Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

soundonsound: Secrets Of The Mix Engineers - Tom Elmhirst


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#16 MingusMonk&Amy

MingusMonk&Amy

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 776 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 31 August 2018 - 06:27 AM

Of course there's a possibility of an excellent sounding version. It's up to Universal Island to go back to the analog multitracks and make a better mix without all that digital tinkering. I'd say the chances of a new stereo mix are slim, but a new surround mix might be plausible for the next album anniversary. There's a snippet from Tears Dry mixed in 5.1 in the AMY doc (not a very good one though).

 

The sound quality problems for Frank are not nearly as disastrous. Judging from Take the Box music video the strength of the dynamic compression needs to be decreased by about 5-6dB for a more pleasant listening experience.

 

I'd guess 99% of the users her don't have a problem with the sound quality of Amy's music, but you can find plenty of complaints from the more audiophile oriented music forums at http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/



#17 xDetachmentx

xDetachmentx

    We both know what it is

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 242 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 10:38 AM

That would make a bit more sense (releasing it on the anniversary). I agree that Frank sounds better, but I still have hope for both albums. It's a disappointment to me for LHT. 'A Song For You' (one of my favorite Amy songs) was ruined by that sort of thing (not to mention some of the instrumentals in the back, like with the rain effect and the static. I don't think that was bad mastering, just bad instr. design.) If they'd just release them all better again it'd be great. 



#18 Soul Power

Soul Power

    More than a fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 06 September 2018 - 06:24 PM

Thanks for the post, MingusMonk&Amy. It's good to make others aware of this...if enough folks are educated on the effects of bit and audio compression, then maybe the record companies will respond and start releasing music that sounds like music. It's saddening to witness the ever-increasing quality of commercial video while audio continues its decline. 

 

The fact is that we've been listening to overly-compressed music for so long that this is what "normal" sounds like to most folks now. Taking a classic album, compressing the snot out of it, and repackaging it even qualifies as "remastering". Why is it that some of my best sounding recordings are 50 years old? I know the answer, but still...sad. Improvements in just about every link in the music production chain are negated by something that is 100% preventable. Ugh.

 

I encourage everyone to go out and listen to live acoustic music, and then ask yourself why your records don't sound that way (hint...they could, and some do).



#19 MingusMonk&Amy

MingusMonk&Amy

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 776 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 07 September 2018 - 06:29 AM

This is the best way I can think of to illustrate what is being done to the music of today: https://www.google.c...1.0.5l3ETndJpSY

Actually, the process of deliberately degrading audio quality is nothing new. It started in 1925 with the advent of electrical recordings. Many record companies complained that the recording quality was to good for the average playback equipment of the day and the engineers had to comply. The sound quality of popular music has always been adapted for the most common/lowest quality playback equipment. Even though the 50's is considered to be golden age for many audiophiles, the pop music was tailor-made to sound best on a AM car radios, not on a HiFi system (listen to Motown).

Sadly, digital technology has taken all this degrading business to the extreme. The dynamic range of a pop song today is narrower than the early Thomas Edison recordings from the late 1800's. The better playback equipment you have, the worse it will sound. It will sound terrific for those using earbuds, but horrible with my Stax headphones.

The other day I was searching for the best sounding issue of Diana Ross's album "Diana" (1980) and I had to go back all the way to 1986 to find a version on CD without any additional digital DR compression. The earliest album I can think of in the digital age with a misuse of DR compression is Janet Jackson's "Rhythm Nation 1814".
Bear in mind that DR numbers (http://dr.loudness-war.info/) can also be misconceiving. The 1st Spice Girls album, while being an average DR9, is quite pleasant and dynamic to listen to. Their 2nd album has more aggressive compression and sounds horrible, flat like a hard concrete wall.

Thankfully, there are always exceptions. Kate Bush is on of the few big pop artists who's managed to bypass the loudness war completely. All of her albums sounds wonderful with a natural dynamic range and no odd "smiley face" EQ profile.

Back to Black is a notoriously bad sounding album and technically not up to par with its extraordinary musical qualities. I understand that it's supposed to partly imitate the sound of early 60's/Motown/Spector/girl groups, but the method of abusing digital tools is the wrong way. It often turns up on "worst sounding album" lists on audiophile forums. I hope the guys at mofi.com one day will be able to license the album for SACD release, using a remix from the analog multitracks.

This is a sample from the 2016 Abbey Road vinyl reissue. Who thinks it sounds better than the CD?

https://www.dropbox....ample.flac?dl=0

 

 

After all this negativity I just want to say: I LOVE AMY JADE!!!


  • Fierce likes this

#20 xDetachmentx

xDetachmentx

    We both know what it is

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 242 posts

Posted 02 October 2018 - 09:21 AM

Sort of old topic, but 'Amy, Amy, Amy' looks to be the same as those examples in the first page.



#21 MingusMonk&Amy

MingusMonk&Amy

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 776 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 09 October 2018 - 07:36 AM

Sort of old topic, but 'Amy, Amy, Amy' looks to be the same as those examples in the first page.


Amy Amy Amy (CD) sounds just as compressed as the other songs to me. All songs on the 2 albums+LHT+BBC (CD) are processed with excessive "brickwall" compression. Not just during mastering, but probably also during mixing. I strongly dislike this practice of first adding extreme dr compression for each basic multitrack channel during mixing and then adding even more compression during two track stereo mixdown and then again during final mastering. The thing that's especially bothering me is the extreme dr compression on Amy's vocal tracks. Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow? (both versions) is a great example. Her vocals sounds completely flat (I don't mean her performance which is brilliant as always). If you listen to some of her favorite singers like Minnie Riperton, Deniece Williams or S.Vaughan you'll hear vocals with room to breathe. There's space. Not just a big block of sound. Each instrument has its own layer in the soundstage in those older recordings. You can easily pick out 1 instrument and only focus on that instrument (with good playback equipment). But with Amy's music, all the instruments and vocals just lays there like a flat concrete wall. There's no space. You can't pick out 1 instrument to focus on. This mastering style might be appropriate for dance-pop, but certainly not for Amy.

Waveform for Amy Amy Amy
436e55996637934.jpg


There's actually 2 different masterings for Back to Black available on CD. One of them has less dynamic compression as seen below.

foobar2000 1.4 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2018-10-09 09:17:24

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Amy Winehouse / Back To Black
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR8 -6.49 dB -15.96 dB 3:35 01-Rehab
DR8 -6.84 dB -16.35 dB 4:17 02-You Know I'm No Good
DR11 -5.27 dB -17.79 dB 2:33 03-Me & Mr Jones
DR10 -7.30 dB -18.57 dB 3:13 04-Just Friends
DR8 -6.59 dB -17.31 dB 4:01 05-Back To Black
DR8 -7.75 dB -17.94 dB 2:35 06-Love Is A Losing Game
DR9 -6.41 dB -16.71 dB 3:06 07-Tears Dry On Their Own
DR8 -7.66 dB -17.18 dB 3:42 08-Wake Up Alone
DR10 -7.75 dB -18.75 dB 2:23 09-Some Unholy War
DR9 -6.94 dB -17.29 dB 2:46 10-He Can Only Hold Her
DR10 -6.58 dB -17.27 dB 2:45 11-Addicted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 11
Official DR value: DR9

Samplerate: 44100 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 16
Bitrate: 794 kbps
Codec: FLAC
================================================================================

foobar2000 1.3.7 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2015-03-06 08:13:59

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Amy Winehouse / Back To Black
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR5 0.00 dB -5.88 dB 3:35 01-Rehab
DR5 0.00 dB -6.27 dB 4:17 02-You Know I'm No Good
DR6 0.00 dB -7.69 dB 2:33 03-Me & Mr. Jones
DR7 0.00 dB -8.39 dB 3:13 04-Just Friends
DR5 0.00 dB -7.25 dB 4:01 05-Back To Black
DR6 0.00 dB -7.91 dB 2:35 06-Love Is A Losing Game
DR6 0.00 dB -6.64 dB 3:06 07-Tears Dry On Their Own
DR6 0.00 dB -7.15 dB 3:42 08-Wake Up Alone
DR7 0.00 dB -8.58 dB 2:23 09-Some Unholy War
DR6 0.00 dB -7.21 dB 2:46 10-He Can Only Hold Her
DR6 0.00 dB -7.10 dB 2:45 11-Addicted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 11
Official DR value: DR6

Samplerate: 44100 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 16
Bitrate: 998 kbps
Codec: FLAC
================================================================================


  • MingusMonk&Amy likes this

#22 xDetachmentx

xDetachmentx

    We both know what it is

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 242 posts

Posted 09 October 2018 - 10:58 PM

It's not in the CD release, I meant on the Deluxe Edition release, at least from what I could see. Also, the 'Back to Black' release with less compression is the one you were talking about from 2016, right?



#23 MingusMonk&Amy

MingusMonk&Amy

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 776 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 10 October 2018 - 06:43 AM

Unfortunately there's no noticeable difference between the original CD and the Deluxe Edition CD of Frank. They are not bit-identical, but they share the same mastering. As far as I know, all CD version and digital issues of Frank shares the same mastering, including the 24bit version available at hdtracks.com (which also is watermarked). Vinyl is a different matter. The original 2008 vinyl pressing uses a master with less dr compression. Note that Dynamic Range reports from digitized vinyl are not entirely reliable, but if the values differs greatly you can be pretty sure a different master is used. It also sounds less compressed to me.

 

For Back to Black I was not talking about the 2016 Abbey Road vinyl reissue, but specific pressings of the Deluxe Edition CD. Certain pressings of the Deluxe CD uses an alternate less compressed master. I suspect this is the same master that was prepared for the original UK vinyl pressing, but it somehow got used by mistake on these CDs. You can read more about it here: http://forums.steveh...stering.132410/

 

Amy Amy Amy - Original CD

 

foobar2000 1.4 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2018-10-10 08:05:10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for: 13-Amy Amy Amy
Number of samples: 11245710
Duration: 4:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Left              Right

Peak Value:     -0.01 dB   ---     -0.01 dB   
Avg RMS:       -10.13 dB   ---    -10.30 dB   
DR channel:      9.09 dB   ---      9.28 dB   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official DR Value: DR9

Samplerate:        44100 Hz
Channels:          2
Bits per sample:   16
Bitrate:           994 kbps
Codec:             FLAC
================================================================================
 

 

Amy Amy Amy - Deluxe CD

 

foobar2000 1.4 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2018-10-10 08:05:10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for: 13-Amy Amy Amy
Number of samples: 11234050
Duration: 4:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Left              Right

Peak Value:     -0.01 dB   ---     -0.01 dB   
Avg RMS:        -9.90 dB   ---    -10.08 dB   
DR channel:      8.87 dB   ---      9.06 dB   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official DR Value: DR9

Samplerate:        44100 Hz
Channels:          2
Bits per sample:   16
Bitrate:           998 kbps
Codec:             FLAC
================================================================================
 

 

Amy Amy Amy - 2008 Vinyl

 

foobar2000 1.4 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2018-10-10 08:34:01

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for: 13-Amy Amy Amy
Number of samples: 49273993
Duration: 4:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Left              Right

Peak Value:     -4.28 dB   ---     -4.81 dB   
Avg RMS:       -19.95 dB   ---    -20.39 dB   
DR channel:     14.17 dB   ---     14.06 dB   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official DR Value: DR14

Samplerate:        192000 Hz
Channels:          2
Bits per sample:   24
Bitrate:           5410 kbps
Codec:             FLAC
================================================================================
 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users