Page 3 of 5
Posted: 18 Sep 2008, 14:24
by weebleswobble
so it goes up to 11 then?
Posted: 18 Sep 2008, 14:28
by Izzy HaveMercy
Metallica - Cyanide. Someone ran it through Adobe Audition, resulting in next picture.
OK, it's an MP3 but 256k ain't that bad for a comparison.
Made it into an URL because the pic might be too large.
http://i35.tinypic.com/521bsw.png
IZ.
Posted: 18 Sep 2008, 14:33
by Ahráyeph
The only way you can see it's an mp3, is because it actually shows peaks, where the high frequencies have been taken out due to data compression. I believe that if he had posted a link with the CD version, all you would have seen were solid waveforms with no peaks...
Posted: 18 Sep 2008, 14:34
by James Blast
Ahráyeph wrote:I 'put the bass back in', so to speak. Only a certain Herr Blaast thinks I should put in even more.
I was born that way,
you've heard my home system and the lovely warm round sound I get out my ancient Goodmans, I still want a sub-woofer so that the bass on Larks' Tongue is even more brutal.
thank you
Posted: 18 Sep 2008, 14:40
by Izzy HaveMercy
Ahráyeph wrote:The only way you can see it's an mp3, is because it actually shows peaks, where the high frequencies have been taken out due to data compression. I believe that if he had posted a link with the CD version, all you would have seen were solid waveforms with no peaks...
I just took the same track Cyanide, ripped it to 16-bit WAV and fed the WAV-file into Steinberg WaveLab.
This is what came out.
IZ.
Posted: 18 Sep 2008, 15:05
by Jeremiah
I only skimmed through the Sound on Sound article about the NS10s because I'm too skint to buy the magazine.
But as far as I can make out, the thing that makes the NS10s so good for monitoring is nothing to do with their frequency response, which was only average even compared to what else was available in the 70s, but is mostly because they are a sealed box design without reflex ports, which makes their time-domain response much more accurate. Some of the technical detail is a bit beyond me, but it is interesting that just about every nearfield monitor on the market today uses reflex ports.
Posted: 18 Sep 2008, 15:21
by Syberberg
Izzy HaveMercy wrote:moses wrote:Syberberg wrote:
That's because you don't take an interest in the process then. If you hang around long enough with the architects and go with them to some of their projects to have a look, and listen to what they have to tell, you will figure out a lot.
Syberberg does just that, I presume.
So do I, by the way
IZ.
Yes
Iz, your presumption is spot on..
And I ask questions...
lots of questions.
Subscribe to industry publications, like Sound On Sound. Buy books on sound engineering. More generally, read up on the history of the record industry, read interviews with bands and producers.
moses, did you read my post properly? Coz if not you missed the bit about sound engineering and recording being a part time job (well, it's increased to that over time) and knowing
several people who are working inside the industry, from managers to engineers to producers.
In the issues UTR, Eldritch went on at some length about the industry and it's practices. The info is out there if you want to look for it.
An old article by Steve Albini.
Another great example is to learn about Factory Records and
why they were created in the first place. What made Factory Records so different from everyone else?
I have only 2 major passions in my life: Music (writing, recording, playing and producing) and woodland & countryside management. I have extremely good qualifications in the latter from the UK's leading agricultural college, Sparsholt.
PS: Designing a house is fairly easy, making it look good and be livable is another matter entirely.
Oh,
here's a fun link to read.
SSV. Baby.
And before I go,
a useful pdf call Anatomy of a Record Deal. Just in case anyone else here might have a need to know. Or have a burning curiosity that makes cats wince at the risk and go: "Dude, you only got 1 life, step back hoomin, step waaaaaaaay back."
Posted: 18 Sep 2008, 16:03
by Syberberg
Just had a thought.
Out of curiosity, can someone who's got a copy of the remastered Sisters Cd's do a compare and contrast? I'd be
very interested to see the results (can you tell I still haven't bought the remasters yet?
)
Posted: 18 Sep 2008, 16:14
by EvilBastard
Syberberg wrote:Just had a thought.
Out of curiosity, can someone who's got a copy of the remastered Sisters Cd's do a compare and contrast? I'd be
very interested to see the results (can you tell I still haven't bought the remasters yet?
)
I've got copies - if you can explain to me what to do I'd be happy to do a compare with the "original" CDs.
Posted: 18 Sep 2008, 17:12
by Syberberg
EvilBastard wrote:Syberberg wrote:Just had a thought.
Out of curiosity, can someone who's got a copy of the remastered Sisters Cd's do a compare and contrast? I'd be
very interested to see the results (can you tell I still haven't bought the remasters yet?
)
I've got copies - if you can explain to me what to do I'd be happy to do a compare with the "original" CDs.
Right then...
First off, song and album choice, I think F&L&A would be the best bet as we have 3 CD versions to compare. The 1990 release, the later release (that seems to garner a lot of complaints about the muddy quality of the sound. As I don't have that release, I'm curious about what's causing the complaints) and the reissue which allegedly has the original vinyl mixes on.
As for which song, I'd go for Amphetamine Logic, it has a lot going on dymanics-wise and, more importantly, wasn't remixed.
Rip a copy from each CD as a wav file and import the track into whatever audio manipulation software you have. Doesn't matter about the quality of the software, we just need to clearly see the shape of the sound wave (as in the examples above). If you can, zoom in on the wave vertically as that helps too.
Take a screen shot of each and crop the image (as seen in the examples above) so we get the wave and the dB scale.
Clearly mark each wave and post the image to an image hosting site of your choice, give us a linky and there ya go.
Cheers
EB.
Posted: 18 Sep 2008, 17:20
by Syberberg
Posted: 18 Sep 2008, 22:41
by Izzy HaveMercy
Bleeding heart no?
IZ.
Posted: 19 Sep 2008, 00:52
by Syberberg
Izzy HaveMercy wrote:
Bleeding heart no?
IZ.
That's the sonic equivalent of having the space shuttle take off in your house.
It's just
wrong on so many levels (no pun intended, honest guv'nor).
If sales of that album are measured in the hundreds, I'll be surprised.
Good grief, what a tasteless and bland world we live in. What the hell went so badly wrong?
Posted: 19 Sep 2008, 06:55
by Izzy HaveMercy
As with all enterprises... when music
business became music
industry
IZ.
Posted: 19 Sep 2008, 12:47
by EvilBastard
Right then -
This is Logic from the original CD - the latest copyright date on it is 1985:
While
this is Logic from the 2006 Rhino re-issue:
Posted: 19 Sep 2008, 13:13
by markfiend
You can see that there's a difference; a couple of the biggest spikes on the older one have gone.
Thank fcuk they've not brickwalled it.
Posted: 19 Sep 2008, 14:03
by Izzy HaveMercy
The volume is upped, but indeed not much harm done. They boosted the middle part there a bit tho, and is that a slight panning? The peaks in that quieter middle bit are 'nudged' to the top a bit... (from -0.6/+0.5 in the old rec to -0.5/+0.7 in the remaster) or is that due to eq? DC offset doesn't do that so drastically and they wouldn't need to do that I think...
Syberberg or someone else have a clue?
IZ.
Posted: 19 Sep 2008, 15:56
by weebleswobble
Amazing finds!
I played Walk Away from the original gramophone recording through my
1138-weeblizer and it came out:
I then did the same thing with the Cherry Red repackaged, remixed, reborn and retarded mix of the very same song:
Simply Astounding.....
Posted: 19 Sep 2008, 16:39
by James Blast
Posted: 19 Sep 2008, 16:57
by eotunun
I've just taken a look at Lucretia:
Same as with the difference between the FALAAs, it seems. They apparently did do a job with eye sight applied.
Posted: 19 Sep 2008, 17:29
by EvilBastard
I may be stepping out of a closet here, but I find the FALAA reissue sounds a lot smoother, a bigger sound without any of the rough edges of the original. Could be the advances in technology over the last 20-odd years, or that they were taken from the masters rather than from something else, I don't know enough about the process to draw a conclusion, but there's a part of me that would like to hope that the reissue sounds the way the artist heard it in his head but wasn't able to reproduce in the studio because the gear just didn't exist to make it happen.
Posted: 19 Sep 2008, 18:25
by psichonaut
i gave a look to Marian, instead
1985 version
2008 version
Posted: 19 Sep 2008, 19:48
by mh
Some of them can only be expected not to have aged so well.
Posted: 19 Sep 2008, 20:01
by Syberberg
Thanks guys.
Well, that settles that then, I'll be purchasing the reissues.
Whenever I see the phrase "digitally remastered" (or just "remastered") I get a little edgy.
Iz, looks like some accurate EQ'ing and normalising to me. I'd also make a guess at some gentle multi-band compression being used to smooth out any odd transients after the EQ'ing, then do the normalising (well, it's what I'd've done/do).
Posted: 19 Sep 2008, 21:28
by robertzombie
