# Remasters and Audiophoolery?



## ErinH

*Note: I posted this on caraudiojunkies.com a few weeks back and finally got around to porting it over here. For that reason, some of these posts were made up to 3 weeks ago and will explain some timeline things that seem odd. 



I find it hard to start this thread... I've attempted it a few times over the past few months but when I do I ultimately hit the "back" button and punt. This time, I'm gonna make an attempt at being coherent and short(ish) winded here. I have to give some credit to Jason B for me posting this. We had a convo yesterday and at some point I began telling him about my new Tears For Fears disc and that went on to me talking about the Steve Hoffman forum. He expressed interest in knowing a bit more about my whole 'process' here regarding the forum and discogs. I was going to just text him the site's but decided to sit down and really write this up last night instead. 

For as long as I can remember I've been a huge fan of music. Who isn't right? I mean, that's why we're all here. Everyone I know loves songs. But I sometimes feel like my love for music is more than just a love for "songs". This hobby at times clouds my passion for just enjoying the music. After last weekend's show (The Vinny MECA comp) my passion for listening to music was reignited by all the awesome systems I heard. It turned that spark back on for me.


Now, here's where I'm gonna skip all the mooshy talk and get right to the good stuff.

We as audionuts often find ourselves entrenched in gear swapping. However, my gear swapping has rarely been with the hope of a gain in sonic bliss. Rather it was done out of necessity... you know... I just needed to do something. Idle hands and whatnot. I never really get in to the "amplifier sounds" or "DAC sounds" side of things even though I do believe there are legitimate points to be made. An extreme example would be tube amps not being able to drive a complex load loudspeaker as well as a solid state amplifier. 

Enter, the plight of album masters. Even though I'm not a gung-ho equipment sonics guy, I do believe there are differences in the source material that can often lead one to hear different things by simply swapping the disc for another of the same name but different release date or country it's released to. The most obvious example would be something like a common-day Remaster where an album with previously high dynamic range has been brickwalled to satisfy the 'loudness wars'. We know this scenario all too well by now (if you don't, here you go). 

*However, dynamic range aside, there are many cases where an album/disc may be flat out mastered differently.* I ran in to a fine example of this some years back when I was researching Dire Straits' _Brothers In Arms_ Mobile Fidelity Soundlabs remaster (note: herein Mobile Fidelity Soundlabs will be referred to as "MoFi"). There were some fellas on a recording/engineer forum, Steve Hoffman Music Forums, discussing the difference in mastering between the MoFi (SACD/CD Hybrid) version and the original album release. Some presenting their case for why the MoFi version is superior and others stating their fondness for the original. Ultimately, totally subjective opinions on which they liked the best. So, naturally I'm thinking it's all conjecture... typical crazy audiophile talk. Until I saw that someone actually provided proof there is indeed a difference between the two versions beyond just the loudness wars aspect. Below are two screengrabs provided in the discussion of the proof. You'll see the delta illustrates the frequency response differences between the two. Actual, objective and quantifiable difference in two different versions of the same original source material. 






You can see from the above that one version of "So Far Away" (I believe it was the SACD version) has a +4dB bump at 80hz and some dips in the higher frequency end. Right. So definitely a case for audible differences. 



That opened my eyes... the argument that one album can sound different from another of the same title is totally plausible and isn't just audiophoolery. Since then I've cruised that forum countless times before purchasing a CD looking for tips on which version of an album I should buy. To give a pretty typical example consider an album with (3) different versions: 1) the original 1985 US Pressing, 2) the original 1985 Japan master, and 3) the 2010 remaster. Sometimes the consensus is the Japanese master is the better version and sometimes not. When there's a new mix provided there will be discussion comparing the new mix vs some of the previous. Usually objective data comparing track vs track is provided to illustrate differences. But, over time I've learned to trust these guys at their word on the 'fact' there is an audible difference between the versions being discussed. 

Another further example is a 2014 remaster of Tears For Fears' Songs From The Big Chair. I recently purchased this mix and compared it to my MoFi version. I'm told the MoFi version is in many ways similar to the original with some key differences. The thing that stood out to me about the 2014 release is how much more defined the transients were. I thought that odd... figured I was tricking myself in to hearing things. But, lo and behold, I found this interview and subsequent quote from Steven Wilson, the guy who remixed the album off the original analog recordings, discussing the differences between his mix and the original and I realized that what I heard was likely due to this:


Steven Wilson said:


> It’s a matter of taste whether it sounds better than the original mix,” he says. “More clarity in places perhaps, but the original mix is great and definitive, so I would say the new mix just sounds different, not better. However, one thing that does differ very slightly to the original is that I backed off some of the extreme use of reverb on some mix elements. The trend in the mid 80’s was definitely to have everything bathed in massive arena-sized reverbs, and I certainly have not changed that approach or the overall sound world of the album, which is supposed to sound huge and epic after all. It’s more a subtle tweak that just gives the impression of the instruments and vocals being slightly more present or “up front” in places.


If you read the whole article above you'll also find some neat info about how "Shout" was basically put out with reversed stereo. The new mix got it right based on how the musician played the toms; the original version was incorrectly swapped. 




While we all understand that remixes can and often do sound different for some obviously audible reasons, there are cases where the changes are much more subtle. Furthermore (and most importantly to me) is the fact there even released versions of a disc put out in the same year sound different depending on the market (the US vs Japan example I gave above). 

Like I said, before I get ready to purchase a CD I'll spend some time doing some research on the better options. For example, before I purchased Michael Jackson's _Thriller_, I wanted to determine just which version I should get. I already had the remasters but felt like I could get something better. I go to Steve Hoffman Music Forums and search for "Thriller" and read and read... sometimes the threads are short and sometimes they are long and there's tons of them. As you can imagine, Thriller has a lot of threads discussing it. Once I determined that catalog number EK38112 was the one to get, I went shopping. I buy used albums/discs from discogs.com. Discogs is an _incredible_ source for used/new media. I've purchased the majority of my music through them then I'll resell it on eBay once I've ripped it to my computer (lossless format). All these darn "Erin's Mix" CDs I give out at meets and whatnot are almost entirely comprised of original pressings that I sourced through discogs... and I put a lot of effort in to finding the "best" versions of the albums through the SteveHoffman forum. So if you have one of those meet discs, just know that I put serious effort in to making it a good disc. It's the first time I'm telling this out loud ... and subsequently giving away my insider info.  

Now, you would think that a lot of these "best" versions would cost quite a bit given some of their age (remember, I am more fond of 80's pop/rock than I am anything else) but mostly I find the used CDs are <$10 shipped in mint or very good condition. That's not bad, considering. Of course, if you want Madonna's self-titled German-master then you're gonna pay a bit. 
But, I digress. A lot of the 90's era rock/alternative stuff I was in to typically stays under the $10 target as well with an occassional oddity (typically cult classics or rarities such as Matchbox 20's Yourself Or Someone Like You LP that continually goes for $300+ (seriously, I love MB20 but I would have never expected their LP to go for so dang much!... did you notice the Mint condition for $750?!).





So that's it... my tip for sourcing the best albums of a given artist/title I can is simple but sometimes involves a bit of work to weed through specific catalog numbers to make sure I'm getting the 'correct' version. This may seem silly to some. That's cool. But I rather enjoy it. 

Just for kicks, I snapped some pictures of a few of my favorite purchases. These are all original pressings. Tears For Fears' _Hurting_ is a West German 'Atomic' pressing. Songs From The Big Chair is my 1985 US Pressing. The Wang Chung album is a Japanese pressing. And finally, rounding out my quad that I refuse to sell is Michael Jackson's _Thriller_ original 1982 US Pressing (EK38112). 















and my parting shot of my silly collection of SFTBP (I don't have the physical CD version of the MoFi version):


----------



## ErinH

I'm gonna give another example, real time, about my 'process' here. I may be making too big a deal about said 'process' but it kind of gives a clearer example to the ADHD above.


Last night I was listening to Apple Music's mix playlist of 80's hits and George Michaels' "Faith" came on. I flat out just _dig this song_. Side note: if you haven't noticed it, the intro to "Faith" has a throwback to GM/Wham's "Freedom" song via pipe organ.
















Now, I already have a ripped version of the original US album but it got me curious if there may be a different version or two out there that might be noticeably different. So I pull up the Steve Hoffman forum and do a search. I get quite a few hits. Notably these:
Sound Quality/Production on George Michael's First Two Solo Albums | Page 2 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums
George Michael: Faith [CD/DVD] Special Edition due Sept 2010 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums

The first discusses the SQ of GM's first two albums and the latter discusses the 2010 Remaster release. I do a bit of digging in the threads and find that for the original release, the preferred versions are 32•8P-231 (original Japanese pressing) and the original US version (catalog number/barcode number CK 40867/074644086720).

As for the 2010 remaster, it's received pretty well. I didn't find a consensus on the remaster being excellent but just some posts here and there saying they liked it. So... yea. 

With all that said, buy the one that fits your needs best. I wound up getting the Japanese pressing for about $8 shipped (it was the last one they had at that price).



The cool part about doing this process is the other things you run in to. For example, I found this article discussing the recording of the album that was really quite cool:
Classic Tracks: George Michael â€˜Faithâ€™ | Sound On Sound

And if you read through the 2010 Remaster thread linked above you'll find all sorts of little nuggets. For example, this post:
George Michael: Faith [CD/DVD] Special Edition due Sept 2010 | Page 10 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums


----------



## ErinH

a new discovery for me...

I'm a fan of Madonna. Her singles that were played on the radio back when I was a kid were and have always been 'fun' to me. I've used her song "Live to Tell" from the greatest hits album _The Immaculate Collection_ (TIC for short) on a few of my demo discs because of the large sense of space in the recording. I noticed the track doesn't sound the same on the album it was originally in: _True Blue_. Now I know why...


I got to researching her music and found out TIC was remastered in Q-Sound and I found this blurb on the SH forum which came from allmusic.com:


> Everything on the collection is remastered in Q-sound, which gives an exaggerated sense of stereo separation that often distorts the original intent of the recordings.


*So that would explain why I hear a difference in that track and others on TIC vs the original album versions*, beyond the obvious remixing of sounds and track lengths. Just another example of how re-releases, greatest hits, etc tracks can be different from their originals.





For those who don't know, Q-Sound I pulled this from their site (http://www.qsound.com/):
"QSound’s proprietary audio algorithms truly deliver a fuller, more natural and immersive audio experience - users hear the difference!!"

Wiki link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSound#Selected_albums_.22mixed_in_QSound.22

As far as I can tell, the Q-Sound purpose is to basically emulate surround sound, of sorts. Apparently some recording engineers hate it, judging by this thread started by Steve Hoffman himself:
"Q Sound", make it stop already!!! | Steve Hoffman Music Forums

For those interested, here's a list of Artists who use QSound in their recordings:
Who's Using QSound Audio Technology: Recording Artists A - D

That list doesn't appear to be complete, however, because this link shows others that aren't on the list above. For example, Michael Jackson's _Dangerous_... another track that I like to use for the sense of space (the beginning guitar riff sounds WAY out there). Makes sense now that I know how it was mixed. 
Further discussion regarding this album's original 1991 release vs the 2001 Special Edition release here: Best Sounding Michael Jackson Dangerous CD 1991 vs 2001 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums


Alright... brain dump off.


----------



## ErinH

keeping this going...


I'm a huge fan of Matchbox Twenty (or Matchbox 20, depending on what year you're talking about ). I have been since I heard "Push" off their first Album _Yourself or Someone Like You_. But they really got their claws in me when I heard "Real World" for the first time. I bought the CD that day and it was the only CD I took with me on my trip to Europe that summer. I never got sick of it. 

I have lots of great memories shared with their various albums over the years. The first concert my wife and I went to turned out to be the night they were filming their DVD "Show". So that was a really great time and helluva show. 



I recently found a Japanese CD pressing of _Yourself or Someone Like You_, catalog # AMCY-2325, on eBay which I haven't seen before. Knowing how expensive this album can be (seriously, the LP sells for $350 (used) to as much as $750 (new)!) I decided to go ahead and buy this CD and see if it had a different or better master than the one I already owned. I didn't realize it when I ordered it but it turns out it's a Japanese Sample which are provided to radio stations and are not meant to be sold. There's actually a collector's market for these. Being the fan I am, I find it really cool that I inadvertently found one. Some people call it fate. LOL.


I ripped the disc using Exact Audio Copy (EAC) as I do with all these albums and then ran it through the Dynamic Range Database's (DRDB) Dynamic Range (DR) scanner. This does what you probably think it does: scans your songs and provides you the dynamic range information that you see on the DRDB site. You can download the tool for the PC/Mac via the "links" button at the top right of the DRDB site page. I posted a link to the DRDB results for this album here:
Album details - Dynamic Range Database

Which you can compare to the original version here:
Album details - Dynamic Range Database


Though, my DRDB results yield similar results to the others already posted there, it does seem mine has ever-so-slightly more DR on the majority of tracks (by about 1dB if that). I also did some spectrum comparisons between the Japanese disc and the US version I have. I compared "Real World" and "Back 2 Good" and at most, the difference was about 0.1dB and typically above 10khz. I found that interesting, but not convincing enough to think that this may just be pressing differences and not at all related to the mastering process. So, basically, I wasted $30 trying to get a 'better' version of the disc but ultimately I got a Japanese Sample which has a market in it's own right. Kind of cool!





I did a high quality scan of the cover at work so I can have the Japanese OBI* as part of the cover for my album art instead of the standard album cover. I also scanned the disc to show you what I mean about it being a Sample. Look at the inner ring and you'll see "Sample" written on it.
*Note: OBI is the insert that is slipped in the CD wrapper on the left of the CD case. The Japanese CDs with the OBI usually run a bit more than the ones without simply because they're a collector's piece as well. 


Cover in the CD case:




Cover without case:





Disc:


----------



## ErinH

just to show what I mean about why I scanned the album cover with the OBI, this is what I see when I play this on my iPhone:








As opposed to this:







I just plain think it's cool to see the Japanese strip on the side. I know, I know... nerd status.


----------



## ErinH

alright, you Rage Against the Machine fans...

Stop what you're doing _now_. Buy this album:
https://audiofidelity.net/product/rage-against-machine-rage-against-machine













Yes, it's SACD. *BUT* it's Hybrid SACD which means it has two layers: one SACD and one audio CD. *This means it will play on regular CD players as well.* 



This came out in June and I had no idea until recently. I finally ordered it last week and have been listening to it back and forth over the weekend compared to the original and I have to say I _love_ this version. This one is more dynamic than the original album and is less bright on the top end. It sounds _incredible_. Steve Hoffman, the dude who owns the forum I've linked and discussed in my OP is the dude who remastered this album and he did a heck of a job. You can find discussion here: 
Rage Against The Machine self-titled album on stereo SACD by Audio Fidelity mastered by SH coming | Steve Hoffman Music Forums

He said this:


Steve Hoffman said:


> I enjoyed mastering this.
> 
> DSD right from the September, 1992 original analog masters from Quantum Sound Studios, Jersey City, NJ!





Here's the DRDB info for the various S/T albums:
Album list - Dynamic Range Database

Look at how this Rage Against The Machine (Hybrid SACD, CD Layer) version rates higher than any of the other CDs; about 2dB better than the original disc. 
*Especially note how bad the DR of the "HD Tracks" version is... Looks like it is the same version as the 2012 20th anniversary release that is brick walked to hell). that really bucks the notion that the HDTracks 24-bit stuff is the absolute best in every case, but that's a different post for a later time.

If the link above is out of stock, I advise you look at eBay or Discogs. If you're a die-hard RATM like I am, this is a no-excuses-must-own version. This was a limited, numbered run of 5000 copies and I'm not sure that Audio Fidelity will do another run. I'm considering buying a backup copy just to keep as a collector's edition.


----------



## ErinH

I make my discs with music I like and I try my best to find the highest quality/best remasters of them. I know a lot of the 'audiophile' mixes have stuff I just plain don't listen to. Others might, but it's not my preferred music. I figure if I put music on that I enjoy then maybe others will dig a few of the tracks as well. Most of the stuff is 80's but some of it is newer. It's a pretty wide variety. 

The way I pick the songs is to simply keep a 'note' on my iPhone that I update as I hear or think of a song that would be fun to put on a demo disc. Right now I've got a lot of tracks ready for my next meet disc. Some I've used before but they are different masters. For example, "Take the Power Back" by RATM. I've been using that for years (2008 at my first GTG) and have found a lot of people using it as well. With the new remaster I posted about above, I'll probably either put that track on my new one or pick a different one off that album.

Same thing goes for the latest CD I bought: The Cars - Heartbeat City, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Hybrid SACD version. It came out in July, I believe and I just got it Monday. So far, I'm really happy with the purchase. I'll probably use either "Drive" or "You Might Think", both of which I've used in the past but this version is different enough to warrant re-using them. 
https://www.musicdirect.com/store/the-cars-heartbeat-city-numbered-limited-edition-hybrid-sacd

Basically, if it's on my disc, it's something I'm digging at the time either because it's new to me or I have 'rediscovered' it and I try to use the best version of whatever song it is that I can find. I really do put a lot of effort in to making my discs... song choice wise I know people don't dig them all but my goal is to provide the best version they could possibly hear.



Edit: Had a couple PM's asking for a copy of my meet discs. I used to post them up here for people to download but I don't do that anymore. I only give those discs out at the meet in person now for a few reasons. It just kind of keeps the meet a bit more 'personal', if that makes sense. Plus, I don't like the idea of charging people for music I didn't make... I just put the songs together on a disc as a 'sampler' of sorts."


----------



## ErinH

erinh said:


> Same thing goes for the latest CD I bought: The Cars - Heartbeat City, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Hybrid SACD version. It came out in July, I believe and I just got it Monday. So far, I'm really happy with the purchase. I'll probably use either "Drive" or "You Might Think", both of which I've used in the past but this version is different enough to warrant re-using them.
> https://www.musicdirect.com/store/the-cars-heartbeat-city-numbered-limited-edition-hybrid-sacd



I finally got some time to listen to this album last night. 













My family went to bed and I have been sitting on the couch in the dark listening to this on my iPod through my IEM's and am in auditory nirvana. Lol.

This is an incredible remaster. I have the original version in ALAC and compared the two. I don't think the new SACD is necessarily light years ahead but goodness, it's certainly better, IMHO. Everything about it sounds so dang good. I'm not in the industry at all. I don't know all the terms (heck, I had to google remaster vs remix earlier when I was talking to Chad just to make sure I knew the difference when Chad asked me about the disc). But I do really appreciate music and the way that the nostalgia of it can really put a smile on my face. So here's my humble-enthusiast take on this remaster.

The bass lines are sharp and defined. Kick drums have great impact at varying volume levels. I hear distinct separation in instruments and an expanded soundstage ... (Maybe one of these aspects has improved and causing me to feel the other has as well. Either way, that's the impression I'm left with.).

Take, for instance, "Magic". The panning effects at the beginning define the acoustic boundary. The kick comes in and sounds smooth. Bass pluck is crisp and defined (I will say that in my head I would imagine the kick drum should sound louder than the bass guitar but it doesn't on the track and I'm probably wrong for this assumption anyway). Ric's little click-clock sound with his mouth at ~1 minute mark pans out wide on the left and is a cool example of the little extras I enjoy in music. Tons of layering effects throughout that really set the imaging cues to make the stage seem large.

Just really cool stuff here. I'm digging the heck out of this album. It sounds so good that even the songs I didn't necessarily care for have gotten multiple plays tonight.


Edit: Bill, if you're reading this, you need to buy this album!


----------



## ErinH

ErinH said:


> Look at how this Rage Against The Machine (Hybrid SACD, CD Layer) version rates higher than any of the other CDs; about 2dB better than the original disc.
> *Especially note how bad the DR of the "HD Tracks" version is... Looks like it is the same version as the 2012 20th anniversary release that is brick walked to hell). that really bucks the notion that the HDTracks 24-bit stuff is the absolute best in every case, but that's a different post for a later time.



So now it's a later time and I'm ready for a different post.

As I said above, it's often assumed that HDTracks.com has the best versions one can get of an album but this isn't always the case. For evidence, just look at the DRDB results for the RATM S/T album. 

Original 1992:
Album details - Dynamic Range Database


2012 anniversary reissue:
Album details - Dynamic Range Database


HDTracks 24-bit:
Album details - Dynamic Range Database


2016 remaster (SACD/CD Hybrid):
Album details - Dynamic Range Database


You can clearly tell the HDTracks version is just the 20th anniversary release. It's actually 3dB _LOWER_ than the original album. And 5dB _lower_ than the new remaster. Those who spent $20 on that download wasted their money, IMHO. You paid for a 24-bit version of a really compressed remaster. You'd have been better off just keeping the original disc in it's "inferior" 16-bit state. 




However, on the other hand, I purchased a Matchbox Twenty's _North_ album from HDTracks because it's about 4dB more dynamic than the CD. Here's the proof:
Album list - Dynamic Range Database

As you can see, the HDTracks version is about 4dB more dynamic than the original CD pressing. 


Those are just two examples, then. As you can imagine, HDTracks is hit or miss as far as getting the best quality version of an album.

I'm telling you guys, when it comes to that site it really behooves you to do some research. Even just a quick search on the DRDB site can save you money. I found that out the hard way.

You expect something when you buy from them. But that's not always what you get. It's not necessarily their fault, per se. It's just... Maybe a bit disingenuous. But now you've been warned...


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Damn, you're tempting me with that RATM remaster. I've been looking for an original copy of the vinyl release as its more dynamic than the original cd. But it appears the new remaster falls right in between.


----------



## ErinH

Do it man. But hurry! I have a feeling Ina year or two it's gonna be pretty expensive. 

The increased dynamics over the original is very nice. I'll do some spectrum comparisons later if I remember.


----------



## dgage

I like music but you make me feel like I hate it as I'm not in the same state of your love for music. But interesting read and thanks for putting it together. As a corollary, at the Data-bass forums, we look at the audio of movie soundtracks and it is so annoying how much the audio can differ on similar movies. Some clipped, some with filtered bass, just not consistent.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

ErinH said:


> Do it man. But hurry! I have a feeling Ina year or two it's gonna be pretty expensive.
> 
> The increased dynamics over the original is very nice. I'll do some spectrum comparisons later if I remember.


I think I will. I'll keep looking for the record, but at least I'll have this if I can't find it.

On a side note, this is my kind of thread.


----------



## ErinH

dgage said:


> I like music but you make me feel like I hate it as I'm not in the same state of your love for music.


haha. I think all of us here love music. Otherwise, I don't think we would be doing what we do. But I definitely enjoy the history and evolution of some of my faves.




TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> I think I will. I'll keep looking for the record, but at least I'll have this if I can't find it.


Yea, I'm surprised Audio Fidelity has it in stock still since it seems like everyone else is sold out. They must've held on to a large quantity for themselves before selling the rest off to vendors like Amazon, MusicDirect, etc. I picked mine up via a seller on discogs sealed for about $30. I suspect these will be a collector's item in the future. Heck, if Toto's IV MFSL disc can go for $300 on eBay...





TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> On a side note, this is my kind of thread.


Sweet! 

I've really been 'over' car audio for a while now... I've only had a working system for 2 weeks out of the past year now (1 week for finals, 1 week for the Spring NC meet). Just lack of interest and motivation to get it up and running. Once it cools off I plan on knocking out this latest install and then get down to enjoying tunes in the car again. I find it much more fun to research various albums and the history behind them. For example, I came across this last night which is really cool...

Why Oasis' _What's the Story Morning Glory?_ is compressed all to heck as told by the guy who was put to the task of re-mastering the album:


> _The Oasis re-issues are pretty much exactly like the 1/2" master tapes are.....I was compressing very heavily as a definite artistic decision: it was more about trying to imply noise and power rather than worrying about competing with better recorded music. And a lot of the mixing on Def maybe and Morning Glory was about hiding the not so great playing (by certain members), so the "compressed mush" was actually essential in my opinion. It was about delivery the songs, Liam's vocals etc as best as possible, given the general overall ineptness of the backing tracks and sonic production.
> _



There's a smaller interview here with a little bit more info on Owen's experience re-mastering the album:
Owen Morris: How I mastered Morning Glory | Oasis Recording Information


In short, if you like that album but you want a more dynamic version you're SOL unless you get the 5 channel downmix (which sounds a bit different).




This is the kind of stuff I dig. I find it fun and interesting and that's why I wanted to share. Glad that you and hopefully others enjoy it, too.


----------



## Zippy

I had come across that site years ago and didn't think to bookmark it. It's bookmarked now. Thanks for posting this article up Erin. Phenomenal amount of thought and research here for all to pa ruse.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Lol, $300 for that TOTO record isn't even bad. I've wanted the original, non-bootleg Tool Aenima record for a while. I haven't seen a USED condition copy in good enough condition to buy for less than $400. The one and only copy of the vinyl release of Hell Freezes Over I've seen for sale went for $2000.


I have one to add to this thread, probably next week, as a buddy borrowed my copy. It's metal, but it clearly shows 3 different masterings that were released. 

Lamb of God originally released Wrath on cd, and on a special edition called the producers cut, that included a second cd with the guitar tracks, drum tracks, bass tracks, and vocal tracks all separated and put onto cd as 192k mp3. The idea was to let people mix their own versions. Later on, they released a vinyl box set with Wrath included. Since no one has uploaded the vinyl version to the dynamic range database, I ripped my copy. And I'll mix the producers version next weekend when I get my copy back.

But,

The cd has the lowest dynamic range.

The record is better, enough to be noticeable, although it was recorded a little quietly, so noise is higher than I'd like.

Mixing the separate tracks from the producers cut yields the highest dynamic range, enough to be noticeable above the record, and without the background noise of the vinyl rip.


----------



## garysummers

Thriller | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads
Buy this one then compare to the others you have. Would be very interested in your findings. Multiple formats available. If anything the advances in Analog to Digital conversion have greatly improved since the original release.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Gary, that appears to be the original cd release, or at least mastered as well as it. The original vinyl release appears to be just a tad more dynamic, but everything released after aside from the dsd and hdtracks releases are worse than the cd.

Album list - Dynamic Range Database


----------



## garysummers

Dynamic range, while important, is only one indicator of the quality of a master. While I don't want to get this thread derailed, comparing the "Thriller" best vinyl master to the best 16/44.1 CD to the HD tracks 24/88k download could prove interesting.


----------



## ErinH

garysummers said:


> Dynamic range, while important, is only one indicator of the quality of a master. While I don't want to get this thread derailed, comparing the "Thriller" best vinyl master to the best 16/44.1 CD to the HD tracks 24/88k download could prove interesting.


Agreed. I stated this in my OP and I really don't want it to be missed:


ErinH said:


> *However, dynamic range aside, there are many cases where an album/disc may be flat out mastered differently. *I ran in to a fine example of this some years back when I was researching Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms Mobile Fidelity Soundlabs remaster (note: herein Mobile Fidelity Soundlabs will be referred to as "MoFi"). There were some fellas on a recording/engineer forum, Steve Hoffman Music Forums, discussing the difference in mastering between the MoFi (SACD/CD Hybrid) version and the original album release. Some presenting their case for why the MoFi version is superior and others stating their fondness for the original. Ultimately, totally subjective opinions on which they liked the best. So, naturally I'm thinking it's all conjecture... typical crazy audiophile talk. Until I saw that someone actually provided proof there is indeed a difference between the two versions beyond just the loudness wars aspect. Below are two screengrabs provided in the discussion of the proof. You'll see the delta illustrates the frequency response differences between the two. Actual, objective and quantifiable difference in two different versions of the same original source material.



There are certainly audible differences with dynamic range being better on one version of an album vs another but there are also very clearly differences beyond just that. Better separation in the album via a new mix, a different sound due to a different EQ like the differences exhibited in the OP with the Dire Straits original vs SACD CD layer spectrum comparisons.


So again, while DR can be an indicator of the difference in a master it isn't the only thing that can be different. There are legitimate differences between masters in many of these cases and that can drive how much you like or dislike a particular version as much as the DR factor.


----------



## Zippy

Not to derail things, but a CD I have loved for years is not on the list. It's in my top 10 of all times for sure. Here's a link to it on Amazon for an insanely low price.

Hiroshima - Between Black and White


----------



## j4gates

Sitting here listening to This Will Destroy You (TWDY) wondering if there is a "cleaner" version and I start reading this thread. Great info Erin. You do a great job capturing the essence of the hunt for better sound...whether through the equipment we buy, the install techniques, or the source material. Thanks for taking the time to put all your thoughts down for consumption...and for not punting this time.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

garysummers said:


> Dynamic range, while important, is only one indicator of the quality of a master. While I don't want to get this thread derailed, comparing the "Thriller" best vinyl master to the best 16/44.1 CD to the HD tracks 24/88k download could prove interesting.


I completely understand. I guess I'm more wary of HDTracks, as I've purchased a few albums there only to find they were just hi-res copies of the cd masters without anything else seemingly done to them. 

That said, if anyone has the original cd and the hdtracks, I can supply a vinyl rip from a played once original vinyl pressing to compare.


----------



## Hoptologist

j4gates said:


> Sitting here listening to This Will Destroy You (TWDY)



Nice, they're great, as well as Explosions in the Sky.


----------



## PPI_GUY

Goodness, this thread is right up my OCD alley. I say that because I would love to always know which version of an album to purchase instead of having multiple copies of the same thing laying around. I'd like to see a list of what are generally considered the "reference" versions of popular and highly sought after recordings. 

Before I knew anything about "the loudness wars" and disparities in DR from one recording to another, I stumbled onto exactly what is being discussed here. See, I had owned my original CD pressing of Pink Floyd's Animals for quite a while. This is my fav PF album and I had probably picked it up back in the 80's in one of those fantastic "long boxes" of that era. Anyway, I had purchased the PF "Shine On" box set in the 90's and never really listened to it as I wanted to preserve it as much as possible. On a cold, boring Sunday one Winter I decided to listen to the Shine On version of Animals. It was immediately and readily apparent that there was a major difference in the mix. The original had always sounded muddy and somewhat dull for lack of a better word. The newer Shine On version was much more "alive" and spacious. The drums presented more clarity and kick. There seemed to be more "space" between the notes than on the original. I won't say it was like hearing the album for the first time but, there was a lot being presented on the newer mix I hadn't heard before. 

These are just the observations of an amateur, certainly not as experienced a listener as ErinH so, if I could notice a substantial difference in two different versions of the same album, it's certainly more than a subjective thing. 

And why not really? Think about it. Two different engineers or even the same engineer at two different points in his life. You're bound to get different results.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

3 weeks late, but here it is. 

This is 3 different versions of Grace from Lamb Of God's album, Wrath. The first picture is the CD and Vinyl rip loaded into audacity. The second picture is the vinyl rip and the producers cd version loaded into audacity.


----------



## slain93gsr

awesome thread... thanks OP for posting your findings and feedback...


----------



## bbfoto

Bumping this great thread. Thanks for taking the time to post all of this Erin (and the other contributors as well)! Yup, we're obviously all here because we love ze music. 

I've been wanting to tackle a similar thread about this stuff and expand on it a little further for a long time. But like Erin, I've found it really difficult to just take the time to sit down and dig into this deep, seemingly endless topic...so again, mad props for that, Erin! :thumbsup:

I also kind of have a big bone to pick with HDtracks. I honestly feel that they are doing the "Hi-Res" industry, themselves, and their customers a great disservice by offering (and charging for) a lot of very mediocre-quality downloads that are basically just "copies" of some of the poor, existing CD releases.

So Yeah, as Erin and others state, do A LOT of research before blindly spending extra $$ thinking that the HDtracks versions *must be* the best available quality recording for a particular album release. A great deal of their offerings are no better, and in some cases worse, than what you can find on a Redbook CD or SACD release for less money.

On the other hand, as Gary Summers noted, HDtracks does offer quite a large selection of high-quality releases that are from original Hi-Res masters, or that have been painstakingly remastered for better SQ, and are not found anywhere else, or at least not without spending an exorbitant amount of time and money to acquire otherwise.

I think that just one of the things that Gary alluded to regarding the MJ Thriller release available on HDtracks (besides Dynamic Range), is that the modern equipment that is available and used in the mix and mastering process and the signal chain has improved substantially from the time when these albums were first recorded and mastered.

So as long as those original master recordings were not compromised in the initial tracking process, a good mix or mastering engineer today has a much more extensive and higher-quality set of tools to work with to create a better result.

But some tracking/mix engineers were and are known for "their sound". Sometimes they would "commit to tape" a partular sound character or EFX during the initial tracking/recording process. Sometimes this was at the request of the actual artist, or maybe their producer, or just the engineer's individual decision to use heavy Compression or Limiting, or excessive EQ to put his/her stamp on the result. Sometimes they would combine separate vocal and/or instrument tracks to a single channel, for a "locked-in" effect or just because they didn't have enough available channels on the mixing desk to mix them separately. Or perhaps they didn't have enough outboard EFX units to do an individual EFX Aux send & return for each channel from the board, so they would be forced into a compromise of mixing-down several tracks to a single channel in order to apply compression for instance. In this case an engineer is somewhat hog-tied and there is a definite limitation as to what he or she can do to improve the mix or master.

On to more of what *I think* Gary was getting at regarding Modern Remastering:

This may be primarily in regards to the current quality and proper use of modern ADC equipment (Analog-to-Digital Conversion), especially when remastering from original analog master tapes. I think that most engineers will agree that the quality of the ADC even in today's entry-level and mid-level "Home Project Studio" audio recording interfaces are on par (and sometimes better) than *a lot* of the ADC's that were available in the mid-80's to mid-90's. There are obviously exceptions, such as the iZ/Creation Technologies "RADAR" (Random Access Digital Audio Recorder) system from 1993 that is still quite highly-regarded as being one of the more "musical" sounding ADCs. But overall, I think that especially within the last 5-8 years or so, Analog-to-Digital Conversion, and of course the DAC as well, have evolved to a higher-quality level as a whole.

In addition, engineers now are much more experienced and comfortable with the proper use & implementation of digital technology, which includes a somewhat different gain-staging approach, etc, as opposed to when this digital technology had just arrived and many misunderstood or sometimes dismissed it altogether. So you had this inconsistency in the engineering community as to the methods and approach used to create the final product. Some engineers had adjusted and were producing and mixing appropriately for the new technology, while others were not. Also, there was (and obviously still is) a special mastering method required for vinyl releases as opposed to CD mastering.

Studio Compressor-Limiters have also advanced by leaps and bounds in quality and the ability for fine adjustments for attack & release times, special alogrithms, and other fine adjustment parameters, which allow the use of "effective" compression with much less degradation to the dynamics and musicality of the original audio signal.

Reverb & Delay plug-in's and outboard gear is exponentially more powerful and more natural sounding than ever before as well. I'm currently using the Bricasti M7 and it is mind-bogglingly good!

Just the fact that nearly everyone is using incredibly powerful DAWs now is game-changing. Along with the amazing power that's built into the DAW, there are also A LOT of amazing EQ, Phase & Time Correction, FR Band Isolation/Extraction, Spacial Enhancement, and other tools available now as both digital plug-ins (VST and convolution) and physical outboard hardware equipment that were not available when a lot of these recordings were produced. All of this is much like the great advancements in recent years with Car Audio DSPs. 


Anyway, I'm rambling now! TL;DR...All of this equates to mastering engineers having a much more extensive and powerful toolset available now to create a higher quality outcome. Yes, there is also the problem that this equipment is much more attainable to the everyday Joe at a fairly reasonable entry point, so there may be that many more "hacks" out there that don't have a deep understanding of what they are doing. But generally you find out fairly quickly who does and does not know what they are doing, and engineers have their network of close colleagues and friends they trust for referrals.

L8r!

P.S. Yeah, Discogs is an awesome resource for detailed information about the many different releases available. I have used Discogs for years just to find and download good album art and liner notes! And the Steve Hoffman site...it's a quite dedicated group of gentlemen there that are at least as passionate as we are, and with some excellent inside information. There are a few other good resources such as YouTube channels that I will post later as well...getting late and I've got an early day tomorrow!


----------



## ErinH

RIP George Michael. This quote/bump is for you!




ErinH said:


> I'm gonna give another example, real time, about my 'process' here. I may be making too big a deal about said 'process' but it kind of gives a clearer example to the ADHD above.
> 
> 
> Last night I was listening to Apple Music's mix playlist of 80's hits and George Michaels' "Faith" came on. I flat out just _dig this song_. Side note: if you haven't noticed it, the intro to "Faith" has a throwback to GM/Wham's "Freedom" song via pipe organ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I already have a ripped version of the original US album but it got me curious if there may be a different version or two out there that might be noticeably different. So I pull up the Steve Hoffman forum and do a search. I get quite a few hits. Notably these:
> Sound Quality/Production on George Michael's First Two Solo Albums | Page 2 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums
> George Michael: Faith [CD/DVD] Special Edition due Sept 2010 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums
> 
> The first discusses the SQ of GM's first two albums and the latter discusses the 2010 Remaster release. I do a bit of digging in the threads and find that for the original release, the preferred versions are 32•8P-231 (original Japanese pressing) and the original US version (catalog number/barcode number CK 40867/074644086720).
> 
> As for the 2010 remaster, it's received pretty well. I didn't find a consensus on the remaster being excellent but just some posts here and there saying they liked it. So... yea.
> 
> With all that said, buy the one that fits your needs best. I wound up getting the Japanese pressing for about $8 shipped (it was the last one they had at that price).
> 
> 
> 
> The cool part about doing this process is the other things you run in to. For example, I found this article discussing the recording of the album that was really quite cool:
> Classic Tracks: George Michael â€˜Faithâ€™ | Sound On Sound
> 
> And if you read through the 2010 Remaster thread linked above you'll find all sorts of little nuggets. For example, this post:
> George Michael: Faith [CD/DVD] Special Edition due Sept 2010 | Page 10 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums


----------



## ARCuhTEK

Bump for a great thread. Erin, do you know of a thread, here or otherwise, that would help a total noob (me) to the world of lossless music? Specifically the best step by step process for transferring music from my CDs to a digital audio player? 

I am in the process of researching DAPs and thinking of buying a Fiio (see my system diagram in my signature). But would love to read anything out there on the different players. For example, is my iphone just as good as a Fiio, technically speaking?

My car audio system is already ready to go in terms of wiring once I purchase the dap source. Tuning a dap with coaxial connection is another issue for another thread.

Furthermore, if I find new music that I do not own on an existing CD, where is the best place to purchase it for highest quality download or is it better to own the CD and rip it myself? I suppose one argument for purchasing the CD is that you own a hard copy vs only a digital copy (which I am in agreement with).

Anyway, I noticed in the OP post here (or an early post anyway) you describe ripping your CDs and then a few more steps. I figured you may have already written a thread on ripping CDs or maybe you know of one I could read.

I am much like you in that I enjoy reading and research and the rewards that come with it. I could not, however, find a sticky thread or a thread dedicated to just this topic. If one does not exist, I will try to read and piece it all together like a plate of spaghetti.....

Thank you ahead of time.


----------



## conehunter76

ARCuhTEK, I use EAC to back up my CDs. You can download it here, *Download - Exact Audio Copy*. Once you have the program loaded, open EAC and insert your CD into your drive. On the left side of the EAC menu there will be four icons arranged vertically, select the first icon "Copy Selected Tracks Uncompressed" if you want wav files, or select the second icon "Copy Selected Tracks Compressed" if you want FLAC files, then select where you want the new tracks saved. EAC will then copy the tracks as wav or FLAC files that you can use with a digital audio player.

This is a basic rundown and I'm sure others can help elaborate on the process, but it should help get you started.


----------



## Weightless

Thanks for this thread Erin. I too have recently jumped into looking at the different masters and mixes and it amazes me that there are that many versions out there. 

Thanks for pointing out the Ratm hybrid sacd. I'm going to have to hunt down a copy. A brief looking at ebay is showing it between $35-50. Eek! I love the way the original was recorded, so if there is an even better copy out there, I must be on the hunt!

It's interesting that you said that one of the TFF albums was recorded with the channels swapped. In my search for a good copy of Dire Sraits BIA, I found the same thing between a couple different masters. In the beginning of one of the tracks, the cymbols comes in from the left and on another mix it comes in from the right. 

Personally I find it annoying. Can't they just agree on a good mix and be done? Lol. Do we really need 11 mixes/masters of the same album? 

Thanks for all the links. Looks to be great reading material for the throne!

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Thee Unforgiven

very interesting thread. thanx for the bump.


----------



## djfourmoney

ErinH said:


> RIP George Michael. This quote/bump is for you!


 Agreed RIP, personal favorites -

https://youtu.be/HtECl4DzX2k

Still play this when I get a chance (DJ) 

A Last Request (I Want Your Sex Pt. 3)

https://youtu.be/WjvkJ7a0WWM


----------



## Salami

Erin I read this thread way back when but I just started listening to Michael Jackson in the last 6 months. I wound up buying new versions of Thriller and Bad because it was all I could find and they were only like $7 each new.

My question is about Thriller. The 38112 pressing you have, have you been able to compare it to any of the HD Tracks versions?

I am wondering if it is on par or better than the version you have. If so i am thinking of getting the HD Tracks version instead of trying to track down the pressing you have.


----------



## bbfoto

Salami said:


> Erin I read this thread way back when but I just started listening to Michael Jackson in the last 6 months. I wound up buying new versions of Thriller and Bad because it was all I could find and they were only like $7 each new.
> 
> My question is about Thriller. The 38112 pressing you have, have you been able to compare it to any of the HD Tracks versions?
> 
> I am wondering if it is on par or better than the version you have. If so i am thinking of getting the HD Tracks version instead of trying to track down the pressing you have.


I'm pretty sure that the best version of *Thriller* is still the #38112 CD that Erin referenced.

Regarding *BAD*, see my post here:

*Michael Jackson's BAD - Best Versions & Quincy Jones Lawsuit*


----------



## High Resolution Audio

Cool thread Erin. Subbed for future reference.


----------



## bbfoto

Erin, have you extracted the .ISO files from any of your SACD discs and converted them to Hi-Res DSD (.dsf or .dff) or 24-bit PCM WAV files?

For anyone who has a decent collection of SACD discs, you can have the Hi-Res SACD layer extracted/ripped by Ari Margolis at Golden Ear Digital - Home. I'm pretty sure that he uses the Sony PS3 method. He is located in Denver and is a regular at the Rocky Mountain Audio Show.

If you have a special SACD disc where an Exact Version of that Master is not available as a Hi-Res download, it is definitely something to consider. 

It's $5.00 per 2-track (stereo) SACD disc, or $7.50 for multi-channel, plus discounts for quantity. It's a decent deal. Just supply him with a SSD and your SACD discs and he does the rest with fairly quick turnaround.

...just an option.


----------



## ErinH

Hey, Rich. I haven't listened to the HD Tracks version of Thriller yet. Personally, I'm just not a fan of Hi-Res audio for a number of reasons; partly because I'm lazy (I use Apple products and they don't natively support hi-res and I don't feel like dealing with a fragmented collection/playback method) and partly because most of what I would buy in Hi-Res, based on genre, is just remastered garbage or upsampled from the original and a total waste of money. I'd rather spend my money on older originals or *proper* remasters and rip them myself. In fact, I've recently gotten a couple really good albums: Duran Duran's "Decade" from Japan (incredible mix - the staging and layering is awesome - and mastering on this one) and the MFSL remaster of Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" which I've not gotten to really sit down with yet but am excited about. 




*But I'm glad you asked because I meant to post this a looooong time ago and completely forgot to share... And seriously, I hope everyone reading this thread pays attention to what I'm about to say because this is legit information that a LOT of people are not aware of...*

Something to consider when purchasing and ripping old albums for your digital audio collection is *pre-emphasis and de-emphasis*. In short, some CDs through the late 80's/early 90's were made with a boosted top end, called "pre-emphasis". This was done basically to counteract the falling response of the limited resolution in the day. _Thriller _was one of them. And a lot of the albums from Japan were apparently made with pre-emphasis as well. 

You can find a great article written about pre-emphasis here:
http://www.audioxpress.com/assets/upload/files/galo3025.pdf

And here is a graphic of what the pre-emphasis boost is and correlating de-emphasis curve needs to be:










Why this matters:
As you can see from the image above, if you were to rip a digital version of a song or an album which contains pre-emphasis without the pre-emphasis removed, what you'd wind up with is a _*very bright *_version of the album. Look at that curve... let's use 1khz as a reference, saying it has about 0dB boost. At 5khz the signal is +5dB and at 10khz it's +7dB. Yowza! So it reasons what you hear would absolutely sound different than a version you've bought from HDTracks (where the pre-emphasis is not there, hopefully). Therefore, in a listening comparison an unknowing person would proclaim an audible difference. The difference is real certainly due to the pre-emphasis from their ripped album. However, once you remove the pre-emphasis* you'd likely find no difference in sound... or no appreciable difference, since undoing pre-emphasis isn't perfect.

* If you use Audacity you can use a tool to de-emphasize. I've read that iTunes will automatically detect pre-emphasis and rip accordingly. I use XLD/xACT on Mac. Here's a somewhat recent thread if you want to dig in to ripping a pre-emphasized CD correctly:
Ripping CDs with Pre-emphasis Properly | Steve Hoffman Music Forums
Here's another one:
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/25023-identifying-cds-with-pre-emphasis-mac/


FWIW, I have my original _Thriller_ release ripped in both fashions; original pre-emphasis and de-emphasis. A/B'ing back and forth is night and day. With the pre-emphasis the tracks are MUCH brighter. It sounds very unnatural but to the regular listener they may like it more simply due to the increased treble but after a few tracks, it begins to wear on you. 

I recommend if you do like I do ... buying old CDs and ripping them to your digital audio collection ... always run them through a program with pre-emphasis detection and then rip accordingly. I learned this information after I was about 5 or so CDs in to my 'vintage CD buying'. Hopefully me posting this will save you the headache (literally and figuratively) of having overly bright rips and then having to go back and re-rip them all once you discover why.


----------



## ChaseUTB

A cd can only contain 16bit 44.1 digital wav file. Sacd or DVD 16/48 some blue ray is 24/48. 
Hate to tell you it’s all audiphookery as you say because SACD ( Super Audio CD ) is the exact same 16 bits and 44.1 sample rate as the non “ Super Audio “ side. Have you tested each song back to back in a DAW? Audacity is free, load up the SACD and The CD song ( same song from each ) and null them or invert the phase in one of the audio tracks... What happens when you do that? More than likely the sound will disappear ( null or cancel ) showing its the same file. 

Now I am not saying that a mastering engineer may master a SACD differently but more than likely it’s the same master. The sacd is a higher sampling rate/ lower bit depth however it has the same limitations as other disc formats and dynamic range. Also most DSD players convert to PCM for playback. It’s cool idea but in practice it’s less SQ than 24/48 or 24/96 wav kept at that same resolution for consumers ( HD Tracks, Tidal HQ ) Cool thread man, some awesome CD collection you have! Take care


----------



## ErinH

Huh? I don't really follow what your post is about. I'm not sure that I ever said or implied anything about an SACD having different mastering and/or it being 'audiophoolery'. I was strictly talking about the CD layer of the Hybrid discs (Hybrid being SACD/CD combo).


----------



## ChaseUTB

I was trying to explain the similarities and differences between super audio cd / blue ray / cd by using standard audio engineering terms. I apologize if you don’t understand and or misunderstood my previous post. 

I was also explaining in pro audio terms the process to see if your SACD “ remaster “ is any different than the CD “ Master “. You referenced recording forums and the loudness wars so I assumed you were familiar with digital audio workstations aka DAW like Logic Pro x / Pro tools / Audacity / Studio One/ Cubase

I apologize for the confusion. Have a great day!


----------



## ErinH

I understand. Your comment just seemed to come out of left field. I couldn't tell if you were directing it toward me or toward another poster and I was literally confused.


----------



## KillerBox

I have the Michael Jackson - The Essential 96kHz/24bit 
Rick James - Street Songs 96kHz/24bit 
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers - Greatest Hits 96kHz/24bit 
Moving In Stereo: The Best Of The Cars - 192kHz/24bit

All purchased from HD Tracks, if anyone would like to compare them to your copies?


----------

