When Bad Mastering Happens to Good Albums

[Rudy]

I was going to post my observations of the sound clip attached, but I decided to give everyone an exercise first.

http://home.comcast.net/~nrudish/media/coleshearing_sample.mp3

This is a sample of "Pick Yourself Up", as performed on the Capitol album Nat King Cole Sings/George Shearing Plays. I've included a sample of both the LP and the CD. The LP version is unaltered, as is the CD version.

Listen to both. You may have to check it out with headphones or turn it up a little...but I think the differences should be obvious. The LP is from a 70's reissue, which has a yellow Capitol label with the large name "Capitol" on the bottom, bleeding off the edge. The CD was remastered (heh) in 2000 by Ron McMaster.

Give a good listen a few times, and make a choice in the poll...then after a short period of time I'll let you know which is which, and why (and how) one is better than the other.

 

[Mr Bill]

I'll go first. I voted for #1 because the range was better, and the sound "crisper" and mmore robust. However, I thought the stereo separation was poor. Clip two had that mudy compressed feel with a bit more "sibilance" but I LOVED the stereo separation in it. The stereo separation leads me to believe it is the original vinyl (from in the days when stereo separation was very exaggerated), but the "compressed muddy sound" leads me to believe that #2 was the remastered CD with Mr McMaster going "50s Stereo" on us by enhamcing the separation. Of course, if your clip off vinyl came from a mono LP my point is moot.

--Mr Bill

 

[Rudy]

Nope, they're both stereo. You may also have to turn it up a bit, or listen over headphones, to hear what's "wrong" with one of the clips.

 

[Mr Bill]

I figured they're both stereo. I just like the separation better on the second one because it is so exaggeratred (50s style)...

--Mr Bill

 

[W.B.]

The quality of the '70's LP reissue (or the lack of it) may also have something to do with the EQ and cutting equipment they used. At that time, Capitol apparently used Neumann SX-68 cutterheads on all their cutting lathes, and their limiters and other processing equipment may have likewise been different from when the album was first released, when their Scully lathes were equipped with Westrex stereo cutterheads and limiters and processors from such firms as Pultec and Fairchild. And it isn't just in this case; I have a Capitol-pressed copy of the 45 of the Chi-Lites' big hit "Oh Girl" (Brunswick 55471, 1972), which they'd also mastered, and it likewise sounded not as good as those copies mastered and pressed by Columbia. (Mercury-mastered and PRC-pressed copies of that 45 are somewhere in-between Columbia and Capitol in sound quality.)

 

[Rudy]

I've heard that the Capitol pressings of this album aren't that much different...yes, I could probably hear the differences if I had an original "rainbow" pressing to compare it to. But at least in this comparison, the difference between LP and CD is a lot larger.

The only real complaint about my vinyl copy is that the first tracks on both sides are extremely noisy, even after a trip on the record vacuum.

 

[Andrew T.]

My most immediate guess was that #2 was the vinyl copy due to the exaggerated stereo separation and the fact that I'm sure I heard a couple of vinyl-like pops or clicks in it. It sounded muddy, but that wouldn't be entirely surprising given the general quality of '70s vinyl. #1, however, sounds better, with crisp highs and good, clean overall quality. I wouldn't be entirely surprised, however, if #1 was the LP and #2 was the CD, because of the prevalence of badly mastered CDs in recent years. With misuse of modern technology, I wouldn't be surprised if you could doctor #1 up until it sounds as bad as #2.

 

[Murray]

I initially voted for clip #1, because it (particularly the vocal) sounded clearer. However, after listening several more times, I'm changing my vote to #2. The vocal in the second clip is fuller and richer sounding, and the piano part has much more detail. In the first clip, the piano is almost lost in the background. I'm betting that #2 is the vinyl copy.

Murray
...changing his vote, online...

 

[snapcrotch]

Since I can't download the audio samples, I did my own 'home game version' by A/B-ing two earlier sources of each medium.
My vinyl source is a NM 2nd pressing from 1963 with the Capitol logo on top (and the sticker for a free bonus album of six tracks each by Cole and Shearing). It has a nice soundstage and spatial array of instruments: bass on left, Cole center, Shearing right, balanced strings to the rear. Cole's voice is given just enough echo to cover the studio and reverbs forward just enough. We are perched in the front center of the balcony or loge.
The CD is 1987's Capitol CDP 7-48332-2,"remastered by Larry Walsh at Capitol recording studios" and noticeably louder. Cole's voice is 'in your face' -- singing at you just inches away. The separation of instruments becomes smeared by the increase in gain levels, sacrificing detail. (And the bass has inexplicably been panned to the right.) Also, the speed seemed to be pitched higher and the CD finished just over 1 second ahead of the vinyl.
Thanks for raising the issue of CD remastering -- and with such a wonderful example. The point is clear and well-taken.

 

[Harry]

I'm with Mr. Bill. After finally getting a few minutes to play along here, my guess is that the first is a no-noised CD, and the second is an LP. (I too hear a couple of vinyl ticks). The separation on the second sounds more '60ish, while modern day mastering tends to mush everything up into the center of the stereo stage. (That's probably some form of modern day studio political correctness, to assure that the left channel doesn't feel bad that the right channel is getting something that the left isn't.)

Harry
...awaiting the answer from our host, online...

 

[Rudy]

The CD is 1987's Capitol CDP 7-48332-2,"remastered by Larry Walsh at Capitol recording studios" and noticeably louder. Cole's voice is 'in your face' -- singing at you just inches away.

I've heard the earlier CD version actually sounds better than the 2000 reissue...a lot better. (I was actually shooting for an earlier CD version when i bought this CD. However, I don't know if there is yet another reissue between the 1987 and the 2000...I'm thinking maybe early 90's?) Part of the problem with the 2000, like Harry says, the engineers have discovered "no-noise", and in usuall fashion, have grossly overused it. Chokes all the bloody life out of it. This 2000 CD just sounds so....wrong.

Be lucky Bob Norberg didn't remaster it...he's even worse with this remastering work.

Another interesting comparison would be to compare the mono LP to the stereo. Since these aren't that hard to find, I may do that.

However, with the CD, while the original LP may not have been the most ideal, at any rate the CD should give us a representation of what we remember the original LP being. Not an altered version...and certainly not with so much no-noise and other trickery to make it sound "clean and modern". That's like colorizing Ansel Adams' photographs.

Blame the record labels for this. They want the CDs loud, and they want all the noise removed. After all, that's what we want, isn't it?

 

[Rudy]

...awaiting the answer from our host, online...

I actually should have locked the thread after posting the poll...seems that one "opinion" posted early on is tainting the results. Never thought about that.

 

[BerniePR]

From one A&Mer to another, I liked the 2nd clip better due to the "wider spaced" Stereo pan. I believe #2 is the lp vinyl version. I have this album on cd and it is one of my favorite recordings! If any of you out there wants to hear exquisite music from 2 unique talents, "run don't walk" and buy it! I prefer the vinyl version for the better stereo separation. My favorite tracks on this are, "September", "I've Got It Bad, and That Ain't Good", and "Serenata" (done very well by our very own A&Mer the great Pete Jolly.) Too bad the cd does not have the same "wide" stereo
separation.
P.S. God Bless W Bush, Tony Blair,The Terminator, and the Real Terminator: Rush Limbaugh the 3rd! (a.k.a. Rush-Tradamus!)

 

[Rudy]

Like Bernie says...

It's a good "meeting of the minds" album. Ironically as accomplished a pianist as Nat Cole was (back in the Nat Cole Trio days), he was singing mostly pop songs for Capitol in those days. Still, having George Shearing (whose albums were always a treat unto themselves) and Nat Cole on one album is quite enjoyable. Shearing really didn't want to re-record one of his signature tunes, "Pick Yourself Up", for this project, but Cole had a new idea to do it slow. It works.

 

[Rudy]

Interesting note: the strings on this album were accidentally recorded out of phase. That explains the sort of phasey wrap-around effect they have.

 

[Rick-An Ordinary Fool]

Ok I listened to this with my headphones. Nice song by the way. Now I want to hear the rest lol. Especially clip #2. What is the name of this album your speaking of?

The reason I picked #2 is cause I thought it sounded better, not that it is the correct one but I liked #2 better. I can tell #2 is definately the vinyl version. The stereo separation on #2 is incredible, the piano in the right ear is cool.

# 1 does seem brighter & vocals more upfront in the center (possibly more echoey) Like he is in the bathroom kinda close feel.

I like this, sorta fun to play this listen & then lets' talk about it.

 

[Rudy]

I won't keep you in suspenders any longer then. It's fairly obvious that clip #2 is the vinyl, and #1 the CD. So, why do I think that the vinyl beats the CD?

First, the CD is a "remix". This in itself isn't always bad, but being recorded in 1961, it was likely recorded "dry" to three-track, then mixed down from there into stereo and mono albums. Pretty much what A&M did. The mix on this one bothered me--everything is biased hard into the center, and off to the right. The original LP maintained the concept of "Nat King Cole Sings" (heard midway between left and center) and "George Shearing Plays" (right side). The new CD just sounds like it's lacking width, and...

The sound is very dry...dry from overuse of "no noise". You really have to listen carefully through headphones or good speakers to hear it (and yet I can still hear it over a $39.99 set of Altec Lansing ACS-44 computer speakers). At the trailing edge of each sound, you hear the high frequencies "close off". What this does is not only remove that nasty old tape hiss (which isn't bothersome to begin with on the original LP), but it also removes any transients or ambiance from the sound. Hear how Nat Cole's voice just resonates on the LP version...where at the ends of his words on the CD, it sounds sort of clipped off. The strings also have a very odd effect from the overdose of no-noise. Thing is, it's also a combination of the "dry" original recording and no-noise that makes the strings sound rather odd...again, the transients being clipped off as the no-noise filter closes in around the ends of the figures and cuts out high frequencies along with the noise. Basically, a high-frequency noise gate. (In other words, when the level of high frequencies falls, like during the reverb portion of a sound, the filter reduces the high frequencies to combat hiss.) This no-noise filtering unfortunately throws out good with the bad. The end result is clean, yes, but also sterile sounding and somewhat muted and blunt...and very unnatural. The CD to me sounds clean, sterile, and

I'm not sure about EQ, since the LP has a boost around 3,000 Hz, and who knows what other digital trickery was applied to the CD. But the LP was mixed to two track with quite a spacious reverb to it...very "wet" in studio terms. And the added anomaly of the strings being recorded out of phase almost give it a phony "surround" effect (you don't exactly hear where the strings are coming from). However, the instruments and, especially, Nat Cole's voice are a lot more accurate and musical on the LP.

In short, after hearing only 30 seconds of the first two tracks on the CD, I knew that something was terribly wrong with it. I won't even listen to the rest of it. I got it used...it's going back up on Amazon. I'll find an original rainbow label pressing and burn my own CD. Possibly with both the mono *and* stereo versions on one disc.

 

[Rudy]

The reason I picked #2 is cause I thought it sounded better, not that it is the correct one but I liked #2 better.

Sonically, it is the more correct one...there is no processing or alteration of the sound in comparison to the CD.

 

[Brasil_Nut]

Of the two, #1 is more sonically pleasing to the ear, although the orchestra opening seems to be off in the distance. On clip #2 the orchestra is quite prevalent -- seems to be well mixed with the vocal. I can also hear vinyl ticks in clip #2.

Jon

 

[Rudy]

Ouch...I can't even listen to the CD...I think it's one of the most horrible things in my collection!

 

[BerniePR]

Rudy, your giving me some kind of complex!! Ignorance is bliss. I had no reference having never listened to the original lp release. After hearing your version, now I do have a reference. The stereo lp version is far superior. In Puerto Rico, we have a saying: "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king"! My CD version used to be sort of kinglike. Now it is a court jester...Perhaps someone will release a re-mastering to the level such a recording deserves. Say Rudy, is your last name perhaps Van Gelder from Jersey????????????????????????????????????????????
PS I was catching up with old posts and I very much enjoyed your post from a yr ago regarding open reel formats, tapes, etc

 

[Mr Bill]

You're giving me a headache. I like the stereo separation on #2, but #1 sounds cleaner to me. Ideally I would have #2's stereo separation with #1's sound quality. 'Nuff sed...

--Mr Bill

 

[Rudy]

You're giving me a headache. I like the stereo separation on #2, but #1 sounds cleaner to me. Ideally I would have #2's stereo separation with #1's sound quality. 'Nuff sed...

--Mr Bill

No headache required--#1 just sounds flat-out horrible. I know my ear is tuned into digital trickery quite well, so I recognize it right away. Sort of a matter of ear training. I mean, it's not blindingly obvious what the problem is, but even on first listen, one gets the feeling that the sound just isn't right. Around 1992-1993, I started getting new CDs that also didn't sound quite right...turns out what I was hearing was brick-wall compression, where the tops of the waveforms are all squared off in the interest of making the CD as loud as possible.

What I SHOULD do is make a really exaggerated example of what "no-noise" is like, and how it sucks the life out of a recording.

Bernie: I'm also interested in getting a mono copy to see if it is mastered as "wet" as the stereo LP. Those old Capitol pressings, mono or stereo, if in good condition, are musical magic.

 

[Rick-An Ordinary Fool]

Hey Rudy, Any chance of you scaning the LP cover, I'd like to look for this LP at my local record shop. If not could you send me over a mp3 copy of this song? (the lp version, of course


Rudy Says, Those old Capitol pressings, mono or stereo, if in good condition, are musical magic.

Also there are some A & M ones that I swear are 110% better than any official Cd I have, For instance, my Horizon A & M Lp is a true musical adventure, I swear it sounds so good that I burned a copy to CDR & I never play my old original CD anymore.

 

[Rudy]

I doubt I can send an MP3--most e-mail systems won't let me send such a large file. I could probably post it for a download somewhere though.

Here's what the album cover looks like:

Amusingly, I also own this one (all different songs, and on SACD):

Actually, John Pizzarelli has two CDs of Nat King Cole songs, and is faithful to the original "Trio" format Cole used before he gained more success as a vocalist than a pianist. I've enjoyed the earlier Pizzarelli recording (Dear Mr. Cole), but don't have the later one yet (P.S. Mr Cole). Good late-night listening.

I've also thought that many of A&M's CDs weren't all that good. A lot of times they just didn't go back to original tapes to make the discs. Or, there is slow, steady deterioration of the tapes over time. Something recorded in the 1960's won't sound quite as good 40 years later, but they can still sound surprisingly good if transfered correctly.

Don't know if you're a fan of Bill Haley & The Comets or Buddy Holly, but in the mid 80's MCA released some compilations called From The Original Master Tapes. I was actually stunned when I heard how good the Bill Haley tapes sounded, since I was used to a slightly noisy 45 RPM single. These were straight transfers from the original mono tape (no stereo back then), and have hardly any hiss and sound so clean, you'd swear they were recorded five years ago. They're more difficult to find these days, but are an eye opener showing how good CDs can sound if done correctly. The Buddy Holly sounds just as good too.