 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While it may not be possible to "please all", I have yet to hear from someone who thinks brickwalling an orchestral recording (classical or film music) is a good idea?
Which begs the question: why is this done in the first place? Maybe it's okay for the MP3, iPhone ear-bud gym generation (hey, I have listened to music on on ear-buds in a gym), but these specialty limited edition soundtracks don't aim for the mass market. The typical audience for these releases is of the kind of people that gather here at various message boards... film music lovers, some who buy the same release several times just in the hope of a better sounding recording. Yet nobody here seems to voice a preferation for brickwalled orchestral soundtracks. So, again....
Why are they doing it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Feb 11, 2019 - 12:48 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Nono
(Member)
|
Of course compression is needed! Do you have a very large living room? Bring in a symphony orchestra and imagine their tutti sound. Not pretty! Conversely, do you know what a bona fide pianissimo sounds like amid the hush of two thousand listeners? Very few of us have listening rooms that would allow us to hear such near silence. There is art as well as science to audio engineering. And no one solution will please everybody. The market ranges from fanatical audiophiles to "earbuds at the gym" listeners. Good luck trying to please them all.
The size of the room is not a problem, since it's the audio system which reproduces not the dynamic range as recorded, but a coherent image of it.
So there's no need to reduce it.
For the softest passages, just pump up the volume, and enjoy the dynamic. You can also turn on your "loudness" button, if you prefer.
The image will always be more coherent, more musical, more alive, when the dynamic range is not reduce at all.
Roger Feigelson is right.
I don't like Intrada's mixings as I said (except when they respect the spatial perspective of the recording stage, as they did with Cliffhanger) but their masterings have always been excellent and among the very best (because untouched).
Until now and all this nonsense which doesn't serve the music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While it may not be possible to "please all", I have yet to hear from someone who thinks brickwalling an orchestral recording (classical or film music) is a good idea?
Which begs the question: why is this done in the first place? Maybe it's okay for the MP3, iPhone ear-bud gym generation (hey, I have listened to music on on ear-buds in a gym), but these specialty limited edition soundtracks don't aim for the mass market. The typical audience for these releases is of the kind of people that gather here at various message boards... film music lovers, some who buy the same release several times just in the hope of a better sounding recording. Yet nobody here seems to voice a preferation for brickwalled orchestral soundtracks. So, again....
Why are they doing it?
Because they don't care about the music, the musicians who make it alive and the recording engineers who do their best to capture such moments.
In case of specialty labels, highly unlikely that they just "don't care". There may be a demand for brickwall mastering, particularly when it comes to Spotify and pop/rock/hip-hop music, I don't know, since that music sounds much better when its loudness is not maxed out to the compressed limit either, but who knows, some might like it.
But when it comes to orchestral (film) music, I don't know anyone who likes their music brickwalled, literally no one. And I think labels who release this type of music generally DO care about the music. So why are they doing it? I don't get it? Maybe I'm missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 12, 2019 - 10:54 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Nono
(Member)
|
In case of specialty labels, highly unlikely that they just "don't care".
I didn't have in mind specialty labels in particular, and what I mean is rather that producers and mastering engineers don't respect what the composer, the conductor, the orchestra and the recording engineer did, because their wishes (or the customer wishes) are much more important to them.
Such pratices are just not respectful to the music.
But when it comes to orchestral (film) music, I don't know anyone who likes their music brickwalled, literally no one. And I think labels who release this type of music generally DO care about the music. So why are they doing it? I don't get it? Maybe I'm missing something?
Because they probably think they make the music sounds better.
And since many customers applaud with both hands, they continue to do so.
But you are right. I'd like to know why Robert Townson let Erick Labson or Patricia Sullivan do what they do, or why Quartet has waited the third (or the fourth, I don't remember) release of Casino Royale to not touch to the dynamic range, or why the La-La Land The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions are so compressed but not Alien 3 etc. etc. etc.
More generally, why the new remastered editions are almost always compressed compare to the original CD releases ?!?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In case of specialty labels, highly unlikely that they just "don't care".
I didn't have in mind specialty labels in particular, and what I mean is rather that producers and mastering engineers don't respect what the composer, the conductor, the orchestra and the recording engineer did, because their wishes (or the customer wishes) are much more important to them.
Such pratices are just not respectful to the music.
But when it comes to orchestral (film) music, I don't know anyone who likes their music brickwalled, literally no one. And I think labels who release this type of music generally DO care about the music. So why are they doing it? I don't get it? Maybe I'm missing something?
Because they probably think they make the music sounds better.
And since many customers applaud with both hands, they continue to do so.
But you are right. I'd like to know why Robert Townson let Erick Labson or Patricia Sullivan do what they do, or why Quartet has waited the third (or the fourth, I don't remember) release of Casino Royale to not touch to the dynamic range, or why the La-La Land The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions are so compressed but not Alien 3 etc. etc. etc.
More generally, why the new remastered editions are almost always compressed compare to the original CD releases ?!?!
Apparently, friend, you don't have the Kritzerland release of Casino Royale. That is obvious. Or Poltergeist 2, an album that never sounded good in any release - Varese brick-walled, Intrada too low. But here's the thing: there are a lot of armchair experts who offer their opinions as fact, which is never a good idea. Recordings are not live concerts. Recordings are a different beast. If the dynamic levels of what's on tape (or digital) are so wide that it requires that you constantly fiddle with your volume knob, than the mastering engineer has not done his/her job. Recordings that are mastered for CD by great mastering engineers sound great. You wouldn't have a clue as to what they did or didn't do because their work is transparent and effortless - that is their job. I will not listen to ANY CD where I have to turn up the volume to hear the soft bits only to be blasted out of my seat when the loud bits come on, perhaps even blowing out my speakers.
One of the things I did when we did Casino Royale, was do a flat transfer of the LP (I had several pristine sealed copies) - it sounded, obviously, exactly as that LP sounded, and which everyone has always called one of the most audiophile listening experiences of all time. And yet, that entire album was mixed very hot, especially the drums - and the LP did sound great for its day, no question, and it sounds just fine on our CD. But it doesn't sound as fine as the version from the tapes even though Varese had ruined the tapes. James Nelson was able to, through time-consuming and very careful work, restore what was originally there. And it sounds pretty amazing and was pretty much loved by all, even those who'd lost all hope for a great release of that score. Quartet's first attempts were not very good - they finally caught on to Chris Malone and he did his usual fine job doing basically what James Nelson had done. I still, to this day, get e-mails from people who desire our CD of it.
In closing, everyone thinks they know everything. I sat in a mastering studio for YEARS with Joe Gastwirt, one of the all-time greats. I watched, I listened, I learned what it was all about. You wouldn't know if he used compression or not to slightly smooth out dynamic range for a CD release because that's how good he was. That's how good James and Chris are. They know what they're doing and no amount of quarterbacking from people who think they know all about everything is going to change that. But brick-walling ANYTHING is unforgivable and, more importantly, unlistenable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 12, 2019 - 1:49 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Nono
(Member)
|
In closing, everyone thinks they know everything. I sat in a mastering studio for YEARS with Joe Gastwirt, one of the all-time greats. I watched, I listened, I learned what it was all about. You wouldn't know if he used compression or not to slightly smooth out dynamic range for a CD release because that's how good he was. That's how good James and Chris are. They know what they're doing and no amount of quarterbacking from people who think they know all about everything is going to change that. But brick-walling ANYTHING is unforgivable and, more importantly, unlistenable.
I agree about brick-walling.
I know that some compression can be used judiciously, but I think it's useless.
James Nelson is one of the finest mastering engineers indeed, because with him it's difficult to say if the slightly compress dynamic range is due to the recording, to the mixing, or to him.
And as I said earlier in this thread, he did an amazing job from the lifeless Intrada mixing of Flesh and Blood. I'm glad he also mastered the original album for Prometheus.
I don't have enough Chris Malone mastered CDs to say more, but he seems to not like compression, at all.
Joe Gastwirt (and Dan Hersh) did great masterings in the 80's and the 90's.
Joe probably mastered the original CD of The Omen I mentioned earlier, which sounds incredibly better than both the more recent releases.
You may have noticed that none of the CDs I mentioned were released by Kritzerland, or mastered by mastering engineers you mentioned.
I also listen to classical music, and dynamic range is usually wider than with film music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also agree with him when he says that the original CD of Superman "is still the easiest on the ears" (the problems of the Blue Box don't concern compression,
He said that? Ok, I completely disagree there. The original Superman CD sounds muffled, flat, lifeless. Rhino's sounds better, and FSM's WAY better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recordings that are mastered for CD by great mastering engineers sound great. You wouldn't have a clue as to what they did or didn't do because their work is transparent and effortless - that is their job. I will not listen to ANY CD where I have to turn up the volume to hear the soft bits only to be blasted out of my seat when the loud bits come on, perhaps even blowing out my speakers.
Actually, that's exactly the effect I expect of a recording of, say, Daphnis er Chloe, since that's exactly how it should sound. I agree with a lot of what you said, but whether or not volume control is needed depends greatly on when and how you listen. Daphnis et Chloe (Abbado/LSO) on my home stereo sound great, on the go with earbuds or in the car you would need to adjust volume all the time, or you'd either hear nothing or get hit on the head with sound, and that's a good thing, that's how it is supposed to sound, that'show it sounds in the concert hall. I could always level and/or adjust the noise when playing something in less than ideal circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 13, 2019 - 12:57 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Nono
(Member)
|
I also agree with him when he says that the original CD of Superman "is still the easiest on the ears" (the problems of the Blue Box don't concern compression,
He said that? Ok, I completely disagree there. The original Superman CD sounds muffled, flat, lifeless. Rhino's sounds better, and FSM's WAY better.
"Mastered from 35mm mag film, SUPERMAN sounds more clean, vibrant, dynamic and internally consistent than ever before. Existing edits have been smoothed over making many of them undetectable. The previous Rhino edition was grossly peak limited, had an odd bump in the midrange frequencies and was over modulated at times. Digital noise reduction may have sucked some life out of the score but this is definitely an improvement."
"The music sounds clean, dynamic and more internally consistent than ever before. Cleanliness, however, is not necessarily desirable because, with analog recording, hiss is conspicuous by its absence inferring that the score has undergone extensive digital noise reduction. Regrettably, some of the aliveness and ambience of the recording has been vacuumed up with the hiss and in its place is a rather sterile and false soundstage."
"The first SUPERMAN has definitely undergone noise reduction as hiss is conspicuous by its absence. There is a wide frequency response -- and particular (over) emphasis on the lower end creating a heavy and woolly sound at times -- but, alas, some of the aliveness and ambience has been sucked out along with the hiss. Why are people so scared of tape hiss? Some peak limiting has been applied but this is not detrimental. As mentioned previously, this release is now more internally consistent in sound quality compared with the Rhino edition that combined several different sources. Perhaps the original Warner CD, whilst suffering a few issues with imaging and veiling, is still the easiest on the ears. To my mind, Steve has been the only mastering engineer to properly present a John Williams / Eric Tomlinson recorded score in a way that is tonally appealing and not fatiguing over extended periods."
https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/superman-the-music-1978-1988-box-set.141541/
http://www.malonedigital.com/superman.htm#.XGPLSbhCfIU
Give Chris Malone the restoration and mastering job for Superman, and you'll hear the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 13, 2019 - 1:06 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Nono
(Member)
|
Daphnis et Chloe (Abbado/LSO) on my home stereo sound great, on the go with earbuds or in the car you would need to adjust volume all the time, or you'd either hear nothing or get hit on the head with sound, and that's a good thing, that's how it is supposed to sound, that'show it sounds in the concert hall. I could always level and/or adjust the noise when playing something in less than ideal circumstances.
As you have said, an orchestral recording is an orchestral recording, if compression is not needed for classical recordings, why is it needed for film music recordings ?
Probably for he car test, as Ford Thaxton says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Give Chris Malone the restoration and mastering job for Superman, and you'll hear the difference.
Maybe. Then again, the proof is in the pudding, and as I have said: the original SUPERMAN CD sounds muffled and tinny compared to the latter editions, and is not match for either the Rhino and particularly not for the FSM. The FSM doesn't just sound better, it sounds WAY better. Whatever Chris Malone may perceive has been lost, it is nothing compared to what has been gained. There is no "aliveness" in the sound of the original CD that I can hear, rather a "flatness".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[One of the things I did when we did Casino Royale, was do a flat transfer of the LP (I had several pristine sealed copies) - it sounded, obviously, exactly as that LP sounded, and which everyone has always called one of the most audiophile listening experiences of all time.
So there is no misunderstanding: my reply is to the claim of vinyl recordings being particularly audiophile, not to your LP transfer of CASINO ROYALE, which I am sure is excellent.
But actually, there are a lot of people -- me included -- who hate the sound of vinyl. It sounds compressed, introduces background noise, hiss, pops, there is NOTHING at all desirable about the sound of vinyl. A good CD or a good high-res file sounds better than any vinyl possibly could ever hope for. That does of course not meant that some vinyls don't sound very good, but as a general principal, vinyl is for nostalgics or those who don't mind the compressed sound, with less dynamic range, less bass, less clarity.
And yes, I've got a few hundred LPs myself and had various turntables over the years, so I know that sound. And I know there are excellent sounding vinyl recordings, I had a few were the sound amazed me... but that was back i the early 1980s, where they were still state of the (audio) art. Today, many sound engineers would definitely say that while both mediums can sound good, the CD has more potential.
Now, I know a lot of people LIKE the sound of vinyl, and that's perfectly fine. I enjoy putting on an LP now and then, and I sure enjoy playing around with a turntable, in the same way I like playing around with a steam engine: it's very cool and interesting technology, and turntables can be "beautiful". But in terms of fidelity, meaning which medium can more accurately represent the original recording -- without adding anything (or as little as possible) or taking anything away (or as little as possible) -- CDs and high-res formats are way, way better than vinyl. No contest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 13, 2019 - 4:25 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Nono
(Member)
|
Maybe. Then again, the proof is in the pudding, and as I have said: the original SUPERMAN CD sounds muffled and tinny compared to the latter editions, and is not match for either the Rhino and particularly not for the FSM. The FSM doesn't just sound better, it sounds WAY better. Whatever Chris Malone may perceive has been lost, it is nothing compared to what has been gained. There is no "aliveness" in the sound of the original CD that I can hear, rather a "flatness".
Chris Malone didn't say the original CD was better, he said it was the easiest on the ears.
He also said that all have their flaws.
The Rhino is certainly not an improvement over the original CD.
The Blue Box is another matter, as Chris Malone said.
When someone hears something I can't hear, I don't think he's necessarily wrong, but I wonder why I can't hear the same.
We can have improvements without any loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
