Thriller mastering

[Alécio Costa]

I am a great fan of MJ. I have most of his records.

He was a major influence in my musical career as an artist.

However, his latest release, INVENCIBLE, is almost Unlistenable. Isn´t that album too loud? I have to go back to it.

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by rskjr

on Billie Jean there's a blip at 3:45-3:46 on my MP3 copies of the 1982, 2001, and 2008 releases... it almost seems like it could be a very strange vocal "uh", but it sounds like an artifact. is that on the record? what is it?

The noise at around 3'45" (left channel) is purely a vocal "uh", also repeated a few beats later.

Originally Posted by AntManBee

The vinyl from Back In The Day sounds terrible - it's from a second generation master & is badly EQ'd - the 8 track cassette works best for me ;-)

It was common for vinyl to be cut from the assembled (spliced) 2nd gen 1/4" 15ips master, itself from the orig 1/2". Any cassette version is likely from a 2nd if not 3rd generation, possibly even 4th generation, and often just 3 3/4ips or 7.5ips depending on the replicator.

In any case, kudos to the biggest selling album whose opening track is over 6 mins long, BJ itself being nearly 5 mins. Again: the strength of songs, arrangement & performance will always – always – trump industry/radio "requirements".

[Jesse Graffam]

Originally Posted by narcoman

The early CD version sounds terrible too.

Are you aware that the original US and Japanese CDs are pre-emphasized?

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by uncajesse

Are you aware that the original US and Japanese CDs are pre-emphasized?

That should really be a non-issue unless you have a faulty DAC. The de-emph is standardized and in the DAC, and activated automatically. And it worked in reducing S/N, too.
If working with it (eg, remastering) you just need to remember to either retain both the pre-emph curve & its subcode flag (and monitor de-emph, as any proper DAC should do on seeing the flag) or discard the lot. With today's often super hyped HF and levels, however, pre-emph can effect digital headroom.

[Jesse Graffam]

Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey

That should really be a non-issue unless you have a faulty DAC. The de-emph is standardized and in the DAC, and activated automatically. And it worked in reducing S/N, too.
If working with it (eg, remastering) you just need to remember to either retain both the pre-emph curve & its subcode flag (and monitor de-emph, as any proper DAC should do on seeing the flag) or discard the lot. With today's often super hyped HF and levels, however, pre-emph can effect digital headroom.

Uhm... actually, de-emphasis is the responsibility of the CD player. So if you rip the CD for instance (for any mastering from CD-audio purposes, you should never use anything that can't at least compete with Exact Audio Copy's Secure Mode, imho...), to RIFF PCM, it's just PCM data, and unless it's kept in a format that's going to be able to store that pre-emphasis flag and be used by a player that will know to read that and de-emphasize the signal... it's never going to be done before hitting the DAC.


That being said... I'm listening to properly de-emphasized 1982 Japanese 1st pressing of the CD. FANTASTIC!!!!

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by uncajesse

Uhm... actually, de-emphasis is the responsibility of the CD player.

Yes, as part of its DAC. Which is why as a standard it essentially works invisibly to the user.

[doug hazelrigg]

Were CD's even available in 1982? Hell, I was still bying LP's in 1987

In any case, when I listen to Thriller it will be on the original vinyl. Sounds pretty good

[Jesse Graffam]

Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey

Yes, as part of its DAC. Which is why as a standard it essentially works invisibly to the user.

You can say it's part of the DAC, because most CD players have a DAC, but that's not accurate. Many good CD players also have digital outputs, and do properly de-emphasize the audio before it hits the digital outputs, so... it's actually not part of the DAC.

Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg

Were CD's even available in 1982? Hell, I was still buying LP's in 1987. In any case, when I listen to Thriller it will be on the original vinyl. Sounds pretty good

You have an original 1982 US 1st pressing of Thriller? Dang, If I had one I sure wouldn't be playing it. It would be locked in a glass case, with my Japanese 1st pressing CD. I've seen the CD sell for over $750 and that was before last week.

And @ CDs being around then, they sure were. In fact, you might have a copy of Donald Fagen, The Nightfly. That was one of the first (not sure if it was THEE first) true DDD recordings & release, and it was released in 1982. Completely digital, and it sounds totally fantastic. It still blows away most recordings done today, digital or analog.

It's certainly a confirmation of digital recording, and the CD itself, of being a very high quality platform... and today's digital recording & mastering devices are quite a lot higher in quality. So what is lacking in most recordings today? It has most to do with level standards and ample headroom from A to CD, and the TALENT behind the knobs... than the gear, or that something is digital or analog.

[wado1942]

Were CD's even available in 1982?

The Redbook CD standard was finalized by 1979, though I don't think they hit the U.S. market till late '81.

Many good CD players also have digital outputs, and do properly de-emphasize the audio before it hits the digital outputs, so... it's actually not part of the DAC.

Emphasis for the CDDA standard was intended to help circumvent issues with converters at the time and were implimented in the analogue domain before the ADC and de-emphasized after the DAC. It was a digitally controlled analogue circuit. It wasn't till MUCH MUCH later that the ability to de-emphasize digitally became available.

It's certainly a confirmation of digital recording, and the CD itself, of being a very high quality platform...

Well you said it at the end yourself, but I'll say that it's confirmation that the medium pales in comparrison to the material.

[Jesse Graffam]

Originally Posted by wado1942

Emphasis for the CDDA standard was intended to help circumvent issues with converters at the time and were implimented in the analogue domain before the ADC and de-emphasized after the DAC. It was a digitally controlled analogue circuit. It wasn't till MUCH MUCH later that the ability to de-emphasize digitally became available.

I'm aware of this. It still isn't part of that DAC. It's applied after the DAC. But still... can you show me even one CD player with digital outputs that used the analog filters and didn't apply digital-based de-emphasis to the digital outputs?

Originally Posted by wado1942

Well you said it at the end yourself, but I'll say that it's confirmation that the medium pales in comparrison to the material.

I'm guessing that you're saying that 44.1kHz Stereo PCM isn't the reason that many recordings today don't sound so hot. Not the other way around. Because one could take what you just said either way.

I do get tired of people blaming CDs for crappy sounding records. You can't compare a Nelly Furtado CD, to a Steely Dan vinyl, and claim that CDs suck based on that.

And the same thing goes for guys that claim CDs suck without ever considering that maybe it's just their CD playback system that sucks.

[Franco]

Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg

Were CD's even available in 1982? Hell, I was still bying LP's in 1987

In any case, when I listen to Thriller it will be on the original vinyl. Sounds pretty good

I recorded my vinyl copy to digital a couple of years ago (when I got my HEDD). All I did as far as a "remaster" of it was put a Massey L2007 just to bring up the levels slightly, I even left the crackle alone for nostalgic purposes.

[bcgood]

Hey uncajesse, take a chill pill. You'll have plenty of time to convince everyone of your vast digital knowledge with your future posts on GS. Relax and just enjoy yourself.

[wado1942]

I'm aware of this. It still isn't part of that DAC. It's applied after the DAC. But still... can you show me even one CD player with digital outputs that used the analog filters and didn't apply digital-based de-emphasis to the digital outputs?

Huh? Either the de-emphasis is applied digitally BEFORE the DAC (of course) or it's applied in the analogue domain after the DAC. It would be pure idiocy to design a CD player with de-emphasis capabilities at both points. It would be pure idiocy to design a CD player with digital outputs that only applied de-emphasis to the analogue outputs.

You're just stating the obvious as if I'm being argumentative.

I'm guessing that you're saying that 44.1kHz Stereo PCM isn't the reason that many recordings today don't sound so hot. Not the other way around. Because one could take what you just said either way.

Again, what? I'm saying that the source of the music and the engineer make the most difference. What other way could you interperet that? I've heard recordings done with 1 microphone on a 1/4" full track that would blow a lot of modern recordings away. I've heard recordings done on Minidisk that could do the same. There's plenty high dollar studios that produce total crap because the people engineering there don't have good judgement.

[cl516]

i went to my "local HMV" today (yeah i still have one!) and wanted to pick up the MJ discs.

all versions in-stock had the black "digitally remastered" stickers.

Are these the ones to buy, or should I find the 'older' CD's?

[DSD_Mastering]

I have one of the original half-speed mastered albums. It's one of best pop albums in my 3000+ vinyl collection.


Regards,

[VicD]

Anyone compare the CD to the SACD version? I currently have the '82 issue and it great on my setup.

[HookedOnHardware]

Originally Posted by AntManBee

I realise that this has been discussed before but, following the passing of Michael Jackson, I've been listening to Thriller again & just obtained the original 1982 CD pressing. Comparing it with the 2001 remastering is shocking!

The 2001 CD is clipped, distorted, compressed and EQ'd in a way that makes it deeply unpleasant to listen to, whereas the 1982 CD has dynamic range, the lyrics are audible, the drums sound great (Billie Jean's drums are ruined by the 2001 mastering), there's generally less bottom end lending clarity to the whole record - and there's audible tape hiss (yes!).

It's a real shame that such a well recorded record should be generally available now only in such a terrible edition.

Matt

Where did you get the 82' CD pressing from?

[Jesse Graffam]

I have the 1999 SACD now, which is a flat/straight transfer from original 30-ips half-inch master tapes. In my opinion - it blows away the 1982 1st pressing. The US 1st pressing (catalog "EK 38112" with "DI8P 50011" on the disk) and Japanese 1st pressing (catalog "35-8P-11") uses the same transfer/master.

I got my Japanese copy off Discogs 8 years ago, before the price went way up.

I output the SACD to 24/192, down-sampled to 44 with RX, and I'm in the slow process of remastering it in my spare time. I started with Billie Jean last night, as it seemed the most "off" in the original master. Unfortunately I won't be able to share it with anyone, but I do plan on sending a copy to Bernie, for gits & shiggles. So far I'm doing the album justice.

I actually have not heard the 2001 or 2008 versions yet, and it'll be interesting to compare after I'm completely done with mine. I have a feeling that mine has way more dynamics, from the reactions of the people who have heard a clip of my Billie Jean, and that have the 2001 and 2008 versions.

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by uncajesse

I have the 1999 SACD now, which is a flat/straight transfer from original 30-ips half-inch master tapes....

I output the SACD to 24/192, down-sampled to 44 with RX, and I'm in the slow process of remastering it in my spare time. I started with Billie Jean last night, as it seemed the most "off" in the original master. Unfortunately I won't be able to share it with anyone, but I do plan on sending a copy to Bernie, for gits & shiggles. So far I'm doing the album justice.

If you're going to forward BG a 'remastered' version of his own work and he had time to listen to it, I'd expect his first response may be why did you SRC down to 44.1k first rather than leave it at 24/192k?

What was 'off' with the original?

What's your monitoring system?

[Jesse Graffam]

Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey

What was 'off' with the original?

Nothing unless one considers opinion. In my opinion it was mainly the EQ. Not quite enough low bass, and there was a decent treble rise centered around 10kHz that peaks up to about 7dB higher than where I eventually put it. It doesn't sound muffled or muddy. The lack of such a large rise there "un-maskes" (in comparison) some of the higher frequency treble, and the midrange as well, allowing both to sound more natural. EQ isn't the only thing I did, but anything else was real subtle. I also don't use compression or limiting.

I had to automate a volume reduction on the beginning of the track because Bernie used compression on it. Thankfully with a very slow release. About -3dBu curving up to 0dBu right when MJ first starts singing.

Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey

What's your monitoring system?

Apogee Rosetta 200 -> NAD -> B&W N802D... and an Apogee Mini-DAC with various cans for headphone checks, and a bit of the ol' cut & fade. But what I really want is a pair of L-707s. Of course.

Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey

If you're going to forward BG a 'remastered' version of his own work and he had time to listen to it, I'd expect his first response may be why did you SRC down to 44.1k first rather than leave it at 24/192k?

My first response would be that all of the tracks are rolled off fast right under 20kHz already, so to consider Nyquist's Theorum - 44.1kHz (with perfect conversion) is capable of a complete reconstruction of that signal after the DAC. It wouldn't be able to accuractly reproduce the tape & machine noise above 22.05kHz. Spilt milk? Of course no converter is perfect yet, but I'm guessing that Bernie has pretty good converters and will do the 44.1kHz sample rate plenty of justice.

The signal path is double (64 bit float), by the way.

NOBODY else is going to hear it, except for him and whoever he cares to play it for, as you said; if he even has time to care. I'm simply doing it for my love of mastering, this recording, and in memory of Michael Jackson & his team's work. And Bernie deserves to have a copy of it, since it is also his work. That's all.

[AntManBee]

Originally Posted by HookedOnHardware

Where did you get the 82' CD pressing from?

eBay.

I also just found an original CD issue of 'Off The Wall' and have thrown the remastered one in the bin. The beginning of 'Rock With You' suffers on the remaster just the way that 'Billie Jean' does and the drums are completely ruined. BTW, does anyone know where I can get hold of the original mix of 'Rock With You' that was on the vinyl release, as even the first CD has the revised mix with the oh-so-obviously-overdubbed handclaps?