CD audio is really not the full recording of sound?

[BetterThanLife]

Listen to this... this is unbelievable, my windows literally want to fall out of their frames if i play this on my larger system. But not just the bass, the detail and hidden sounds that the CD version just does not have, and full range resonance and clarity.

 

 

Another thing how did this person manage to get this audio back into the track?

 

His claims:

 

(1) Restore dynamics.. (2) Restore transients. (3) Restore the stereo field. (4) Restore lost frequencies. (20Hz to 20KHz) (5) I balance all frequencies to the Golden Ratio. (20Hz to 20KHz)

 

 

From my own hearing i can definitely say something is being done.. i love it.

[Volbet]

Unless he rerecorded Money for Nothing there's no gain of information from the original recording. Famously, Brothers in Arms was one of the first 24bit DASH recordings, but it still has a maximum sampling rate of 48KHz, which is well above the range of human hearing already. 

Meaning that the videos description of remastering it to 192KHz means he just introduced a bunch of digital noise into the mix. 

 

What it sounds like he's done is that he's upped the lower and mid bass a lot, and desaturated the mid-range (kinda obvious when you hear the vocals). 

Listening back to the CD version of Money for Nothing I can't hear any difference in the stereo seperation. 

But without access to the raw track it's kinda difficult to analyse what he's done exactly.

[BetterThanLife]

2 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Unless he rerecorded Money for Nothing there's no gain of information from the original recording. Famously, Brothers in Arms was one of the first 24bit DASH recordings, but it still has a maximum sampling rate of 48KHz, which is well above the range of human hearing already. 

Meaning that the videos description of remastering it to 192KHz means he just introduced a bunch of digital noise into the mix. 

 

What it sounds like he's done is that he's upped the lower and mid bass a lot, and desaturated the mid-range (kinda obvious when you hear the vocals). 

Listening back to the CD version of Money for Nothing I can't hear any difference in the stereo seperation. 

But without access to the raw track it's kinda difficult to analyse what he's done exactly.

Maybe i have no ideas on how to word the sound, i like it but fear i may bust something playing it too loud, like the amp or.. well my windows, no joke with 2 15 inch subs with enough power to topple MT everest.

[Volbet]

2 minutes ago, BetterThanLife said:

Maybe i have no ideas on how to word the sound, i like it but fear i may bust something playing it too loud, like the amp or.. well my windows, no joke with 2 15 inch subs with enough power to topple MT everest.

It's certainly different from the original mix, but I really don't like what he's done to the vocals.

It seems like he's limited the overall dynamic range of the track, but the vocals sound especially compressed. Not only are the levels all over the place, but Mark Knopfler's and Sting's vocals are mixed to be the same volume for some reason. 

[BetterThanLife]

1 minute ago, Volbet said:

It's certainly different from the original mix, but I really don't like what he's done to the vocals.

It seems like he's limited the overall dynamic range of the track, but the vocals sound especially compressed. Not only are the levels all over the place, but Mark Knopfler's and Sting's vocals are mixed to be the same volume for some reason. 

I did notice the vocals being more "clarifying" but when i see it how you have worded it, yes the nuance from the original track is not the same, dynamic difference in vocals.

 

Well that disproves the persons aims.

[spwath]

3 hours ago, Volbet said:

It's certainly different from the original mix, but I really don't like what he's done to the vocals.

It seems like he's limited the overall dynamic range of the track, but the vocals sound especially compressed. Not only are the levels all over the place, but Mark Knopfler's and Sting's vocals are mixed to be the same volume for some reason. 

Looking in audacity and estimating a rough average dynamic range, the original of remaster (both downloaded from YT) have about the same dynamic range.

Spectrum analyzer though shows the big difference

Original (YT download)

Remaster (YT download)

 

Seems the remaster just boosted all the sub 100Hz base by like, a lot.

[Volbet]

14 minutes ago, spwath said:

Looking in audacity and estimating a rough average dynamic range, the original of remaster (both downloaded from YT) have about the same dynamic range.

Spectrum analyzer though shows the big difference

 

Original (YT download)


Remaster (YT download)


Seems the remaster just boosted all the sub 100Hz base by like, a lot.

 

 

Very interesting. I could have sworn there was a difference in the dynamic range and in the middle range.

Might very well be down to the mix/master on the CD I have, but I had a bit of a problem replicating your graph:

But if it is indeed only a bass boost that's kinda funny. 

 

 

[spwath]

1 minute ago, Volbet said:

 

Very interesting. I could have sworn there was a difference in the dynamic range and in the middle range.

Might very well be down to the mix/master on the CD I have, but I had a bit of a problem replicating your graph:

But if it is indeed only a bass boost that's kinda funny. 

 

 

There could be a dynamic range difference, as there is not a great way to check dr in audacity, I just did a level check on the loud part and the quiet part of each version, and they were about the same, and something definatly sounds weird elsewhere, but only thing that shows up in FR graph is the big bass boost.

The "original" one I graphed is downloaded from youtube, just so anything youtube does to mess up the audio is the same across both versions.

[Volbet]

36 minutes ago, spwath said:

There could be a dynamic range difference, as there is not a great way to check dr in audacity, I just did a level check on the loud part and the quiet part of each version, and they were about the same, and something definatly sounds weird elsewhere, but only thing that shows up in FR graph is the big bass boost.

The "original" one I graphed is downloaded from youtube, just so anything youtube does to mess up the audio is the same across both versions.

Contrasting is basically the way to do it, so I guess there isn't much of difference in dynamic range. 

 

On a sligthly different note, is there a reverb filter layered ontop of the bass notes? It's kinda difficult to hear on the original (even with the bass EQ'd up), but it sounds like there might have been added reverb (or possibly delay) to the 100Hz and below area. It's especially noticable on the bass guitar.

[spwath]

19 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Contrasting is basically the way to do it, so I guess there isn't much of difference in dynamic range. 

 

On a sligthly different note, is there a reverb filter layered ontop of the bass notes? It's kinda difficult to hear on the original (even with the bass EQ'd up), but it sounds like there might have been added reverb (or possibly delay) to the 100Hz and blow area. It's especially noticable on the bass guitar.

I'll have to listen again when I'm out of class, but I thought there was something definitely wrong with the bass notes. Sounds very boomy, like I'm listening through a cheap Logitech 2.1 system (I'm not, I'm using JBL studio monitors)