' CDs and almost every one is this exact same way (one that isn't is the remastered version of Pink Floyd's A Momentary Lapse of Reason). The reason I think this one is done much better is the fact that Roger Walters had to sign off on the remaster and worked with them to get it sounding like it does.

Having now experienced and seen for myself what the recording industry is doing, I will now be hard pressed to buy a newly 'remastered' recording of any CD I want.

Yeah, maybe I'll have to turn up my sound system a little bit louder, but I'm 100% ok with that, after all, that IS why there's a volume knob on my Pre...

I just feel helpless like the music industry is getting away with this-- which to me is like killing music --and there's not way to stop it. It also bugs me that we as a society are more concerned about how loud something is over how good it sounds... If this is the world of music we are going to continue to get, I'm not going to be listening to much more music. I'll keep trying to find the older recordings and just stick with them....

Sorry for the somewhat rant and most likely mindless pieces put together, but does anyone else feel like this??? I think we need to start a petition or something to state that we (as music lovers) want quality, not loudness!!!!

I apologize for the picture quality, it's tough to fit a whole screen into a 100Kb file.

[gd]

Nicely demonstrated here, helpful for educating reguar folks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

People know about this stuff... but these are conscious choices being made to accommodate all the wrong reasons – convenience, mp3 earbuds, radio broadcast etc... as usual, we guys who took the effort to build nice systems have to squawk loudly to maintain quality, and we're in an ignored minority.

"Louder" is wrongly perceived as "better", it's a common human error – but pro mastering engineers should honor the music regardless.

[Alaric]

Funny you should mention this....

Having recently acquired a half-a$$ TT , I remember why I love Led Zep. Never heard a Led Zep CD that was anything other than junk. My 30+ year old vinyl , however , breathes life into The Zep that has been missing for many years. :T
Can't really add anything to the 'Poison" rant. I sympathize , but I'm just a wee bit older than that demographic.

[Briz vegas]

What surprises me is that even so called "independent" artists also record this way. I can understand the big record companies making this sort of bad decision but not the struggling artist that is in it for the music.

Maybe it needs to be a policy decision by the radio stations. If they turned down these compressed recordings to the level of non-compressed recordings the benefits would no longer be there. I have raised this with Australia's JJJ network as they do alot of great work to promote new music in OZ.

The really interesting thing is that the Utube demonstration is clearly audible on my computer speakers. You don't have to have hi end gear to appreciate the differences in audio quality and get more enjoyment out of the music.

[Kobus]

I wish there was a way to help. It's bad.

Kobus

[wkhanna]

Well done, Dan!

My first assumption when reading your post, was that this supposed ‘re-mastering’ was done to accommodate boom boxes and those little credit card things people use for listening to what used to be music.

You and Lee have lent more justification for my decision to pursue incorporating a TT into my system as soon as I am finished with my speaker upgrades.

[Kevin P]

This has been one of my rants for years. CDs have the capability of a wide dynamic range, but modern discs have the range compressed the cr@p out of. It's gotten to a point where a cassette tape from the 80s has better dynamics than a new CD. It's pretty ridiculous.

What should have happened is CD player manufacturers should have included a dynamic range compression switch on them, from the get go. Then those who need to listen at low levels, or are listening in the car or boom box, can compress the music themselves at a press of the button, but the original quality is still there on the CD to enjoy on higher-end systems.

And yes, I've noticed the same thing on a lot of my "remastered" CDs. Many times I prefer the sound of the original.

[gianni]

PewterTA,

Don't you wish you never found out? I wish this problem were limited to remasters but it is pretty wide spread. Too bad that good recordings are the exception. I've been aware of this for quite a while now, and it realy does reduce the number of CD's I buy.

[Alaric]

Well done, Dan!

My first assumption when reading your post, was that this supposed ‘re-mastering’ was done to accommodate boom boxes and those little credit card things people use for listening to what used to be music.

You and Lee have lent more justification for my decision to pursue incorporating a TT into my system as soon as I am finished with my speaker upgrades.

wkhanna , I haven't had many chances to break-in my TT yet , and I'm already doing A/Bs with cables , but my vinyl sounds noticeably more "open". I prefer my tube phono pre to my amp's built in phono stage , but the vinyl is very rewarding. My CD player isn't the best (but it ain't bad , either) and I do like many of my CDs , but I'm suddenly listening to all my Led Zep the way I remembered it. I have always hated the way my Zep CDs sound-couldn't capture the magic. It was vinyl that caused my mother , many years ago , to say " Gee , those guys are very talented musicians". Honestly , if you are a Zeppelin fan , you really should score a TT and some vinyl. It's a night/day difference between the CDs and the LPs. :T
Check out this http://www.ttvj.com/index.php?main_p...ex&cPath=22_53
and this http://www.ttvj.com/index.php?main_p...cPath=22_54_60


I have some 70's Japanese LZ pressings , and a couple copies of Song Remains The Same that will relight the fires of a misspent youth! Still need the Presence album and Houses Of The Holy , though.... Heart sounds pretty good on vinyl , as well. Next on my listen list is Alice Cooper!
;b>

P.S. What do you think of the Steelers hiring a coach that doesn't like the 3-4 defense and couldn't keep the Detroit Lions out of the end zone?

[Briz vegas]

I have one remaster that is not hot - Peter Gabriel 4

This is probably not unexpected given that Peter has his own studio, has some involvement promoting B&W Bowers & Wilkins and likes the remastered CD because it sounds less digital (his web site quote).

Its amazing putting on Fleewood Macs Rumours - the levels are so low I have to double the volume setting to 40 plus if I am in the mood for a really room filling sound.

For many (not all) of my recent CDs the volume starts at 20 and you just want to turn it down as the sound is relentless. I still love new music but I am sure it would be more enjoyable if the recording made me want to turn it up.

[ToddAnisman]

Well.. perhaps i should give you guys a little background on the problem here...

It's all comes down to making everyone happy. Way back in the day, there were TWO mixes done for a record- a Radio mix, and an Album mix. The reason for this is that Radio compresses/limits the snot out of recordings..so the mixing engineers woudl run a pass through a similar setup and try to adjust things to make the radio mix be more "faithful" to the original recording. This practice stopped once CD's took over. Then the volume wars began. This is basically the fault of record companies wanting their product to be the loudest out there, but also because of the various pressures from Radio... a very dynamic mix sounds awful on radio because you can hear the limiters kicking in. same thing for sattelite- limited bandwidth=compression.

So the sensitive consumer gets the shaft. But as long as iPods are the best way to listen to music (I love mine...), then this will stay an issue.

-Todd A.

[8thDwarf]

Manufacturers please

put selectable compression circuits in the portables and boom boxes,it would be cheaper than hobbling the music in the long run.

[PewterTA]

Well I'm happy it's not just me!!!

I do have to say that I know that most modern CDs are definitely produced this way... and you can easily tell which artists don't care about the sound, they just go with whatever the recording industry says.

It just makes me sad/frustrate/not even sure the right word/etc. that WE as the music buyer has no control or say to the matter.

Another perfect example, which is why I really think I don't care for the disc as much, is Dave Matthews Band's release "Stand Up." While all of his other discs were mastered (imho) almost flawlessly -- even pure reference, his latest disc you can see where it's much more compressed than he ever used to. Now this could be the fact that he switched producers and well... there ya go, you get what you get, a note quite so popular disc. ha ha.

I guess it's just going to force me to do a little more searching and buying USED discs at the store to get quality CDs that I want (except for new artist and releases of course).

Maybe I just feel like I should dump all my money into building a recording studio and show people how it's REALLY supposed to be done...making some of the best sounding music ever put on CD! ha ha

That or we need to unite together and petition the music industry!

[gianni]

PewterTA,

I really think this has a big affect as to what some people listen to. I know that that poorly recorded compressed junk out there has pushed me towards audiophile labels even with their limited selection. It has indeed changed my musical taste. Yes, I still buy some of the mainstream recordings, but not nearly as many as I otherwise would. In the end, this is only really hurting the people selling this stuff.

Its no wonder ipods are so popular - the majority of today's music from a sound quality standpoint merits nothing better. People have it all wrong when they say the ipod killed the CD or even quality in general. This started long before the ipod. Don't get me wrong I have an ipod and it has it's place. MP3's are not the downfall of the music industry - they did it to themselves. Support the smaller labels that put out a decent product.

[Ovation]

This phenomenon has certainly pushed me into new listening patterns. I hardly buy any mainstream pop/rock anymore (even if I happen to catch something I like on the radio) because as my gear has gotten better and the mastering has gotten worse, the mainstream stuff is only good for background noise and I like to LISTEN to my music. So I've gotten into classical and jazz (in hi-res where possible). Part of it is changing tastes as I grow older, but the poor quality of recent mainstream pop/rock recordings has definitely pushed me down the path I'm on now--happily, in the end, as I discover more and more classical and jazz (especially classical) that I like (currently listening to Holst's The Planets--an EMI Great Recordings of the Twentieth Century CD (includes Elgar's Enigma Variations) with Sir Adrian Boult conducting.

[bigburner]

Does anyone know if dynamic range is compressed on DVD-Video discs too? After all, they don't get played on the radio.

I love watching music DVDs. Perhaps the lack of compression is the reason the music sounds so good?

Nigel.

[Briz vegas]

So the sensitive consumer gets the shaft. But as long as iPods are the best way to listen to music (I love mine...), then this will stay an issue.

-Todd A.

8O

Maybe, but only if I am on the 6.20 express from central station, otherwise I think we will have to agree to disagree.


RE DVD, I did a bit of reading on this and apparently Dolby sets minimum standards so in many cases your music DVD will outshine the CD version when it comes to dynamics (I have read conflicting info regarding which is the more lossey format however). Of course other factors will come into play, like the quality of the original recording before the mastering process.

I have also noticed that DTS recordings are much quieter than the Dolby soundtrack. I habitually choose the DTS version due to its reputation for higher quality but have not bothered with a detailed listening test myself (yet).

I may disagree with Todd about you-pods however he may be much more qualified to comment on DTS/DD/CD compression/dynamic range standards than I am.

[Alloroc]

Does anyone know if dynamic range is compressed on DVD-Video discs too? After all, they don't get played on the radio.

I love watching music DVDs. Perhaps the lack of compression is the reason the music sounds so good?

Nigel.

Funny, with music DVDs, I generally find the PCM stereo mix the most exciting and involving than DD or DTS - recent offerings from U2 come to mind. Perhaps it's more to do with my speakers than anything else though.

[ToddAnisman]

8O

Maybe, but only if I am on the 6.20 express from central station, otherwise I think we will have to agree to disagree.


RE DVD, I did a bit of reading on this and apparently Dolby sets minimum standards so in many cases your music DVD will outshine the CD version when it comes to dynamics (I have read conflicting info regarding which is the more lossey format however). Of course other factors will come into play, like the quality of the original recording before the mastering process.

I have also noticed that DTS recordings are much quieter than the Dolby soundtrack. I habitually choose the DTS version due to its reputation for higher quality but have not bothered with a detailed listening test myself (yet).

I may disagree with Todd about you-pods however he may be much more qualified to comment on DTS/DD/CD compression/dynamic range standards than I am.

He he Should have put the word "best" in quotes. I certainly didn't mean to imply that they are literally the best- it was intended to be cynical.

As for DTS vs Dolby...Thats another VHS VS Beta moment. DTS sounds better...Dolby won the battle by making themselves more available and being much cheaper. For example, Dolby AC3 (DD) technology was in our studios years ago, and we were able to create that contet. DTS was not, and had to be sent off for special (and expensive) encoding.

-Todd A.

[ToddAnisman]

Does anyone know if dynamic range is compressed on DVD-Video discs too? After all, they don't get played on the radio.

I love watching music DVDs. Perhaps the lack of compression is the reason the music sounds so good?

Nigel.

The answer is Yes. But not in the way you think...

There's a ton of ignorance in the pro world about how to mix for DVD music. Dolby has established a bunch of guidelines that to this point have often been ignored; he result is some really outside the box type stuff that isn't what the mixer intended...

SO then the Mixer/encoder then tries to make the encoding software "work" in a certain way to preserve his mix, to varied results.

-Todd A.

[Briz vegas]

I see, thanks Todd

I am hoping to get all this info from my niece in the future. She started an audio engineering course this year. I am keen to catch up with her to see how its going.

[jim777]

Reduced dynamic range in new recordings is a recurring subject at the AES conferences. Most experts know that it just isn't right, but it seems that it is a business decision. The tracks that will play the most on radio are those that will sound the loudest... (and radio stations re-compress the audio..)

[Alaric]

Reduced dynamic range in new recordings is a recurring subject at the AES conferences. Most experts know that it just isn't right, but it seems that it is a business decision. The tracks that will play the most on radio are those that will sound the loudest... (and radio stations re-compress the audio..)

I didn't know the technical reasons , but that explains why I didn't want to spend much money for a tuner.

[BTB]

Guys, this is without question an interesting debate, but at the heart of it is the nature of our technological "progress"... at present the (worldwide) mass market is still quite taken by the idea that technology gets "smaller" as it gets "better". So few people take the time to be concerned about "quality" when confronted with the possibilty of storing a bunch of (compressed) songs (or as I hate to have music referred to - "files" or "tracks") on a writable DVD or iPod, which to them represents "progress".

That said... I collect alot of music, from all genres and I have recently joined the iPod loving masses and honestly - I have never enjoyed the collection of "rubbish" pop/rock/R&B recordings I've built up over the years as much as I am on the iPod (even when listened to through my oversized, proffesional standard Sennheisers headphones). They have truly found their natural (compressed) home!

In a way it strikes me, you have to use the right tool for the job... I wouldn't waste my time ripping one of my audiophile type recordings to my iPod anymore than I'd use a hammer to paint a wall... so conversely, a specialist audiophile system is hardly the way to enjoy what you already know to be poor quality recordings of otherwise enjoyable music.

Audiophile quality recordings will probably always be around, produced as a labour of love by smaller specialist labels... and thanks goodness for that, there are few pleasures like listening to a great piece of music on a top quality system, but accept the fact that one has to employ other replay methods to get max. enjoyment out of lower res recordings, instead of frustrating yourselves on a topic that we as a group don't have the ability to change. Let's face it... in the general music buying public, what size (percentage wise) do you think dedicated audiophiles actually represent? Imagine the marketing people at a one of the major labels factoring in the pressing concerns of 1% of their market... I'm not being insensitive to the O.P concern, poor sound quality grates me too, just being realistic.

So taken from a purely audiophile vs. "music lover" (to me they are not automatically the same thing) perspective the question becomes more specific... do you enjoy MUSIC more than sound quality, or will you disregard any music below a certain recording quality... Personally I would find that too limited an outlook, I'd rather not imagine a world without the likes of Jimi Hendrix (fuzzy, dull tape transfers and all) or the early output of the Beatles (who could deny the appeal of the music contained on those horrid, thin "tin-can" sounding recordings).

[bigburner]

Funny, with music DVDs, I generally find the PCM stereo mix the most exciting and involving than DD or DTS - recent offerings from U2 come to mind. Perhaps it's more to do with my speakers than anything else though.

I always listen to the stereo mix on music DVDs. I guess that's because I have a 2-channel system!

When I visit friends who have 5.1 systems I always wish they would save 5.1 for movie DVDs and play their music DVDs in 2-channel. I never say anything because I'm a guest. It just seems that guys with 5.1 systems feel compelled to use them for everything.

There's another important factor about the linear PCM track on DVDs. Whilst linear PCM is uncompressed (lossless) digital audio - which is the same format used on CDs - it can be sampled at 48 or 96 kHz with 16, 20, or 24 bits/sample whereas audio CDs are limited to 44.1 kHz at 16 bits. This may be another reason why many music DVDs sound better than CDs.

Nigel.

[gd]

Seems to me everyone would be served best with the source material always being produced in the most accurate, highly-resolved manner possible – with provisions in place for the user to compress it, by way of:

1. Loudness buttons on your Shiny Lifestyle Gadget.

2. Compression filters at the Garbage Commercial Radio Station.

And the few of us remaining who care can play back music without getting a headache... it also just might reduce the perceived need for so many "remasters".

[Ovation]

When I visit friends who have 5.1 systems I always wish they would save 5.1 for movie DVDs and play their music DVDs in 2-channel. I never say anything because I'm a guest. It just seems that guys with 5.1 systems feel compelled to use them for everything.

Well, I do feel compelled to use my 5.1 system for all my discrete MCH recordings (lossy or lossless). My entire audio setup is designed around that purpose. :W (and it sounds better even when the MCH recording is of a solo instrument).

I do not, as a rule, use MATRIXED MCH settings for 2 channel recordings (though when I listen to radio in the background, I sometimes use DPLII Music or All channel Stereo to get a fuller sound during a party).

Different strokes for different folks, but MCH is not, nor should it be, limited to movies.

[Dean100]

This lack of dynamics has taken the pleasure away from music for me. Back in the 70's and 80's I couldn't get enough music. Then along come the 90's and I have kids, a wife, long working hours etc. and I no longer enjoyed music the way I use to. Didn't realize it at the time, but much of this had to do with the crappy recordings made in the 90's.

Fast forward to the 2000's and I have gotten back into music. Now I cringe every time I play something that is compressed. Listening on good equipment only compounds the problem.

Unfortunately I got rid of all my vinyl (300 - 400 records) years ago. Luckily I have alot of older CD's as I got my first CD player in the very early 80's.

Today, I feel very limited what I can play because if it is compressed I do not enjoy it.

It's probably time to get back into vinyl because I do not see this problem going away anytime soon.

[VictorHRS]

Hi there,

Some interesting articles on this matter can be found on the new HIFI Critic british magazine - www.hificritic.com - . On the first issue there were two articles about it, as follows:

- The Trouble with Recordings - Chris Bryant goes through 25 years of CD collecting and makes some surprising discoveries

- The Trouble with Recordings - Noted classical recording engineer Tony Faulkner lifts the lid on digital recording practices, and queries whether we're moving forward or backwards

And the last issue (third) has one article called THE DEATH OF DYNAMICS - Chris Binns explains why lifestyle and technology changes are sapping the dynamics from music recordings.

Very interesting articles and magazine, strongly recomended subscribing.

[Alloroc]

Chris Binns, Tony Faulkner, Martin Colloms, and Barry Fox is there too (isn't he always!). I like reading Barry's reviews and comments. Doyens of British HiFi journalism indeed.

Anyhow, I subscribed a number of months ago for 1 year and it's a good publication. HiFi+ is still my magazine of choice though.

V.

[jim777]

The irony in all this, is that while audio was getting more and more compressed, technology was improved (dithering/noise shaping, etc.) in a way that can lower the perceived noise floor way under 16-bits (for any standard 16-bit recording).

However, these techniques can't be used efficiently (or at all) when the goal is to maximize the perceived "volume".

[PewterTA]

My problem is the lack of being able to do anything about it...

I think iPods and any Mp3 player are fine devices, I have a 30GB iAudio player that works wonderfully. I even think you can get a very good quality out of it that is very dynamic (even with using Mp3s)... granted it's not the same as a good CD on a really good player into really nice equipment...but that's a different topic.

My problem is the fact that the music industry is telling us, "this is what you want." I have no problems with them butchering music to make it sound "better" on the radio...but I don't want that on my CD that I spend $9 - $20 of my hard earned money on. There should be some type of ballance with all of this. Heck, that's why I won't use iTunes, because their quality on the music is HORRENDOUS. And it's a shame too when I can rip a track off a CD into Mp3 with LAME and it sound pretty darn good (very dynamic and not compressed)... then why can't they take the time to do this!?!

Yes, I will admit it is somewhat pointless to create a thread like this and that nothing will be done and we are all at the mercy of what the industry does...but it at least feels a little better knowing people feel the same way.

..and no, recordings being "turned up" or "maxed out" on the volume will not detract me from listening to music I think is good... At the same time however, I'm really starting to find how much more I do enjoy older recordings and how much more "timeless" their recordings are.

I'd love to see an artist/studio, put out both versions of a song, one that's dynamic and has tons of range to it and another that's compressed and have people do a side by side comparison...just to see what people think sounds better.

[ShadowZA]

...but it at least feels a little better knowing people feel the same way. ...

I feel exactly the same way. :agree:

:cry:

[gd]

I'd love to see an artist/studio, put out both versions of a song, one that's dynamic and has tons of range to it and another that's compressed and have people do a side by side comparison...just to see what people think sounds better.

Be careful what you wish for.

You really don't want that... the vast majority of people will prefer the 'chubbier' compressed version, even in a level-matched test (which virtually nobody does)... the perception of louder-is-better is a very common human error... and I would not care to have the industry get that feedback reinforced any more than it already is.

Better to provide full dynamic recordings only, and provide for user devices the ability (loudness button) to mangle it to the user's satisfaction... and the radio stations can apply filters to their broadcast so they don't feel like they'll lose a single simple-minded listener.

Very, very few people listen to music closely... it requires patience and attention – both in short supply these days.

[DL86]

I bloody hate it. Newer recordings these days are disgraceful. I usually listen to older recordings which aren't as compressed. For example Metallica's older stuff is heaps better as it hasn't got the compression of what their newer stuff has.

[Kobus]

Is there really nothing we can do? Seriously.

Kobus

[Alaric]

Pick up a dbx III from fleabay or the 'Gon?

[Russ L]

Do upsampling CD players help with the problem? :scratchhead: -Russ

[Briz vegas]

No. My understanding is that upsampling is an algorithm that interopolates between the 16 bit length words of information. It guesses what the missing information is based on what is already there and basically makes up what goes in the gaps.

HDCD in theory is different as it has a 20 bit word length instead of the redbook standard 16 bits - that additional information allows for marginally greater dynamic headroom, although some question how this is achieved.

HDCD has the ability to solve our problems as these disks are effectively hot like other CDs when played on a non-hdcd player. Use a player with the HDCD decoder and it reads the additional information, giving you the missing greater dynamics.

Pity HDCD has gone the way of Betamax. I like the few HDCD disks that I own.

[jim777]

Upsampling has nothing to do with this. The reason to upsample is to have a reconstruction filter with less phase deviation in the audible range. (Linear phase filters only exist in the digital domain.)

But all CD players (except the very first few) upsample one way or another, and most DACs are sigma-delta ones.

I'll cut the details...

[Dave999]

Is XRCD basically the same as HDCD, or will that provide better dynamics?

[Briz vegas]

Upsampling has nothing to do with this. The reason to upsample is to have a reconstruction filter with less phase deviation in the audible range. (Linear phase filters only exist in the digital domain.)

But all CD players (except the very first few) upsample one way or another, and most DACs are sigma-delta ones.

I'll cut the details...

The more I think about my comment that more I realise that I just made it up on the spot (based on reading others ill informed comments over the years) and got confused with DVD-A & HDCD 16/20/24 bits etc. Thanks for the clarification.

Can I ask, there is an element of interpolation in the process, even if not as I described? I quote " Unlike in downsampling which uses a low-pass filter as an anti-aliasing filter, upsampling uses an interpolation filter, which also is a low-pass filter."

From what you are saying I am guessing that it would still have no impact on the "hot" issue

RE XRCD there is a blurb about in on that Web encyclopedia saying it is all about jitter reduction and better pit cutting technology. Given the extra care in the mastering process you would think they would be less likely to create a hot master with these CDs - just my opinion of course.

[dknightd]

Some remasters are better than the originals. A to D converters are much better now than there were in the early 80's. Also engineers are better at working with the digital medium now.

Unfortunately, many remasters, and many new releases, are excessively compressed.
There are many reasons for this, but I think one of them is that many people listen
to music in a more noisy environment than they used to. If you are listening to
an ipod on the bus, then, you cannot have have too much dynamic range in the
music if it is going to both overcome the background noise, and not be at a
level that could hurt your hearing. If you listen to music in a nice quiet house
(getting rarer these days - both the quiet house, and the taking the time
to listen to music) then you obviously can take advantage of (and want)
more dynamic range in the music.

I don't like it. But it is what it is. Sometimes I wonder if the recording industry is doing it on purpose to drive customers away, with the hopes of gaining stronger DRM, then somehow gaining the customers back - I think that would be stupid, but, sometimes people do stupid things.

[Alaric]

Some remasters are better than the originals

With all due respect , I disagree. The master tape is what it is. You can't "improve" the quality of the original analog recording. I have finally gotten enough mid-fi equipment to hear the music of Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin again. The CDs of those bands sound like flaming crap and I have never heard a Black Sabbath or Led Zep CD that sounded like anything but junk. I have 30 year old cheap vinyl that reminds me of the depth and musical talent those bands possessed.
It seems that the "better" the technology gets , the more steps music has to take to sound awful. Yes , my vinyl rig is mid-fi at best(and not even broken in!). My CD player isn't all that bad , and is very good at SACD , but , my 'Madman Across The Water' and 'DSOTM' SACDs don't sound as good as my original release vinyl -and my SACD player is "better" than my TT. You can run the signal through a thousand filters and upsamplers and converters , it still won't be better than hearing what the artist intended.
My opinions are based on my musical tastes , which won't include digitally mastered stuff. I don't mean to say digitally mastered music is inherently bad , but if the master is analog , the digital mixer should be held back with a cattle prod. My $ .02


P.S. Some of my vinyl is closer to 40 years old.

[Briz vegas]

Hmmm Vinyl vs CD is not really the point. I do agree that vinyl has a very nice sound with all the qualities that you describe (mind you the vinyl systems I have listened to in the past couple of months have been at Linn Sondek LP12 level)

Alot of us have a CD based system or simply want the best from our CDs. I think dknightd was referring to remastered CDs vs the original CD release (be it based on an analogue or digital recording).

The "loud environment" arguement is fair enough but in this day and age when choice is the mantra of business, government and anyone else you can think of, why are we not given a choice.

I think that most of us interested in better quality would be happy to go to a web site and order (or download if you must) an audiophile version. What would the cost be to the record company - some time for the recording techs to produce a uncompressed version. What would the benefits be, well they will sell more for a start. They will get sales because they will be picking up our niche market and they will also get sales because there will always be someone who wants to buy all of the available versions of a CD.

A record company could use the line

"..........why, because we love music as much as you do!"

CDs are a mature product. In all the market crap that I have read when you have a mature product you look for ways to differentiate between what you flog and what others flog. We all buy music for the song (not the label) but maybe artists will gravitate towards a company that says "one size does not fit all" and "we put music first".

End of rant