mastering.. two examples, same song

[Reptil]

I could've posted this in the mastering section, but they already know (I hope): two versions of a song, one original one "remastered".
Of course this is a fun thing, youtube quality is hardly suited for any serious comparison.

Version 1: 1978 production and mastering (for vinyl of course)

Version 2: 2001 version, remastered from original takes -- It's louder, but yeah that's the whole idea.

[golden beers]

i voted cookies because i can hear a difference (after adjusting volume levels to match) but i didnt have a strong preference

[Susceptor]

I did the comparison after I adjusted the levels to match and here's what I found:

While the '78 is more dynamic in the drums, it sounds way too muffled and it has like a huge mid boost.
The overall sound of the '01 version is more open, more polished, but with a loss in the drums (however sounding more tight).

I can't say I like one or the other, they're just different.

You know, IMHO/YMMV and all of that crap. (voted cookies)

[Tarkovsky]

I voted cookies because, TBO I can't tell the difference through youtube encoding. If it were just hiss I could block that out, but the compression algos are going to do different things to low level and high level signals. I guess I find it very hard to even compare them.
As it stands I probably prefer the newer master. But that could be because of all the gunge I can hear when I turn the old one up.

[Simonator]

Personally, I think there's a huge difference, not just in level. True the youtube encode makes them both sound crappy... but still.

For me the remaster sounds more open & spacious; makes the original feel claustrophobic & narrow.

Neither is particularly dynamic... that constant bass line is a wall of sound. I don't think the newer mix has worsened things in this respect.

[Slash Asterisk]

listening on my laptop i can hear a huuuuge difference. the original sounds tinny and full of high mid freq. the remaster sounds a lot cleaner and fulller.

[golden beers]

Originally Posted by Slash Asterisk

listening on my laptop i can hear a huuuuge difference. the original sounds tinny and full of high mid freq. the remaster sounds a lot cleaner and fulller.

i agree there is a big difference. as i said, better or worse, i don't know... just wondering, did you play one and then the other without adjusting the volume?

[Tarkovsky]

Originally Posted by Slash Asterisk

listening on my laptop i can hear a huuuuge difference. the original sounds tinny and full of high mid freq. the remaster sounds a lot cleaner and fulller.

You see that sounds a lot like the perception difference between different volume levels which is I think what Golden Balls is hinting at.

Fletcher

[Slash Asterisk]

Originally Posted by Tarkovsky

You see that sounds a lot like the perception difference between different volume levels which is I think what Golden Balls is hinting at.

Fletcher

I appreciate what you are saying but I can CLEARLY hear a difference and I'm not referring to loudness. I am talking about mix/master only. And I'm saying the difference is so audible I can hear it on my laptop (MBP) I don't even have to listen in the studio to notice.

[Slash Asterisk]

Originally Posted by golden beers

i agree there is a big difference. as i said, better or worse, i don't know... just wondering, did play on one and then the other without adjusting the volume?

yes without adjusting volume.. i did A-B between the two at around the same timecode of each song within the thread without volume adjustment. the newer one is clearly light years ahead mix/master wise. I personally cant stand old style mixes. Of course they did the best with what they had so it's amazing to accomplish what they did, but to compare it to a recent mix and it never holds up in my opinion. I'm sure now in 2011 as compared to 2001 an even better mix/master can be achieved without taking loudness into account.

[golden beers]

Originally Posted by Slash Asterisk

yes without adjusting volume.. i did A-B between the two at around the same timecode of each song within the thread without volume adjustment. the newer one is clearly light years ahead mix/master wise. I personally cant stand old style mixes. Of course they did the best with what they had so it's amazing to accomplish what they did, but to compare it to a recent mix and it never holds up in my opinion. I'm sure now in 2011 as compared to 2001 an even better mix/master can be achieved without taking loudness into account.

well then sorry, but you didn't give yourself a fair test.

gain matching when A/B-ing sounds/tracks is ultra important because even a slight addition of level is perceived subconsciously as a 'nicer' sound. you have to be aware of this effect if you're trying to listen from an objective standpoint.

another important thing to be aware of is which you listen to first. strangely, this too makes a difference. when played 2 almost identical (or even identical) sounds/tracks, for some reason we are more likely to prefer the first one we hear. this effect is very subtle, and only happens when you have no strong opinion of which you like best.

the volume thing is much more effecting on perception.

[golden beers]

oh snap at tark yes i was, but the effect isnt the same as perceived equal loudness. same ball-park

if i knew what it was called i would wiki it!

[Simonator]

Oi, Tomorrow People, there is a big difference in these files. Yes, I did level match the best I could.

[Slash Asterisk]

Originally Posted by golden beers

well then sorry, but you didn't give yourself a fair test.

gain matching when A/B-ing sounds/tracks is ultra important because even a slight addition of level is perceived subconsciously as a 'nicer' sound. you have to be aware of this effect if you're trying to listen from an objective standpoint.

another important thing to be aware of is which you listen to first. strangely, this too makes a difference. when played 2 almost identical (or even identical) sounds/tracks, for some reason we are more likely to prefer the first one we hear. this effect is very subtle, and only happens when you have no strong opinion of which you like best.

the volume thing is much more effecting on perception.

ok so your trying to tell me the only difference between these two songs is volume? and they paid top dollar for the re-mix re release .... I think not. Also I listened to the original first. Not only can I hear an EQ and compression difference but I can also hear a decade or two of audio advancements. icb you guys can't hear the difference in the mix?

[golden beers]

Originally Posted by Simonator

Oi, Tomorrow People, there is a big difference in these files. Yes, I did level match the best I could.

oi. i know there is.

as i said in my first post!

[golden beers]

Originally Posted by Slash Asterisk

ok so your trying to tell me the only difference between these two songs is volume? and they paid top dollar for the re-mix re release .... I think not. Also I listened to the original first. Not only can I hear an EQ and compression difference but I can also hear a decade or two of audio advancements. icb you guys can't hear the difference in the mix?

no i'm not telling you that.

and as i've said repeatedly yes there is a difference. i hear it, you hear it. again check my first post. what's with the prickles?!

[Simonator]

@Golden Beers,

So, just to be clear... you think there is absolutely NO difference whatsoever between the two files, other than the loudness?

[Simonator]

@Reptil,

I'm assuming there was some point to this... care to let us in on it now? :-)


EDIT: PS, lulz at the fact that 'I like cookies' got over 50% of the votes!!

[golden beers]

Originally Posted by Simonator

@Golden Beers,

So, just to be clear... you think there is absolutely NO difference whatsoever between the two files, other than the loudness?

none

[Reptil]

I was listening to it, and then i tried the remastered one. the difference struck me as interesting, thinking about what's important in a song, and that this is a really personal thing.
no point really just fun, of listening into a song. the volume question is valid, one is much louder, but you all can deal with that easily.

my personal preference is the old one. love the punchyness, the midrange is still there (no, that's not a boost, it was supposed to sound like that, the newer one is scooped ) and it doesn't have the pierced eardrum highs as the remastered one. but my opinion is not important. just for fun!

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by golden beers

none

keep those votes coming please ??!!

[golden beers]

yea i was joking with the none thing.. just in case...
someone out there.. didnt...


realise..


that.

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by golden beers

yea i was joking with the none thing.. just in case...
someone out there.. didnt...


realise..


that.

what?

[golden beers]

Originally Posted by Reptil

what?

huh?

[Reptil]

lol
this one goes beyond mastering. 1983 vs. 1987.
the poll is about the Devo song of course.

[Simonator]

Originally Posted by golden beers

There is no difference at all between the two Devo tracks besides level.

I just ripped them from youtube, normalized them, then inverted the phase of one... they 100% nulled each other out.

You're all a bunch of idiots & my Johnson is huge.

Huh?

[CoolColJ]

blocked in my country...

[Reptil]

sorry! didn't know.

[Rust Creep]

i adjusted my volume on the first.. just turned it up a little to level the playing field

i think the first sounded better but couldn't tell you why... so it could be some sort of bias since it wasn't a blind test.. i can't ever trust my own mind... 46 chromosomes and all

Devo is and always has been badass though

i don't know if any fans of electronic music and devo haven't heard of Rummelsnuff... he's a big gay russian.. a spooky looking meatball of a dude.. but his version of Mongoloid is killer

[cpu28]

Originally Posted by Rust Creep

Rummelsnuff... he's a big gay russian.. a spooky looking meatball of a dude.. but his version of Mongoloid is killer

Rummelsnuff ftw. He's (East-)German btw, not Russian.