Re - issues and over the top criticisms

[MIKEW-UK]

I thought I would set out my thoughts regarding reissues and the unfortunate negativity that seems to surround them.

I often read comments which are really hostile and unpleasant when reissues are announced, and I feel that the individuals making such comments have a very limited horizon and comprehension of what is involved.

Small companies/ individuals have to locate track ownership, negotiate licensing rights, pay for studios to remix / master tracks, create artwork, engage manufacturing of CDs, [[even vinyl), MP3, then arrange promotion, distribution, etc. The potential market is in real terms tiny. Yet these courageous individuals still persist in bringing to market recordings made 20 / 30 / 40 /50 years ago, with little hope of any real profit / commercial return. Yet I read highly critical / even destructive comments made by individuals who have no skin in the game and nothing to lose, but just want to find fault. When I see new releases described as rip-off, scam etc, I am truly upset. If individuals don’t want these releases, that's perfectly okay. And fair, critical, appreciation I absolutely encourage, but to write off / severely damage the commercial prospects of new releases by facile, throw away remarks from purists is totally unfair. If it persists, kiss goodbye to reissues!

[Kamasu_Jr]

I thought I would set out my thoughts regarding reissues and the unfortunate negativity that seems to surround them.

I often read comments which are really hostile and unpleasant when reissues are announced, and I feel that the individuals making such comments have a very limited horizon and comprehension of what is involved.

Small companies/ individuals have to locate track ownership, negotiate licensing rights, pay for studios to remix / master tracks, create artwork, engage manufacturing of CDs, [[even vinyl), MP3, then arrange promotion, distribution, etc. The potential market is in real terms tiny. Yet these courageous individuals still persist in bringing to market recordings made 20 / 30 / 40 /50 years ago, with little hope of any real profit / commercial return. Yet I read highly critical / even destructive comments made by individuals who have no skin in the game and nothing to lose, but just want to find fault. When I see new releases described as rip-off, scam etc, I am truly upset. If individuals don’t want these releases, that's perfectly okay. And fair, critical, appreciation I absolutely encourage, but to write off / severely damage the commercial prospects of new releases by facile, throw away remarks from purists is totally unfair. If it persists, kiss goodbye to reissues!

I can't recall a post on SDF that called a reissue a rip-off or some label as a scam. If there has been one, please show it to me.
I have read other forums where members are far more critical of music releases than we are on SDF.
I do recall fair criticism about the flood of reissues rushed out to consumers with manufacturing flaws like skips, terrible sound, mispellings in liner notes or mastering defects like one of the Willie Hutch releases, which didn't play for some customers. Not to mention a whole lot of other problems. I have criticized the high pricing of some of the CDs, which is not unusal and a problem the entire record industry is trying to solve here and abroad. Some labels seem determined to get consumers to fork over $20.00 or $25.00 per disc. No wonder so many music fans are downloading or stealing music for free from the internet.

I'm a consumer. I spend lots of money on music releases and will complain if something is not done right.

WE have rights as consumers who spend money on these releases.
It's not hostile negativity or deliberately trying to ruin some company's commercial prospects. I see it as standing up for my rights as a consumer. I'd never go into McDonalds, order a cup of coffee and stand there and watch as someone tinkles in a cup and hands it to me to drink.

I understand a lot of the record companies are small and reissuing or releasing music because they love it, but some of these people should also understand they are also businesses, making profits, however small and that criticisms are never personal in business. If you're going to run with the big dogs, you better be prepared for some yapping and snapping at your tail. In other words, suck it up and do things right!

[soulster]

I thought I would set out my thoughts regarding reissues and the unfortunate negativity that seems to surround them.

I often read comments which are really hostile and unpleasant when reissues are announced, and I feel that the individuals making such comments have a very limited horizon and comprehension of what is involved.



Trust me, I, and many of us, DO know exactly what is involved in reissuing vintage music. You aren't talking to a bunch of ya-hoos.

I am an audiophile, but realize that the majority of companies do not cater to that group. However, the use of excessive compression in the mastering stage, and crazy EQ, usually to boost the upper-mids is uncalled for.

The record industry has a bad problem of not listening to their customers. They have the "we know what's best" mindset when it comes to the sound issues.

[uptight]

You rarely see complaints before a product is released, saying people don't want it.

Unfortunately you have to buy it first. And my concern has been that, after I've paid my money, the product is a bit sabotaged. "Crazy EQ" has been my concern for the past ten or more years with one particular company. Audiophile or not, I would hope they would listen when we email them.

[Motown_M_1056]

You rarely see complaints before a product is released, saying people don't want it.

Unfortunately you have to buy it first. And my concern has been that, after I've paid my money, the product is a bit sabotaged. "Crazy EQ" has been my concern for the past ten or more years with one particular company. Audiophile or not, I would hope they would listen when we email them.

Can someone explain in layman's terms what "compressed" is?
I just got Billy Preston's Everybody Likes Some Kind Of Music [[I won't mention the label that issued it) and it sounds terrible, no low or bass tones, It sounds too way too tinny or trebly and the sound distorts when I turn the volume up. It sounds like a needle drop to me. The album was issued in Japan and I now wonder if I should have bought that version instead.

[soulster]

Can someone explain in layman's terms what "compressed" is?


AHEM! Hello! I am the one who mentioned compression.

When a recording is mixed, it is not finished! It's not the end! The finished mixes need help because the mixing studio is not usually set up for monitoring the sound accurately. The producer, recording, mixing engineer[[s), and the artists are too close to the project to be objective. There are usually things like EQ, fades, further tweaks, and other things to fix to make a recording sound it's best. The recordings need to be sequenced. So, it is given to a mastering engineer, a skilled person with a fresh perspective on a recording that has a specially tuned room with highly specialized equipment. The mastering engineer will take instructions, and is sometimes given the ability to act on his own, to produce the best master all involved think sounds best, and will give the best shot at selling a successful product.

Compression decreases the dynamic range. Nature has loud sound, and soft sound. That is called wide dynamic range. However, in recording, it isn't always desirable to have a lifelike range, so a compressor is used to tame this difference. In the old days, in addition to using EQ, a recording's dynamic range could help keep the signal above the noise floor of a tape or finished vinyl pressing. Dynamic range can be explained as the difference between someone whispering and someone shouting. What a compressor does is make that shouting softer so it is more in line with the whisper, and the whisper is made louder so it is more in line with the louder sound so it all sounds even and won't jolt the listener. This makes it possible to mix the sound so it sounds good on the radio. or on cheap stereos. The problem is, when one uses a compressor, the sound is no longer lifelike. Do you remember the song "Then You Can Tell Me Goodbye" by The Casinos from 1967? If you have it, get it out and play it. Skip to the bridge of the song about two minutes in where he sings "If you wait a lifetime before you leave.". Bad lyric, but anyway, notice how it sounds like there's an echo on his voice as he gets louder. That's the effect of a compressor. The other reason it was used in that case is because the engineer didn't want to overdrive the tape and cause distortion. But, notice how it doesn't sound natural?

Compressors are a necessary tool of recording and mixing modern pop/rock/R&B music. However, compressors have also been used in masetering, which is the final step of preparing a recording before it is shipped to a duplicating house.

In the old days when we just had records, the masters weren't compressed. They did achieve that compressed sound by overdriving, or saturating the tape, you know putting the needle of the VU meters into the red. The cutting engineer did this to make the record "hot", or louder so it would stand out on the radio. That was, in effect, compressing the sound naturally. No, it didn't sound natural, but, with cutting records, there were limits, physical limits to how far you could go. Berry Gordy hated compression, but the 45s were still often "compressed" by means I just explained.

OK, FF to the CD era. Started out great. Music had all the dynamic range of the master tape. The CDs didn't always sound that great because they used bad digital converters, But, somewhere in the mid-80s, someone got the bright idea to make the CD louder! Now, there are two or three ways to do this, and each method distorts the sound. Some are more forgiving than others. The reason is that even though the CD is capable of a decibel range of 96db, it still has limits, just like analog tape and records. So, one method used was to simply overload the signal going into the analog-to-digital converter, otherwise known as the A/D converter. This cause the sound to clip, which means it exceeds the absolute digital limit. The sound may or may not be affected, depending on how severe it is. Bottom line is that engineers could get away with it.

The second method of making a CD louder is to use a limiter. The same idea applies: feed the signal into the A/D converter so that it would clip. But, to ensure that it does not exceed full scale digital [[going over 100%), they use a specialized compressor called a limiter. In fact, a limiter is the type of compressor that was used in my example above with the song by The Casinos. The limiter in the digital world compresses the peaks of the signal so that it does not exceed 100% FS digital and potentially distort the sound. Still good, but the sound is affected, depending on how much of a compression ratio is used. If you use too much limiting, the bass will sound mushy, and the highs will sound edgy and blurred.

The third method of making a CD loud is the most insidious, and the one that alters the sound the most. Remember that there is a limiter, one type of compressor, and now there's another type of compressor: a band compressor. A band is an octave of a frequency range. A band compressor can divide up the frequency spectrum of a recording and act only on a specific frequency range. Or, it can compress the entire song in one go. These are often used in the recording and mixing stage too. But, in mastering, they can be evil. What the mastering engineer can do on a CD master is boost the volume by compressing the sound to make the loud sounds soft and the the soft sounds loud. This takes away from the original sound. Then, the engineer may use some EQ to compensate for what the compression took away from the sound. Next, the engineer will boost the volume of that compressed and EQ'ed sound and use a limiter to ensure that the sound will not exceed FS digital, which further destroys the sound. All this processing changes the original sound so that it no longer sounds anything like the master tape. But, it's LOUDER! people buy that CD, take it home or play it in the car and think all that processed music sounds great. Actually, it stinks! To make matters worse, listening to highly compressed music makes one tired and causes the listener to tune out. Since it affects the highs, the music can sound edgy and literally cause the poor listener ear pain. To make matters worse, some engineers clip all that compressed sound to eek out even more volume on a CD! Yikes!

Now, what you really wanted to know is what compressed music sounds like. It can sound like a lot of things, but it will make the transients dull and the bass flabby. The music will all sound the same. Oftentimes, if there was a lot of compression used on the vocals, that vocal will be loud. My best example of this is [[and I know this is an R&B forum) "I Want Love" by Elton John. Remember that one? It came out in 2001. It sounds very unnatural and uncomfortable, doesn't it? That's compression at work. We have a whole generation or two of people who now think that music is supposed to sound highly compressed. They think louder is better. But, they can't tell you exactly why they get tired of hearing something so quickly. You think clipping compressed, EQ'ed sound was the worst? Try listening to an mp3 of that music! And listen to it though a cheap $8 pair of earbuds in an iPod. Auuugggg!!!!!! Horrible!

The problem I have with especially the BBR CD reissues is that, even if they sound a bit smooth, they have been subjected to compression/limiting to make them louder. C'mon! It's vintage recordings that may never be digitized again! Why f**k it up by compressing the shyt out of it? No wonder people are doing their own needledrops of old records!

[daddyacey]

"""No wonder people are doing their own needledrops of old records!"""
The over compression and poor mastering of some of the reissues are being produced by people with ears that are used to todays recordings ,not the sound of recordings from 20-30-40 years ago. The source material ,be it original 30 year master or clean vinyl dub is still a 30 year old recording of a recording made 30 years ago. It aint supposed to sound like a digital recording of today or even a anolog recording that was made with equipment 10 years after it was originally produced. We saw this same issue with "simulated stereo" versions of mono recordings in the late 50's early 60's. A joke.
The sound quality of a recording from a certain period is part of the flavor that makes a recording unique. An old 78 recoding is not going to sound any better than just that. The limitations and imperfections of the sound is part of the character of the recording. A piece of time frozen.
Seems to me that ,today they boost everything up in gain ,which also boost the noise in these recordings ,then attempt to digitally remove the noise ,which changes the originality of the recording. In addition the original EQ is altered by both the "Remastering/Digital Conversion" process and the playback equipment of today ,[[pre-amp and amp) ,perform way diferent than early "solid state" and tube systems of the era. Remember the "RIAA" curve????? They called it a standard. Where does that figure in the remaster/conversion process?
This is why I can identify with some peoples views on some reissue packages not being up to certain standards. It's just that some expect to hear them in a certain way ,or context. Some titles are not ever going to be given the "proper" processing onto CD because of money and the costs to produce quality audio and liner book/notes and the demand for certain titles may not be profitable. There's also the lost masters issue and legal issues. Thats where those needle drops come in. Clean original vinyl is the next best to a master. If anything you have an adjustment in EQ during recording ,or you can record flat and adjust EQ during playback.

[soulster]

Daddyacey,

The RIAA curve does not factor into this situation. That only applied to record cutting, and was never applied to the tapes. The curve was introduced to the cutting lathe electronics/computer.

Also, digital noise reduction, even though it has been abused in the past, is still used more carefully, but is not used to remove noise brought up by the compression.

Many people argue that it's OK to compress new recordings because of the "sound", but that's BS! They compress for one reason only...to make the CD louder. And, the reason they compress is out of FEAR! FEAR that people won't buy their music. For 30+ year-old recordings, I don't know what they have to fear. The audience that would buy the remasters are older and care less about their latest Eminem or beady Eye CD keeping up on their little iPods. Somehow, the producers and the record labels for reissues think they will somehow gain new, younger audiences if they can just make their CD louder. Two and a half years in, and they still haven't learned anything from the Beatles stereo remasters. Limit up to about 2-3db, and leave the rest of the sound alone! But, they still jack up the level by 6-8db, and it ruins the sound.

One individual here posted a couple of years ago that they release whatever makes the artist happy. Well, the problem is that the artists is a lousy judge of sound quality. A lot of them have tin ears.

[daddyacey]

Soulster--I understand your point. But I just can't ignore some other variables that I believe come into play on this issue. One being the compression , I agree "Limit up to about 2-3db, and leave the rest of the sound alone!" , but they don't. Two ,I believe the electronics of today have expansion built in to be compatable with the compression in the CD. The common playback hardware in electronic stores today have pre set levels instead of and unlike the flexability of say "component" systems [[receivers and intergrated amps) of those up to the late 70's and early 80's. They have pre set levels for "Pop" ,Rock ,Club ,Jazz etc. The sound from some of the smallest of radios and "combo units" is unreal in regards to sound output and quality ,all that Bass and Treble from a little box. That sh.. just aint natural. This started with the "boom boxes" and even the Bose radio systems sound un-natural for the size of them. If you want to have control of the sound in playback you have to shop in specialty stores that feature units like in the old days, pre amp ,amp and outboard EQ. Even the computers have 3 band EQ for those litlle speakers. 3 ,most of Joe Public ,non audiofiles ,listen through computer speakers ,headphones or buds and or souped up Home Theatre systems. They don't even have a phono input anymore.
As far as compressing new recordings are concerned ,I recently played a Public Enemy CD [[Black Planet, I was in one of those grooves that day:D) on my home system which has a 80's DBX surround unit that outputs to 3 intergrated amps for front ,rear and center and a sub woofer output which I have hooked to powered sub woofer. Next I put on DR DRE's CHRONIC , without changing the levels .............what a friging..difference. Bang Bang Bang ,bass up the a.. ,scared the mess out of me. That sh.. needed to be compressed , talk about uncut ,da-bomb ,but a bit much for this old dude. I find that to be the same with all the newer material CD's ,90's and up. It's overkill , sounds like it needs a 2 on it to me [[ala George Clinton) ,which brings me to the RIAA Curve of older recordings ,that I thought referred to an equalization playback setting. I will have to check that out. I remember seeing some vintage pre-amps back in the day with a setting for that.
Of the CD reissues that I was unhappy with ,one comes to mind right now ,that was the CLAUDINE/PIPE DREAMS reissue. The LP I have with a little gain from the mixer and some EQ sounds way better than that CD. There are a few more I can't think of right now but there are a lot more, more so domestic USA than import.

[soulster]

Two ,I believe the electronics of today have expansion built in to be compatable with the compression in the CD.

Actually, they don't, but they should. That's the main argument for boosting the loudness on CDs, so their newer CDs will be of same level as the reissues of older material. It's still a weak argument.


The common playback hardware in electronic stores today have pre set levels instead of and unlike the flexability of say "component" systems [[receivers and intergrated amps) of those up to the late 70's and early 80's.

They don't have expanders, as you mentioned above, but more compression! It's in the form of a limiter as I described in post #6. It makes the music sound worse! In HT components and cars, even on Windows Media Player, it's user selectable, but in things like iPods, it probably isn't. The average person doesn't even know the settings exist. Manufacturers tend to bury them.


They have pre set levels for "Pop" ,Rock ,Club ,Jazz etc. The sound from some of the smallest of radios and "combo units" is unreal in regards to sound output and quality ,all that Bass and Treble from a little box. That sh.. just aint natural.

I never use them. I play everything flat, with the tone controls turned off, and the loudness turned off. I want to hear the sound as it comes off the source. It sounds better that way.


They don't even have a phono input anymore.

Believe it or not, more manufacturers of good 'ol stereo gear are starting to put phono stages back in their receivers. But, what most audiophiles do is buy little phono preamp boxes that cost anywhere from about $100 on up. I use a little $175 Cambridge Audio 640p. It's highly regarded for having a very flat EQ curve, and a high quality sound. It accommodates either MM or MC carts. Many guys I know prefer tube preamps.


As far as compressing new recordings are concerned ,I recently played a Public Enemy CD [[Black Planet, I was in one of those grooves that day:D) on my home system which has a 80's DBX surround unit that outputs to 3 intergrated amps for front ,rear and center and a sub woofer output which I have hooked to powered sub woofer. Next I put on DR DRE's CHRONIC , without changing the levels .............what a friging..difference. Bang Bang Bang ,bass up the a.. ,scared the mess out of me. That sh.. needed to be compressed , talk about uncut ,da-bomb ,but a bit much for this old dude. I find that to be the same with all the newer material CD's ,90's and up. It's overkill , sounds like it needs a 2 on it to me [[ala George Clinton)

I would never compress anything in playback, but if I am working on a CD-R project, if I get a track that sounds incredibly thin and weak, I may use some EQ first.


,which brings me to the RIAA Curve of older recordings ,that I thought referred to an equalization playback setting. I will have to check that out. I remember seeing some vintage pre-amps back in the day with a setting for that.

When the RIAA curve is applied during cutting, the bass is cut and treble is boosted. The RIAA curve simply applies a inverse bass boost and treble cut. Sometimes, during the mixing stage, the engineer applied some compensatory EQ to guard against any perceived loss that happened with the vinyl playback. This is not done today. Cutting is handled by a computer. Remember seeing the little note on late 70s or early 80s Isley Brothers records that mentioned using the DiscComputer? That's what it was. It makes for a better cut, and is used universally today. In fact, in the early days of the CD age, many engineers still applied their little tweaks to the tapes during tracking and mixing to compensate for things like tape hiss and treble loss. That's why many CDs of older material have boosted treble on them. It was built in. If the CD engineer was smart, they'd dial all that back....if the instructions were on the tape box!


Of the CD reissues that I was unhappy with ,one comes to mind right now ,that was the CLAUDINE/PIPE DREAMS reissue.

I never heard it. What's the problem with it?

Sadly, I feel like there are only we three or four people watching this thread. It's a shame so few people care about sound quality anymore. I guess people would rather talk about what Diana Ross ate for lunch in October 1968.

[tom_moulton]

Hopefully they will wake up soon. I thought the big companies would when so many of their releases were bad mouthed as being to loud and distorted and they can't figure out why their sales are going down??????????????

[soulster]

Tom,

You know the big label guys, engineers, and PR people all read these music and audio forums. After almost a decade of overwhelming complaints and clues, you'd think they'd change. What's wrong with these people?

[JM27]

Ah, remasters, one of my pet hates. Nothing but a big con. There is no need for albums to be remastered by and large. Sure, I'll buy them if there's previously unreleased stuff on them but give me the original LP/CD releases. You're actually messing with the artist's/producer's vision - I've heard far too many remasters of 60s up to 80s stuff which has had ridiculous amounts of compression and EQ applied, not to mention being completely brickwalled. I've had people saying to me about a remaster "It's amazing, you can hear things that you couldn't in the original". Yeah, that's because it's been compressed so much - not a good thing at all.

Two main issues with remasters as far as I'm concerned. You can't always blame the remastering engineer as he's often following label orders. There are some who always seem to bypass this and whose remastering work I trust totally - Vic Anesini springs to mind. Secondly, I also know that the budget for remastering is very low. Many popular reissue labels will simply take anyone who offers to do it - and often that person is someone who thinks there's nothing to it and also "learnt" it off the internet in a few days. In my capacity as a producer, I've had to deal with these types! There is nothing more infuriating than seeing your work and a good mix ruined by someone who doesn't go by their ears in addition to having no real knowledge of the mastering process whatsoever. I occasionally master recordings and was meant to remaster a recent Prince related reissue - it would have been my first remastering. In the end, work commitments meant that I couldn't do it. Guess what kind of person stepped in to do it. Knowing the album inside out, there is no way that I would have been insensitive to the musical content. I also wouldn't have applied ridiculous amounts of compression - I believe that an album made in the past should not be subject to present day mastering "aesthetics", as that compromises the sound of the original album. Not enough people actually care about the music they're meant to be remastering, I feel.

[soulster]

Remasters aren't always a con, especially if you include audiophile labels like Mobile Fidelity and Audio Fidelity.

I know better than to blame the mastering engineer. Yes, they do follow orders...most of them do. Some are given a certain amount of freedom, particularly the freelance ones, like Bill Inglot, Steve Hoffman, Vic Anecini, and Joe Palmaccio. The people to blame are the reissue producers, the artists, and the record label, probably in that order.

If you're suggesting that labels go behind an ME's back and changes things, you're right. It happens quite a bit, but it's something the industry doesn't like to talk about. If someone wants those levels jacked up and compressed, they will get it, even if they have to fire up their copy of Sound Forge or Pro Tools at home on the laptop and do it.