I apologise if a similar thread has been done before but how comes most digtal hi res stereo mixes are still being released compressed?

[Quadmon]

Might as well add my two cents. I used to record local bands years ago as I hung out with the musicians mainly so they could hear what they sounded like. Straight into the mics and then just play them back like they were recorded. Nothing added to change how the tapes sounded. Those “naked” tapes imo were the real deal. I never thought anything needed to be done to make them sound better. They could be listened to and enjoyed just as they were recorded.

 

[Owen Smith]

I have all the Queen albums from when they were first released on CD, which used the vinyl masters. I also have the 2011 remasters boxset. When I listen to Queen albums I play the original CDs (apart from the 2 available on DVD-A), they have so much more dynamic range and sound better for it. I will add Queen never put out a single recording that could genuinely be considered audiophile on any mastering, yet the difference still shows.

 

[jimfisheye]

I've heard plenty of albums where the early CD edition made from the eq'd vinyl pre-master was significantly less damaged than a circa 1990 - 2014 novelty reissue. Anyone involved should feel shame when that happens. Collecting for least damaged copy is still an active sport!

 

[barfle]

I think there has to be a distinction.

Compression is a wonderful useful tool. It should not be used as an overall slur for what people might be referring to - brickwall LIMITING to create more loudness.

Compression can be used for incredible more powerful effect, and at times deliberately used to reduce the dynamic range - in order to alter the way something sounds and how you hear it.

This Tommy Bolin track was from the very first album I mixed 48 years ago. We deliberately put the whole mix through a compressor called a ‘GainBrain’ to create a very particular sound. Nothing to do with loudness, we had no idea what that meant back then. It was all about squashing the sounds on purpose.



I used the same technique back then on a track or two for Bruford - and when that album was recently remixed (not by me!) they came across as very strange and weak without that intentional power.

Another interesting point. I was temporarily living in America when Pink Floyd’s 'The Wall' was released in 1979. I was living in Chicago and a local FM radio station decided to play it continuously without any commercials for a full 24 hours nonstop. It sounded absolutely amazing the way they presented it. I had a very powerful and expensive hifi system.

So I went out and bought the LP the very next day. Boy was I disappointed at how weak and middle-y the whole thing came across on vinyl by comparison.

I think a lot of it is all relative. Yes, loudness wars which started so much with radio and streaming have made a lot of music suffer.

But don’t just make it sound like compression is a negative thing. Yes - maybe comparisons between originals and remasters can be an interesting dilemma - but sometimes a change in attitude for new remixes might be a deliberate decision.

Just my thoughts!! SWTx

I know a lot of radio stations would add reverb or screw with the EQ, including announcers’ voices. They also used peak limiting to avoid overmodulation (an FCC violation), so there’s really no telling how your purchased recording would compare with something you heard on the air.

But I will say I’m surprised you felt the overprocessed broadcast sounded better than the LP.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

I know a lot of radio stations would add reverb or screw with the EQ, including announcers’ voices. They also used peak limiting to avoid overmodulation (an FCC violation), so there’s really no telling how your purchased recording would compare with something you heard on the air.

But I will say I’m surprised you felt the overprocessed broadcast sounded better than the LP.

Well - I never analyse - I just listen!! Radio stations always had their own methods, so it is hard to say why it actually sounded so good.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

I've heard plenty of albums where the early CD edition made from the eq'd vinyl pre-master was significantly less damaged than a circa 1990 - 2014 novelty reissue. Anyone involved should feel shame when that happens. Collecting for least damaged copy is still an active sport!

I have heard plenty of albums I worked on that sounded just dreadful on their very first CD edition from the already lower quality EQ'd vinyl pre-masters. You could also often hear tape noise and print-through that wasn't on the original mix master. As ever some things work better, and some things don't work at all well.

 

[barfle]

When I was commuting, I generally listened to downloaded podcasts with an MP3 player connected to my car radio via an audio cable. I typically ran the recordings through 12db of compression, because the spoken word levels would often drop below the ambient noise level in the car.

If there’s a noisy environment, dynamic range compression can really make stuff listenable, but if your environment is reasonably controlled, ths “artistic effect” of compression can make stuff unlistenable.

The old “Muzak” was dynamically compressed and bandwidth limited. But nobody LISTENS to that stuff. It’s deliberately forgettable and ignoranle, not intruding on your conversations or thoughts.

 

[jimfisheye]

I have heard plenty of albums I worked on that sounded just dreadful on their very first CD edition from the already lower quality EQ'd vinyl pre-masters. You could also often hear tape noise and print-through that wasn't on the original mix master. As ever some things work better, and some things don't work at all well.

Indeed. I sure don't mean to give these any accolades! Just agreeing that I've heard even worse damage.

I know I can find a few examples in my collection where an mp3, one of those vinyl pre-master CDs, and a vinyl picture disc, are the best sounding copies I've heard. Examples where said formats were good enough to deliver good work while fuller fidelity formats couldn't save lesser work.

 

[MidiMagic]

I have heard plenty of albums I worked on that sounded just dreadful on their very first CD edition from the already lower quality EQ'd vinyl pre-masters. You could also often hear tape noise and print-through that wasn't on the original mix master. As ever some things work better, and some things don't work at all well.

The print-through might be from the master tape sitting unused for years.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

The print-through might be from the master tape sitting unused for years.

Yes I am aware of that - but I know that my own final mixes were printed to half inch tape at 30 ips using Dolby SR - and before the very first track - and between individual songs if there was a gap - there would be 'leader' tape - non magnetic that would have no print-through. The Dolby SR anyway did an amazing job to hide any tape noise or print-through.

At the mastering stage, as the audio had to be manipulated in real time, a tape copy would be made so that it could be used for further mastering or sent for manufacturing overseas etc. These production master copies were frequently printed to quarter inch tape at 15ips with no Dolby. I also believe they didn't always splice silent leader tape on these copies. And yes, these tapes would certainly deteriorate after a period of time, and hopefully they were stored 'tail-out' as leaving them 'front-out' would make for even worse print-through.

So that is certainly what I recognise from a lot of early CD issues - and even sometimes more recent versions.

 

[Owen Smith]

hopefully they were stored 'tail-out' as leaving them 'front-out' would make for even worse print-through.

Why does that make any difference? All it does is change which part of the recording is more likely to print through.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

Why does that make any difference? All it does is change which part of the recording is more likely to print through.

Tail-out diminishes the 'pre' print-through - the 'post' print-through is less noticeable because it is covered by the audio - print-through is most noticeable before the start of a recording.

 

[Owen Smith]

Tail-out diminishes the 'pre' print-through - the 'post' print-through is less noticeable because it is covered by the audio - print-through is most noticeable before the start of a recording.

But how does tail out stop the start of the audio having print through? All you've changed is which part of the audio is on the inside of the reel, it's gone from the start being on the outside to the start being on the inside. The inside of the reel is just as likely to print through.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

But how does tail out stop the start of the audio having print through? All you've changed is which part of the audio is on the inside of the reel, it's gone from the start being on the outside to the start being on the inside. The inside of the reel is just as likely to print through.

https://www.aes.org/aeshc/docs/3mtape/printthrough.pdf

 

[Owen Smith]

https://www.aes.org/aeshc/docs/3mtape/printthrough.pdf

Thanks, that explains it. The asymmetry I was thinking was absent is due to the layering of the tape binder and oxide.

 

[ar surround]

I've heard plenty of albums where the early CD edition made from the eq'd vinyl pre-master was significantly less damaged than a circa 1990 - 2014 novelty reissue. Anyone involved should feel shame when that happens. Collecting for least damaged copy is still an active sport!

You and I have shared some PM's on this issue. Specifically, we compared the Moody Blues Octave original CD vs the 'volume adjusted' 2008 remaster. The original CD has better dynamic range (DR 13) than the remaster (10) but sounds dull in comparison. I think that in this case, as probably with many others, the original CD master misses the mark; but then they make a remastered version that overshoots where it should be.

 

[jimfisheye]

You and I have shared some PM's on this issue. Specifically, we compared the Moody Blues Octave original CD vs the 'volume adjusted' 2008 remaster. The original CD has better dynamic range (DR 13) than the remaster (10) but sounds dull in comparison. I think that in this case, as probably with many others, the original CD master misses the mark; but then they make a remastered version that overshoots where it should be.

This is often where the quest lands. Multiple copies each with their own damage. The early CD is flawed from using a compromised source. Probably also from early generation AD converters used to capture that generational vinyl pre-master tape. The newer copy is flawed from 'novelty' mastering with the volume war hype of heavy limiting and treble eq boost.

In some cases the novelty master is so absurd that the flawed early copy sounds better. Hence my "shame" comment. I mean... someone is obviously intentionally making a novelty copy. They were probably asked to do just that. That just kind of sucks when the full copy isn't ever made available and we're left scrounging for early flawed CDs!

Sometimes you find good vinyl pressings of these older albums. These are going to be generational with multiple tape copies and the mechanical pressing in the best cases. Some of them are the best sounding copies left available. Any half way proper digital capture from an analog master in reasonable shape should wipe the floor with those.

Making something sound good to begin with is supposed to be the hard part (and does take effort) but it's trying to make an accurate copy that drives us mad! So now that we can make digital clones and actually have exact copies we get all these novelty masters with different levels of damage baked in intentionally and the master copies get hidden away. Collecting is not only still an active sport but wilder than it used to be!