So what if you had records to listen to?

[random]

not all remastering compresses the fuck out of the music bro 

[fdrjk]

sum1s mad

[|iR|Focalor]

And here I thought we could refrain from name calling long enough to have one civilized discussion about one simple thing.

.... "back in the day"??? Everything now is modeled after all that "pure shit back in the day"...

What specifically are you referring to? I'm assuming you're referring to a straight mic on speaker setup for recording. I've heard several albums over the years where they've seemingly given little to no thought to attaining a traditional mic'd guitar speaker cabinet sound and instead went directly from the amp to the mixer with minimal reverb and delay effects. In fact, for the longest time, Dimebag Darrell only played through 100% solid state amps for the tightest most focused in your face sound he could get. The album that really comes to mind was Far Beyond Driven. I'm not sure how they mic'd the drums on that album, but I suspect they did an awful lot of mixing board trickery to achieve Vinny Paul's intensely scooped midrange kick drum "click" sound, which I'd suggest is nothing "pure" because it changes all the acoustic tonality of the drums so drastically.

not all remastering compresses the fuck out of the music bro 

These days, typically, yes it does. They didn't always do it. And I'm about 100% certain that they still don't do it with classical music recordings. If they did... man, you thought some of the rock tunes they do it to sound flattened and out of whack. Classical pieces with a full orchestra would sound HORRIBLE. I'm even a little guilty of it myself. When I used to record my own shit, I'd manipulate envelope filters for volume control (sorta how compression works) on certain tracks to keep the little dB bar bouncing as close to the edge of the yellow zone as possible. But then again, it's heavy metal. It's SUPPOSED to be loud as shit. It wasn't "actually" a compression effect though, so none of it did anything to the EQ's of any of the tracks. That's mainly what sounds so off about how labels compress and remaster shit today. The compression they're using seems to work on a per frequency basis. As in, each and every individual bandwidth of a particular track has it's own independent real-time compression effect, which overaccentuates certain frequencies and changes the tone from the original recording. Dunno if that's true. But that's what it sounds like to me.

[fdrjk]

These days, typically, yes it does.

I'm even a little guilty of it myself. When I used to record my own shit, I'd manipulate envelope filters for volume control (sorta how compression works) on certain tracks to keep the little dB bar bouncing as close to the edge of the yellow zone as possible. But then again, it's heavy metal. It's SUPPOSED to be loud as shit. It wasn't "actually" a compression effect though, so none of it did anything to the EQ's of any of the tracks. That's mainly what sounds so off about how labels compress and remaster shit today.

Honestly, I've listened to a lot of remasters that actually sound better than the original. I've also listened to alot of remasters that sound like utter shit. As far as I know, most remasters are done without the consent of the band/artist, and the quality of the recording suffers because of that. I'm not 100% sure if that's true or not, but I also know that some bands/artists remaster albums themselves, mostly because they weren't happy with how it sounded in the end, and it ends up either sounding much better or much worse. Even if it ends up sounding worse, that's how they wanted it. I could always just listen to another mix of it and just forget about the remaster. There are some albums that I thought needed a remaster, mostly because I always thought the original recordings sounded like they were, in fact, mixed pretty quietly/badly. (Case in point; The Stone Roses, Raw Power..)

As far as compression goes, as you've already said, it's a tool. Just like auto-tune; a very controversial tool. It can be used to make music sound much more loud and aggressive, but on the other hand like random said, it can be simply thrown onto original recordings and completely destroy their dynamics entirely. I know I listened to the remaster of You're Living All Over Me by Dinosaur Jr. and actually preferred the original recording because the vocals were pretty much mixed in the same level as the instruments on the remaster, which is a no-no for lo-fi rock music.

But I'm just going off what I hear. I'm not going to open a bunch of versions of albums I love in Audacity to find out what is objectively the better version. :<

[|iR|Focalor]

In years gone by when they'd remaster things, it was typically to alleviate things like analog tape hiss and other background noises it produced. But sometimes they'd completely rework a song by taking tracks and doubling them and/or staggering them slightly to create a false stereo effect, or they'll just add a bunch of other digital modulation effects like chorus, reverb, etc. I immediately think of one of ZZ Top's early albums, their second one in fact, Rio Grande Mud, which got that kind of remaster treatment back in the late 80's for release on CD. I fucking HATED it. One of their first big hits, Just Got Paid, was originally done pretty bare bones. When they remastered the album, they added several different spatial reverb and false stereo effects to most of the guitar parts and drums that made the song sound weaker and flimsier overall. Today, if you want a copy of the original version of that particular song, you gotta buy one particular greatest hits albums of theirs titled Chrome, Smoke, & BBQ.

To kinda show you what I mean...

Here's the late 80's remaster version with lots of added frilly BULLSHIT:
<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/db94lyKYOcg/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/db94lyKYOcg"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/db94lyKYOcg" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/db94lyKYOcg</a>

And here's the original version that got released on vinyl back in 1972:
<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ycbv5fY7nwE/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ycbv5fY7nwE"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ycbv5fY7nwE" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Ycbv5fY7nwE</a>

[random]

What specifically are you referring to? I'm assuming you're referring to a straight mic on speaker setup for recording.

No. I'm referring to analog processing like Reverb's (lexicon for example) Mastering Compressors (Shadow Hills) Vintage EQ's (Pulteq). The list goes on, they are all modeled after circuitry out of the 60's / 70's.

The compression they're using seems to work on a per frequency basis. As in, each and every individual bandwidth of a particular track has it's own independent real-time compression effect, which overaccentuates certain frequencies and changes the tone from the original recording. Dunno if that's true. But that's what it sounds like to me.

That's called Multiband Compression, not entirely true. Most of the times the use for a multiband compressor is to smooth out some of the sharp peaks from a recording without having to use an EQ to actually remove freq. from the audio.

the 2 youtube video's are a perfect explanation of what I'm talking about, you can hear right away in the first 20 seconds how butchered the remastered version is. Studio engineer's used to get paid for being able to make shit dynamic and balanced all around, now they get paid for being able to make shit loud and in your face. It's not an easy task regardless.

LP = Always Win.

[Krlll Mule]

the recording quality was pure shit back in the day in the first place.  But now?  With EVERYTHING being recorded with Pro Tools and being maxed out digitally in every possible way?

This has got to be the dumbest shit you have ever said.... "back in the day"??? Everything now is modeled after all that "pure shit back in the day"...Learn to google better before you open your twat.

In short, the only reason for LPs now is for DJs.  Anything else is a pointless bullshit reason.

  LP's are meant to be enjoyed, a collection of music that reminds you of "back in the day". Enjoyed like a normal person would enjoy riding in a '57 Bel Air.

I prefer LP's over anything now for 1 reason: Dynamics. Now, music of every genre is getting the life squeezed out of it. It's all about that -5 to -10 rms with a 2-3db 2khz boost. Hence, "Digitally Remastered" aka Loudness War.

It looks something like this:


Krill Mule - Get whatever makes the most sense to your wallet, unless you have some really nice monitors (speakers) it wont matter. I grew up learning to DJ on a pair of Techniques 1200's, unless you plan on doing some sort of turntablism id recommend any standard cheap priced one.

FYI ex - Everything is STILL recorded analog, everything is STILL recorded on Mic Pre's, and everything is STILL tracked on an SSL Board. 

I think you basically said what I was attempting to, only better. Not trying to brag, but I have recorded in a professional studio where many artists waaaaay above my level did the same. Dare I mention Stevie Wonder had been the client the previous day, recording some gospel tunes? It was recorded on VHS tape. Skip ahead a few years and we decided creating our own sound room using a laptop and software would be the ticket. It was in a way; we got some nice recordings. But in the end, it's all about what you can afford and how you can use all the available technology, old and new. I'm still getting a new turntable, and enjoying all it's flaws and inherent strengths. 

[|iR|Focalor]

I think you basically said what I was attempting to, only better. ... I'm still getting a new turntable, and enjoying all it's flaws and inherent strengths.

LP's are meant to be enjoyed, a collection of music that reminds you of "back in the day". Enjoyed like a normal person would enjoy riding in a '57 Bel Air.

You might enjoy riding around in a '57 Bel Air, but you ain't gonna be doing it with an LP playing. Well... I mean... you could. Almost anything's possible with enough redneck ingenuity. You'd need one of those power converters hooked into the cigarette lighter outlet, then plug your desktop record player into that and set your record player on the passenger seat, then run a cable from the line out or headphone jack to the auxiliary/mp3 input of your car stereo system (after you go buy and install an aftermarket stereo that features such an input jack). And then you get to hear your records getting scratched to hell or your stylus needle getting broken with every pothole and dip you hit. That's just too much work and worry.

But a CD? Well that bad boy just slides right in and plays with no problems.

And these days, hell, why even bother with a CD anymore? I have a tiny little Walkman MP3 player that's the size of a credit card, maybe a little thicker, and it fits right into my pocket and holds about 15 or so gigs worth of data. That's a couple hundred albums sampled at CD quality bit rates, and I don't have to lug around all those CD's anymore. Most people don't even need an extra portable mp3 player. They already carry a cellphone everywhere, and it plays/stores mp3's just as well.

[ex]

The sad thing is that I was actually trying to offer random a kind hand when speaking on the DJ thing.  I can never expect anything less than bullshit from someone who is best friends with 2dum, I guess.

Truth be told, compression is used for a reason.  It does make most music sound better.  The sounds that harm your ears are filtered out and equalized against the softer sounds.  It is especially important in hard rock/metal.  When it's compressed the right way, you can crank it loud as fuck and it won't cause hearing damage as readily as something that is pure sound.  Of course, when it's compressed the wrong way, it can ruin good tracks as well.  It's an art just like anything else in music, and takes professionals to get it right.

It's not meant for everything, but for certain styles it's a must.  I've listened to original demo studio tracks from my favorite artists, and then listened to the normal (compressed) versions.  9 times out of 10, the album versions always sound better.  Only rare instances such as an acoustic-only track, or the aforementioned orchestral arrangements, sound better as a demo.

[fdrjk]

DON'T FORGET RSD

[Idioplex]

Hmm. I got into vinyl about 3 years ago and without a doubt the sound quality is superior to digital in every way.
And OP, it's funny that you mention tapes. I just heard a cassette for the first time about a week ago after finding that there are quite a few underground artists releasing them. From what I've heard, I like a lot. I also read that CDs destroy bass quality whereas tapes keep it in tact and are also able to capture higher frequency sound. I don't think tapes have CD quality beat in every respect, but I definitely think they sound more interesting and have a warmer sound overall. Also, analog synths sound super sexy on cassette.

[ex]

Let me ask all you analog lovers something.  If you have a pure digital recording of something that is in its rawest form, saved on a harddrive, would you consider that an "inferior" sound to LPs still?  I'm just trying to gauge exactly what I'm dealing with here, i.e. am I dealing with format ideologies, or are you guys actually suggesting that a pure digital recording on a HDD would somehow be inferior to a LP?

[|iR|Focalor]

Hmm. I got into vinyl about 3 years ago and without a doubt the sound quality is superior to digital in every way.

And without a doubt, that isn't true. And that's not my opinion. That's fact. Your "opinion" may be that the sound quality is better, but by measurable scientific standards, the sound quality actually is not better.

I also read that CDs destroy bass quality whereas tapes keep it in tact and are also able to capture higher frequency sound.

Also... not true. And again, that's not my opinion. That's fact.

It's like white supremacists claiming that the holocaust never happened. They actually believe that it's 100% true that the holocaust didn't happen. We have plenty of evidence proving that it did: mass graves, empty chemical canisters with forensic evidence on them, stockpiles of shaved hair, stockpiles of eyeglass frames, stockpiles of gold fillings, first-hand accounts of holocaust survivors, first-hand accounts of those who liberated concentration camps, first-hand accounts of those who ran the concentration camps, etc etc etc. But these people truly feel in their hearts that none of that matters and no one will ever be able to convince them otherwise no matter how much irrefutable evidence you pile up in front of them.

So... yeah, man. Absolutely. Your records are way better than my CD's. 

(They're not. But nothing anyone says is gonna matter. So fuck it.)

[quadz]

Hmm. I got into vinyl about 3 years ago and without a doubt the sound quality is superior to digital in every way.

And without a doubt, that isn't true. And that's not my opinion. That's fact. Your "opinion" may be that the sound quality is better, but by measurable scientific standards, the sound quality actually is not better.

Indeed; no consumer analog recording format exists that can physically approach the dynamic range of 16-bit digital audio.

The noise floor on turntable systems is relatively high (i.e. the roar and rumble one hears when playing a "silent" part of a record.) The dynamic range of vinyl can be encoded in about 10 bits digital.

I also read that CDs destroy bass quality whereas tapes keep it in tact and are also able to capture higher frequency sound.

Compact audio cassette is terribly low-fi. In terms of physics, your statement is precisely the wrong way around. The dynamic range of compact audio cassette can be encoded in about 6 bits digitally. (Add 2 bits if consumer Dolby is used.)

This link was posted earlier in the thread, but in case you missed it, here's a rundown of the physical limitations of analog tape recording: http://www.head-fi.org/t/679915/how-to-record-encode-the-highest-quality-digital-audio-from-pristine-tape-and-vinyl-source#post_9769500

[|iR|Focalor]

Damn. After rereading my post, I admit that I come off like a total asshole. And that wasn't precisely my intention, so I do apologize. But what I said still remains true. The capabilities of CD's surpass vinyl and analog tape. That's clearly evident in the noise department alone. The noise level contained in a CD recordings playback is entirely dependent on the recording methods used in the first place. If you don't do things to keep line noise levels at a bare minimum when recording, it's just gonna get transfered to the CD. Due to the fact that recording is powered by electricity, there's ALWAYS gonna be noise, whether it's from the magnetic pickups on an electric guitar, or whether it's from the slight hum produced through a microphone. But due to the fact that a record player has a stylus needle physically contacting a surface, that friction is always gonna translate to "noise" during periods of total silence. Same goes for analog tape. The tape presses against the head and noise is produced. With a CD, there is only a laser reading digital data from the disc. As long as the surface is clean and intact, there is less inherent noise produced by the CD medium itself than what is produced by vinyl or tape.