x
Thomas W. Bethel 14 September 2004

Besides the albums mentioned on Bob Katz's site (http://www.digido.com) what are some really well done or really BADLY done albums that people are listening to or staying away from for the total content including mastering? I know for example that the Red Hot Chili Peppers album "Californication" is probably the loudest CD ever done. It probably has the most digital overs as well. Are there other albums that are really really good or really really bad?

Just wondering?

Comments

Ammitsboel Tue, 09/14/2004 - 10:24

That's a good question!

Have you ever heard The Flaming Lips?
I've heard 2 albums: The Soft Bulletin and Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots.
These 2 albums have just about the thinnest sound I've ever heard!!

Jamiroquai: A funk odessey.
The room an natural sound that's left on the album is reduced to a small grainy thing... very, very dirty sounding.

Beck: Sea Change.
A very good sounding album, and they wasn't afraid of the bass in the production.
To my ears the message in the music comes out clear, warm and nice without it sounding to fat, very nice!

Lenny Kravitz: Baptism.
...Didn't the older albums have about one more mile of depth and space between the instruments?
Otherwise the album sounds nice, but a little digital sounding.

Best Regards,

Don Grossinger Tue, 09/14/2004 - 13:06

Tom,
A few good ones off the top of my head:

The Rolling Stones catalog recent remasters for SACD (compared to the originals) and "Stripped" on CD
Lyle Lovett: "Joshua Judges Ruth"
Raul Malo: "The Nashville Acoustic Sessions"
Geoff Muldaur: "Private Astronomy"
The Fairfield Four: "I Couldn't Hear Nobody Pray"
Afro Celt Sound System: " Volume 2: Release"
Bob Marley & The Wailers: "Live At The Roxy" reissue

Granted some of these are slightly obscure, but all are a treat for the ears. More titles to follow!

anonymous Tue, 09/14/2004 - 16:36

Thomas W. Bethel wrote: I know for example that the Red Hot Chili Peppers album "Californication" is probably the loudest CD ever done.

Louder than Taproot's "Gift"? That's one loud CD. Mastered by Tom Baker.

I have both "Californication" & "Gift" and I consider "Gift" to be louder. I think it's just a percieved loudness thing. That CD absolutely slams you in face. Thats one mastering job that sticks out in my mind.

BTW, does anyone know anything about Tom Baker? I'd really like to read some interviews with him or hear about some of his techniques.

Ammitsboel Wed, 09/15/2004 - 11:54

Mark Wilder, do you work in the same facility as Vladio Meller?

Maybe you could ask him about the "Californication" mastering?
Why are some numbers pumping so much as they do?
It makes the numbers sound more different from eachother than they really are, when listening to the album. What I'm saying is that the loudness could have been achived without the severe pumping.

And was the overs already on the material delivered to him?

Best Regards

anonymous Wed, 09/15/2004 - 16:18

First I must say that I was trying to steer clear of this thread. I've been on both ends of this one and I care not to critique anyone's work in public.

Vlado is an amazing engineer, and this is not really a conversation I want to have with him. But this topic did come up when the record was originally mastered. The original mixes were extremely loud (mixed to PCM 9000 from what I remember) and he hardly did anything to them. He took a lot of heat for this one and I'm not sure it's all on him.

Don Grossinger Thu, 10/07/2004 - 11:09

Actually, I just listened to Aja from the Mobile Fidelity 1/2 speed mastered vinyl pressing recently. Most of it sounded great, but there was some inconsistancy in the EQ, with the title track having noticably more high end than the rest of the album. Side B was really amaizing. And as far as playing goes, that records' one of my alltime favorites.

Ammitsboel Fri, 11/12/2004 - 13:54

huub wrote: I'm pretty amazed by justified (Justin timberlake)..
That cd is LOUD!!! but I ( A mere broadcast audio mixer, no authority on mastering i must admit) don't hear any clipping or pumping going on...The bass on that album is also really fantastic..(Herb powers jr. @ hit factory did it)

Are you sure you don't hear any pumping?...

anonymous Sun, 11/14/2004 - 02:07

Worst Mastering

Hmmmm... Where should I begin.

I think it's a tie between The Rolling Stones Forty Licks (greatest hits collection) remastered by Stephen Marcussen and the 2000 remaster of Stevie Wonder's "Songs In The Key Of Life" (1976).. Both masters have been screwed with far too much. The first issue CD version of Stevie's sounds much more natural and musical. Same with the Stones "Hot Rocks" compilation. If it ain't broke....

A few of the latest Hendrix remasters are horribly mid-rangy and just awful sounding. Amputated peaks all over the place. Really a shame because they finally got a hold of the original masters for this release. George Marino at Sterling Sound is responsible for this. Disappointing. However, the Band Of Gypsys Live At Fillmore East (2CD) sounds dramatically better.

The 1996 "24 bit" remaster of The Doors catalogue is a laugh. Strange that they didn't issue them as HDCD. Just regular 16 bit. I'm beginning to think dithering has a role to play in bad sounding CDs. I'm buying back my old Doors CDs as I can't listen to the remasters. Anyone want to buy a boxed set?

Same goes for the Cream remasters. Again... I'm buying back my old Cream cds. UV22 is evil I tell you!!

The Led Zeppelin remasters are listenable but I seem to remember my old Zep CDs sounding a little warmer. Bit too much hi-midrange for my tastes and not enough bass. Then again, it was remastered in 1990 by George Marino at Sterling Sound. Back when it seemed all things analog should be avoided at any cost. Cold sounding and hard to listen to. Recommended bass setting: +7 ... Treble: -5 :wink:
PS: Don't be fooled by the later Zep compilations like the Early / Latter Days set. Still the same stuff from '90.

The Police - Message In A Box (1996)
Astonishingly weak sounding and very irritating in places. Thankfully I only borrowed this set. They've since remastered everything again. Haven't heard them though.

Other garbage to avoid:
Let It Be... Naked.
I really, really tried to like this one.
Remixed in ProTools and slapped together. Absolutely no character. A couple of tracks are from completely different takes than the original. They made the curious decision to edit out all the intro/outro chatter... assumingly to make this into a "real" album like Paul wanted. Should have been renamed "Won't Let It Be".

Oh well... Remasters are like buses. Just wait for the next one to come around.

On a more optimistic note, not all the new remasters are bad.

Great Sounding Masters

The Beatles - Yellow Submarine Songtrack (1999)
Yes, I know this was also remixed for this release but the mastering is just superb. I believe Peter Mew at Abbey Road did it. Beautiful work. Just about as good as The Beatles can sound on CD. Definitely recommended.

Rush remasters - Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering
Moving Pictures (1981) sounds fantastic. I hear he did a good job on the new Stones SACDs.

Free remasters (2002) - Peter Mew at Abbey Road
This is THE reissue to get. Not only does every album sound fantastic but they filled out each one with rare and unreleased tracks. (BBC sessions, b-sides, alternate takes, demos, etc.) The liner notes have interviews and insights into some of the songs as well as recording and release dates. Other labels take notice. This is what people want. If you're not familiar with Free I'm sure you've heard "All Right Now". Paul Rodgers band before Bad Company. Dynamics, warmth and presence. The pristine sound from these gorgeous 1/2" masters really shines through on every one of these CDs. A pleasure to listen to. Possibly my favorite remaster ever! I'm sure the gear at Abbey Road has something to do with it but Peter Mew is a great listener.
Personal favorite: Highway (1970)

Have I missed any?

joe lambert Mon, 11/15/2004 - 13:00

I think we can all agree that Dark Side.. Peter Gabriel's So and a handful of other records are all around great records. That does not quite cover what's great mastering.
For example a ME may get a record that was poorly recorded and poorly mixed. Very little stereo image, muddy vocals and all around uninspired performances. But if you make that into something that is actually listenable that's a really great job. Frankly this is more common than getting great mixes that need very little work.
With all do respect to the mastering of Dark SOTM. I would imagine the master mixes of Allen Parsons sound pretty damn good. Not all to different from what we hear when listening. That's fine. If it doesn't need a lot of work leave it be.
I hear a lot of what I consider "over mastering" lately. Too much low end, too much top, too much level. It sounds good once or twice but after listening a few times I don't feel like hearing it again. I'm actually fatigued by it.
Recently I worked on a record that was mixed by a very experienced producer/engineer. Of the 12 songs I added processing to only 3 of them.

anonymous Mon, 11/15/2004 - 21:59

joe lambert wrote: Recently I worked on a record that was mixed by a very experienced producer/engineer. Of the 12 songs I added processing to only 3 of them.

Thats what mastering realy is....a clear ear in a space that allows you to make those decisons.

mastering is not using gear, it's making the decision if you should oe not.
Ed

Clayphish Tue, 11/16/2004 - 18:30

Very Good:

Supertramp - Crime of the Century(Vinyl and CD)
Jellyfish - Spilt Milk
Dire Straits - Brother in Arms

Not so good:

Jimi Hendrex - Axis: Bold as Love (vinyl)
Mr. Bungle - California
Flaming Lips - Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots

I believe that sometimes mastering engineers have to do salvage jobs of the work thats given to them. With that said, I can't claim 100% that the mastering is the problem. Really, who's knows, there could be great mastered albums even though they may not sound it because of the sub par recording process or mix.

TanTan Tue, 11/23/2004 - 12:59

i love the steely dan remasters ,
babylon systers and hey 19 sounds amazing .
but the mastering engineer has killed deacon blues which sounds much more natural on the original album (aja), and i love this song :-(

the worst mastering i've ever heard is for almost all the last 5 years eurotrance music , no dynamics ,no bass really mp3 like quality with tons of high mid and no deepness at all and many times it's out of phase even on the loudest peaks , whatta shame ...

JamieTate Thu, 11/25/2004 - 08:46

Worst mastered albums? I nominate Bob Norberg as worst mastering engineer... ever. He mangles and mutilates the songs into something uncomprehensable. His work on Huey Lewis' Sports is rediculous. The EQ is just awful. He took a chunk out of the top end yet added some sort of weird 6kHz thing, I guess to brighten it up a bit. He also no-noises the hell out of things to the pont of ripping any transients out of the songs. They sound vacuum sealed.

I also have a real big problem with the recent Beatles CD's (not that the orignals were anything but mediocre). Take the album 1. It's no-noised for no apparent reason. The songs pump with artifacts and the whole thing chirps like an MP3. Peter Mew really dropped the ball on this one.

Same goes for Let It Be... Naked. The noise reduction is pretty much rhe defining sound of that album. Listen to Get Back. There's so many noise reduction artifacts on that you can't really hear anything but that annoying chirping sound. Bleck!

golli Tue, 12/07/2004 - 18:06

Worst mastered albums? I nominate Bob Norberg as worst mastering engineer... ever. He mangles and mutilates the songs into something uncomprehensable.

But they are doing the best they can.

Taken from: http://www.capitolmastering.com/capitolmastering/rm.html

There are a number of techniques that can be used to eliminate unwanted noise and the undesirable side effects of the de-hiss processes. For Bob Norberg, it's a two step process in which he "routinely removes about half of the hiss in the analog domain while transferring into the digital workstation, the other half is removed in the digital domain within the computer. Since each of these dehissing methods has its unique side effects, going half way with each renders such side effects inaudible. " It's also important not to overdo any of this. Sure, you can end up with a CD that is dead quiet but you don't want to kill the music in the process. It can also be helpful to EQ the program (add high frequencies) to bring back a little "life" that might have been lost in the processing.

I'm curious if the Pro ME's around here, use the same method.

JamieTate Tue, 12/07/2004 - 20:44

golli wrote: I'm curious if the Pro ME's around here, use the same method.

Probably none that are still employed.

In that quote Bob Norberg himself says noise reduction takes the life out of the recordings, which is why he then adds the additional top end boost to try to overcome the artifacts left by not one but two swipes through the no-noise. Bleck! If you've ever heard even one pass through no-noise on good monitors you can hear the destruction it causes.

Listen to the Beatles 1. The intros (as well as the complete song) have been run through NR and they sound like MP3's. There's a metalic chirping sound instead of realistic transints and harmonics. Who cares if there's some hiss. It's been there for 40 years. Leave it! I've never heard anybody say they'd like a certain band if only there was less hiss on their album. This is certainly a by product of competion and hype and ha nothing to do with good sound quality.

golli Wed, 12/08/2004 - 12:12

Just look at the cataloge the man has been trusted with, pretty big names there.
I'm not doubting your words JamieTate and I dont have any of those remastered CD's in my collection. If Nat King Cole or Bing Crosby sound like chipmunks, no one will buy and if they are drowned in hiss..........? I would'nt buy.
Just sounds lika an executive decision had been made at Capitol.

JamieTate Wed, 12/08/2004 - 16:16

golli wrote: Just look at the cataloge the man has been trusted with, pretty big names there.
I'm not doubting your words JamieTate and I dont have any of those remastered CD's in my collection. If Nat King Cole or Bing Crosby sound like chipmunks, no one will buy and if they are drowned in hiss..........? I would'nt buy.
Just sounds lika an executive decision had been made at Capitol.

Those records have been selling millions of copies for years before Bob kicked the life out of them with NR. I don't thin it's anything more than a new way to get sales. How can you market a 60 year old recording? How about by adding the words "restored" and "remastered" to their bag of catch phrases?

I can cite remaster after remaster where the original CD release is far superior to the new remastered, maximized and no-noised version. I guess louder is better to the average Joe buying CD's.

x

User login