Surrealistic Pillow

[PStamler]

Hi folks:

I just got a copy of the BMG reissue of Jefferson Airplane's
"Surrealistic Pillow" album, RCA/BMG Heritage 82876 50351 2. I was
concerned about the remastering, as I am whenever a classic album is
remade. Well, I listened to it in the car and it sounded like hell;
harsh, with an edgy distortion. "Aha," I said, "another miserably-
squashed travesty." When I got home, I loaded it into the DAW
expecting to see the usual squeezed-from-the-toothpase tube
hypercompressed disaster. Well, it wasn't; "Somebody to Love" had
maxima around -0.5dBFS and some variation in levels, and "Embryonic
Journey" had heaps and heaps of dynamic range.

Except that it didn't *sound* like it had dynamic range. It sounded as
bad as the uptempo rockers.

So does anybody have any idea what might have happened to make this
disc sound as bad as it does? I can't believe the original tape is
this dirty (it was an Al Schmitt recording), and we're way past the
time when CDs are made from equalized dubs intended for LP mastering.
So what new technique have the boffins thought up to make this sound
awful without actual limiting?

Honestly, I have 78s that sound better than this.

Peace,
Paul

[Luxey]

Some kind of denoiser, de ploper and bulk EQ to pink noise.

[ckoz...@snet.net]

Paul:
Perform the following steps:
#1. Download a free audio editor( Audacity) or purchase one(Cool edit or Pro Tools).

#2. Rip a WAV or MP3 of some of the tracks off that thing.

#3. Evaluate the waveforms and compare them to the following: http://www.christian-gleinser.de/stuff/nin-loudness-1.png

If they look like the waveform at the BOTTOM they have been "remastered".

Go to a used CD place or look on line for a 2nd hand copy of the original CD release of "Pillow". Slip on your best headphones and enjoy!

-ChrisCoaster

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/9/2012 2:18 AM, PStamler wrote:
> Hi folks:
>
> I just got a copy of the BMG reissue of Jefferson Airplane's
> "Surrealistic Pillow" album, RCA/BMG Heritage 82876 50351 2.

> Well, I listened to it in the car and it sounded like hell;
> harsh, with an edgy distortion.

> I loaded it into the DAW
> expecting to see the usual squeezed-from-the-toothpase tube
> hypercompressed disaster. Well, it wasn't; "Somebody to Love" had
> maxima around -0.5dBFS

0.5 dBFS is getting close enough to full scale that your
car's CD player may be giving you that "intersample"
distortion that I've heard about (but not sure if I've
heard). You probably know what I'm talking about, where
there are two adjacent samples close enough to full scale so
that when the space between them is filled in, the peak goes
above the 0 dBFS analog output of the converters and the
next stage in the D/A converter clips.

Does it sound as bad listening on your presumably higher
quality playback system at home?

By the way, I've finally hit the January issue of Recording
on the stack and loved your article on dawn-to-1970s drum
recording. And thanks, too, to our friends and neighbors
here for their remembrances and contributions to your research.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[hank alrich]

<ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:

> Paul: Perform the following steps: #1. Download a free audio editor(
> Audacity) or purchase one(Cool edit or Pro Tools).

Man, have you any idea of the experience of Mr. Stamler? He needn't be
going off to get his first free DAW...

> #2. Rip a WAV or MP3 of some of the tracks off that thing.
>
> #3. Evaluate the waveforms and compare them to the following:
> http://www.christian-gleinser.de/stuff/nin-loudness-1.png
>
> If they look like the waveform at the BOTTOM they have been "remastered".
>
> Go to a used CD place or look on line for a 2nd hand copy of the original
> CD release of "Pillow". Slip on your best headphones and enjoy!
>
> -ChrisCoaster

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Frank Stearns]

PStamler <psta...@pobox.com> writes:

snips

>So does anybody have any idea what might have happened to make this
>disc sound as bad as it does? I can't believe the original tape is
>this dirty (it was an Al Schmitt recording), and we're way past the
>time when CDs are made from equalized dubs intended for LP mastering.
>So what new technique have the boffins thought up to make this sound
>awful without actual limiting?

I don't know that album, but I know what you mean. (Mr. Schmitt typically gets
pretty good sounding stuff).

In general much stuff these days sounds pretty good, but a significant chunk
sounds, well, downright strange or as you note, bloody awful.

It's perplexing and troubling on a number of fronts. I wonder at times if we've
reached the point in the broad "evolution" of audio and society where these points
are beginning to dominate:

- engineers, producers and others in the "QC" chain who have actually /never/ in
their lifetime heard acoustic music or acoustic sources. Everything, EVERYTHING
they've experienced is through electronics and transducers. Even something simple
like a conversation is within the weave of reproduced audio in the background (or
foreground, as some folks routinely have conversations with 75-85 dB music playing
that you have to talk over -- loud crap that never gets extinguished).

True, the album you cite likely would not be labeled "acoustic", but I maintain that
a good engineer needs a solid anchor somewhere in purely acoustic sound. (Al
has it, but perhaps the remastering folks did not.)

It's a bit like an artist who learned to paint in daylight v. one who only painted
under flourescent light their entire life. The latter will likely have a rather odd
color sense. And some garishly ugly colors might get used and not even be noticed
under that light.

- closely related to the above is a lack of music education or early exposure to
many different types of music. True, you don't have to have this to push buttons and
be a nice person that people like to work with, but IMO such engineers might lack
aesthetic dimension in what they do, or be oblivious to serious problems with
the recording/mastering.

If all those around the person at the studio or mastering house are the same way, no
one's going to catch the disaster that just went out the door.

It's a theory, anyway....

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
.

[Randy Yates]

Hi Paul,

Just from the hip, but perhaps you could try partition the offending
track into several sections in the frequency domain (i.e., 0-500 Hz,
500-4kHz, or whatever) and then rerun your dynamic range tests on each
of those subbands. The idea is that perhaps they used
frequency-dependent compression or somesuch...
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[ckoz...@snet.net]

______________
Needless to say all they are doing with this loudness business is DESTROYING musical history and heritage. Future generations will have no concept of how albums such as Surrealistic Pillow were meant to sound because of this so-called re-mastering.

And WHY must it be done to legacy material(pre-1990s music)??? One of the reasons given, in the case of the Beatles releases of 2009, was to make that music "more competitive" volume-wise with current releases(2000s era stuff). Bullshit! Leave it alone! Don't do ANYTHING that would reduce the dynamic vitality of these songs! Add in some more bottom and top, sparingly at that, but stay away from the compressors!

-CC

[PStamler]

Chris, you may not have read what I wrote carefully enough. I *did*
look at the waveforms in a DAW. If you want to see what I saw, look
here:

www.stlecd.org/hold/Somebody1.jpg

is the whole waveform of "Somebody to Love";

www.stlecd.org/hold/Somebody2.jpg

is a zoom-in of the loudest section.

www.stlecd.org/hold/Embryonic.jpg

Is the whole song "Embryonic Journey".

I fully expected to see something like the bottom picture in Chris's
example. As you can see, I didn't.

And the maximum level of -0.5dBFS was only attained rarely; in the
screen-grabs, the white lines on the DAW are at -3dBFS. (I used
Audition, by the way.)

So I'm still unsure what screwed the sound up. It still sounds bad in
my regular listening system by the way, a CardDeluxe in the computer.

Peace,
Paul

[MarkK]

Paul,

I'd be curious, listen to it through an EQ with a flat shelf of everything
above 2 kHz at -3 dB or so..

I am amazed at how that small change takes the "edge" off.

Mark

[Don Pearce]

I think I'd call that a major change.

d

[PStamler]

I'll give that a try...but I think what I'm hearing is various forms
of distortion, not excessive treble. Still I'll try it.

Peace,
Paul

[PStamler]

Well, I tried it. It's still obnoxious-sounding; I hear an edge of IM
distortion riding on Grace Slick's voice in "Somebody to Love", and
more IM coming from the instruments and backing vocals. (That's over
and above what's there intentionally). Similarly I hear a nasty IM
edge on the acoustic guitar in "Embryonic Journey". It's worse with
the EQ bypassed, no question, but it's still there with the EQ
working. (FYI the EQ was the Parametric in Audition; -3dB shelf from
2kHz on up.)

No, I think something went wrong in the remastering over and above
ratty EQ. I'm just curious -- what?

Peace,
Paul

[ckoz...@snet.net]

Sorry, I read more carefully and saw that you did. I tend to be a *Fox News* style reader(I read the first line or two and base my reply on that! lol) but that does not describe me or my polititcs.

In all seriousness, actual letters must be written to both the label and production studio addresses where this reissue was made! Include print outs or screen captures of the DAW. We need to stick it in their ear that we will no longer tolerate reissues of historic albums or even new releases by modern artists produced in this hideous manner.

Music has life, it has vitality, it bases its most fundamental wave properties in the laws of physics, NOT in manipulation via electronic processing for the sake of a buck, pound, yen or deutschmark!

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 02:18:25 -0400, PStamler wrote
(in article
<fbf3d36c-5b37-4743...@p21g2000vby.googlegroups.com>):

Hmmm,I still have the vinyl....

Regards,

Ty Ford

Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r

[hank alrich]

Me, too, but it ain't what it used to be. The music is still excellent
but the wear and tear has torn and worn.

[Richard Webb]

On Wed 2012-May-09 10:47, Frank Stearns writes:
> It's perplexing and troubling on a number of fronts. I wonder at
> times if we've reached the point in the broad "evolution" of audio
> and society where these points
> are beginning to dominate:

> - engineers, producers and others in the "QC" chain who have
> actually /never/ in their lifetime heard acoustic music or acoustic
> sources. Everything, EVERYTHING they've experienced is through
> electronics and transducers. Even something simple
> like a conversation is within the weave of reproduced audio in the
> background (or
> foreground, as some folks routinely have conversations with 75-85 dB
> music playing
> that you have to talk over -- loud crap that never gets
> extinguished).

I've argued this for a long time. We've got a culture of
folks in the developed world who have never heard acoustic
music, or who are totally unfamiliar with the way sound
works without some form of mechanically reproduced sound
they need to talk over, or listen through to hear other
sounds in their environment.

<snip>

> It's a bit like an artist who learned to paint in daylight v. one
> who only painted
> under flourescent light their entire life. The latter will likely
> have a rather odd
> color sense. And some garishly ugly colors might get used and not
> even be noticed
> under that light.

INdeed, and it's not just the constant listening through
transducers, but the amount of just general "noise
pollution" to borrow the term.

My remote trucks control room is pretty good about limiting
exposure to sources of noise pollution, but here in my
office, and in my home I have plenty.

My wife's oxygen concentrator runs 24/7 when we're home.
ADd to this the noise from a ceiling fan motor or two, a vhf ham radio transceiver in hte living room, the hf transceiver here in the office as well as a vhf/uhf transceiver, also
often the speaker which produces the synthesized speech
enabling me to read your article. Just to hear her talking
to me from across the house means I have to tune through a
sometimes very high noise floor with my naked ears.

> - closely related to the above is a lack of music education or early
> exposure to many different types of music. True, you don't have to
> have this to push buttons and
> be a nice person that people like to work with, but IMO such
> engineers might lack
> aesthetic dimension in what they do, or be oblivious to serious
> problems with the recording/mastering.

This is also true. Too many people pushing the buttons and
manipulating the technology have never learned to appreciate a wide variety of types of music. These are for the most
part people who've spent their whole lives listening to
nothing that wasn't produced via transducers. Even at
guitar lessons they played amplified guitars, never went to
hear an orchestra play, never sat down to listen to a lady
play an acoustic guitar and sing where she didn't have a
microphone in front of her, and maybe a pickup on the
guitar.

> If all those around the person at the studio or mastering house are
> the same way, no
> one's going to catch the disaster that just went out the door.

YEs, and a lot of people i know who are under 50 years old
have never experienced music that wasn't brought to their
ears via transducers.

> It's a theory, anyway....

A theory with some basis in fact I'm afraid.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Richard Webb]

This is a respost, the last one didn't propagate for some
reason.

[Richard Webb]

This is a repost, the last one didn't propagate for some

reason.

On Wed 2012-May-09 10:47, Frank Stearns writes:

> It's perplexing and troubling on a number of fronts. I wonder at
> times if we've reached the point in the broad "evolution" of audio
> and society where these points
> are beginning to dominate:

> - engineers, producers and others in the "QC" chain who have
> actually /never/ in their lifetime heard acoustic music or acoustic
> sources. Everything, EVERYTHING they've experienced is through
> electronics and transducers. Even something simple
> like a conversation is within the weave of reproduced audio in the
> background (or
> foreground, as some folks routinely have conversations with 75-85 dB
> music playing
> that you have to talk over -- loud crap that never gets
> extinguished).

I've argued this for a long time. We've got a culture of
folks in the developed world who have never heard acoustic
music, or who are totally unfamiliar with the way sound
works without some form of mechanically reproduced sound
they need to talk over, or listen through to hear other
sounds in their environment.

<snip>

> It's a bit like an artist who learned to paint in daylight v. one
> who only painted
> under flourescent light their entire life. The latter will likely
> have a rather odd
> color sense. And some garishly ugly colors might get used and not
> even be noticed
> under that light.

INdeed, and it's not just the constant listening through
transducers, but the amount of just general "noise
pollution" to borrow the term.

My remote trucks control room is pretty good about limiting
exposure to sources of noise pollution, but here in my
office, and in my home I have plenty.

My wife's oxygen concentrator runs 24/7 when we're home.

ADd to this the noise from a ceiling fan motor or two, a vhf ham radio transceiver in the living room, the hf transceiver here in the office as well as a vhf/uhf transceiver, also

often the speaker which produces the synthesized speech
enabling me to read your article. Just to hear her talking
to me from across the house means I have to tune through a
sometimes very high noise floor with my naked ears.

> - closely related to the above is a lack of music education or early
> exposure to many different types of music. True, you don't have to
> have this to push buttons and
> be a nice person that people like to work with, but IMO such
> engineers might lack
> aesthetic dimension in what they do, or be oblivious to serious
> problems with the recording/mastering.

This is also true. Too many people pushing the buttons and
manipulating the technology have never learned to appreciate a wide variety of types of music. These are for the most
part people who've spent their whole lives listening to
nothing that wasn't produced via transducers. Even at
guitar lessons they played amplified guitars, never went to
hear an orchestra play, never sat down to listen to a lady
play an acoustic guitar and sing where she didn't have a
microphone in front of her, and maybe a pickup on the
guitar.

> If all those around the person at the studio or mastering house are
> the same way, no
> one's going to catch the disaster that just went out the door.

YEs, and a lot of people i know who are under 50 years old
have never experienced music that wasn't brought to their
ears via transducers.

> It's a theory, anyway....

[ckoz...@snet.net]

Rich Webb: Posting via google groups like me? Ihh feel yo' pain. :)

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 04:58:47 -0700 (PDT), ckoz...@snet.net wrote:

>Rich Webb: Posting via google groups like me? Ihh feel yo' pain. :)

Nobody need feel this pain. In fact if everybody stopped posting via
Google Groups, the rest of us wouldn't feel any pain either.

d

[Richard Webb]

On Fri 2012-May-18 07:58, ckoz...@snet.net writes:
> Rich Webb: Posting via google groups like me? Ihh feel yo' pain. :)

Nope, I don't use google. I'm posting by my dial-up
bulletin board system, which acts as news server
essentially, but routes its traffic through another bbs
which posts to the normal nntp server it has access to.
There was where the hangup was, that nntp server a couple
links away was sitting on posts for awhile it seems. <go
figure>

But, although google's usenet archives are quite useful to
many, I feel that otherwise google is a poor usenet citizen.

[ckoz...@snet.net]

Particularly with regards to the latency issues.

Particularly with regards to the latency issues.

Particularly with regards to the latency issues.

Which leads some to double-triple post out of frustration! lol :D