Good point. I agree, loudness doesn't say everything. You can't just look at the album gain and say "omg, that CD has -9.7 album gain, it's crap compared to this +0.1 album I have here".

I have several loud albums that sound very good to me, and a few - relatively - quiet albums that sound mediocre at best.

I assume this topic focuses on quality as a whole - consisting of several factors - instead of just focusing on loudness levels.

Red Hot Chili Peppers - Parallel Universe

Do the different pressings of a record cause the CD's to sound any different from each other? And how usual is it to get a CD that sounds much worse or better than the same CD that has been pressed in another country for instance?

Yes, yes I have. Not on an RIAA level, but enough for local bands. And I've gotten enough compliments about my abilities. And there is a huge difference between producing/engineering and mastering.

Best: R.A.M Pietsch - Norwegian Wood (1988)


Worst: not sure, but too many bad ones to count.

Very, very, very difficult question.

I'll settle for "one of the best out of the some of the most recent buys": Cantus - 'Let your Voice be heard'.

If you like non-traditional choir music with plain (dry) recording, this could be worth checking out.

Worst: After enough sound degradation, they are all bad, I don't even want to spend time picking out the worst offender.

regards,
halcyon

My favorite in terms of quality:
Mozart's Requiem played by the Berlin Philharmonie Orchestra 1962. Beautiful, even if a tad noisy.
Madonna "Ray of Light" (a lot of us sound engineers like that one )
Michael Jackson's "History" - except for disc2/track3 which has some distortions for some bass parts, world class mixing and mastering.
Most of what I hear from Cassandra Wilson.
Trevor Horn productions from the 90's(and 80's? don't have those)

Worst quality for me:
A lot of rock records that are screwed by overcompression.
Standing out "Chocolate Starfish..."/Limp Bizkit, which I feel was ruined by brutal clipping. The sound actualy breaks apart completly a lot. The manager/label guy that authorized this should be publically forced to eat 10 CDs of this.
Also, Avril Lavigne's album was mastered for low-volume listening, and inconsistently at that too. No kudos to the mastering house for that one, but I suspect it's the record companies fault as it usualy is.
I like those two albums, which is why I don't like the people resposible for treating them as they were.

And yes I'm a mastering engineer, but no I don't live off it, so I don't have to do what others do.

man I love the music on RHCP Californication but I just listened to it on cd again.......... shudder shudder.....


I think this is the worst album. because you can hear it throughout the album on every song nearly all the time

I wish I had a wav analyzer

You can! Just go to audacity.sf.net and download the latest beta version. You can zoom in and see exactly where the clips are. You can even zoom to the level of the individual sample and edit them manually.

I totally agree with you. St. Anger is a real piece of junk.

My favorite recording is 'Awake' by Dream Theater. It is really better than the new 'Train of thought"...

Worst: Thrice - The Artist In The Ambulance

Great CD, but you can actually hear little clips when you listen hard, I checked the player quite a few times to make sure nothing was screwy.

Best, would be Coldplay stuff and Red Hot Chili Peppers stuff.

Awake is also one of my favourite recordings. What makes it is the intro drum fill.

I doubt the people who master these albums have a lot of say in it. They probably get the louder is better message from management, and what would anyone do in that situation?

LOL. I bet at least a third of the people here have had something to do with mastering a cd. And another thirds proabably know more about it than the people who are paid to do it!

Was this a troll? I suspect not, but from a new user it would sound like one.


Anyway - are the consumers not allowed to comment on the product that they pay for? Maybe if the people involved listened to some of this criticism then customers might be more likely to buy their product.

My experience of many people who "work" in recording studios is that they don't understand the equipment they're using at all.

Some of them do, and I have amazing respect for the best recording engineers and other people involved in the chain (even the musicians! ). In some recordings, the placement of microphones in the sound field or faders on the desk is more artistic and more moving (to me) than an artist placing paint on a canvas. That's how much I love the "art" of making a good pop record.

But that art has almost been lost. Squeezed out in the loudness race.


I think the answer is to buy some recording equipment and go out and make your own recordings. Great fun. It's shockingly easy to make amazingly life-like recordings of some things - even some music - but not all. Still - the experience will make you wonder just how "professionals" manage to make most pop CDs sound so bad. And it will make you realise that it's comparatively easy to be an "audiophile" record company recording certain types of music. If you have the venue, know where to put the micophones, and can resist mucking it up, you can make a good audiophile record. Some people make great audiophile records of wider types of music, but that's a real art.

Good recording: Find the original UK stereo demonstration LP issued by Decca. They were having fun back then! Remember this is 1958 - it shows how far we haven't progressed.

To answer the question properly, I'd have to play a few hundred CDs! Haven't got the time now, but it sounds like a fairly good way to spend a weekend - I love listening to great recordings of great music!

Cheers,
David.

What I really believe is that production time is an essential factor (alongside with rms-maxed recordings to achieve loudness on almost any device) in "modern" recording business ...

Since nearly any of today's major decisions are drawn by economists, it isn't a phenomenon that today's recordings often sound like crap - there is a rigid timeline for production and no headroom left for optimizations (after all, these cost studio time and thus plain money).

A highly qualified sound engineer (in germany, there is the profession of the so-called "Tonmeister" which means studying electrical engineering AND music at the same time) does cost it's money - there is no way around if you want knowledgeable professionals to be involved in music productions (you can still force them to work cheap, after all).

The major record companies don't have much money to spend these days ... with sales down, everybody in any bussiness branch based on sales will most likely to be forced to work more efficient ... quality will therefore suffer since the phrase "efficiency" is always being misused under these circumstances. I encounter that in my job every day.

A little offtopic ... I wonder when the music industry will make music pirates responsible for the lack of quality/need for higher efficiency in today's recordings (they already do in terms of copy protections that introduce mastering errors like e.g. CDS)

Maybe things are done in a rush these days, but...

The Beatles first album, Please Please Me, was recorded in a day (11th February 1963), mixed in a day (25th February 1963 - both separate mono AND stereo mixes!), and released the following month (22nd March 1963).

That's quite a rush. But apart from some sloppiness in the choice of edits on the stereo version, I don't think they could have done better (given the technology available in a UK recording studio at the time) if they'd spent a year on it.

Sometimes it's too much time spent messing (and the need for too much messing due to poor artists) that spoils a record!

Cheers,
David.

Ciao from Italy !

BEST: eric clapton unplugged (1992)
Worst: aerosmith nine lives (1997)

From 2Bdecided on Jan 28 2004, 02:51 AM


I don't think he was a troll, either. I think that was his response to the tripe about posting gain graphs as some sort of end-all, real evidence or critique of a recording. Posting those graphs is the kind of thing a newbie or a brain-washed HA forum devotee would do. Embracing the "loudness war" with such fervor is kind of like gangster rappers who have to proclaim that Al Pacino is there favorite actor and "Scarface" is their favorite movie, even if they never heard of either prior to seeing an episode of MTV's "Cribs". Al Pacino is certainly a great actor and even some critics can argue that "Scarface" is a great movie in its genre, but only those in the rappa community have such a misplaced devotion for it, to the exclusion of other better movies and to what even they truly believe, simply because it helps them fit in with the group.

I think you (2bdecided) must represent a similar personality in regard to the "loudness race". After reading parts of your website, in some ways I see that your connection to the past, despite your young age, may account for the following romantic notions:

From 2Bdecided on Jan 28 2004, 02:51 AM


However ... at odds with your romanticizing the past is the fact that you seem to be well educated and capable of rational thought, also. I guess the need to seem "cool" in a forum overrides the impulse to appear intelligent.

The inclusion of a 1958, highly exaggerated stereo-field demo LP from 1958 as an example of a good recording was more about informing the group that you're right there with them on the "lost art" stuff. Doesn't "not" being able to come up with an example of a good recording that's less than 4 decades old without first resorting to a weekend of trying to find one prove that good recordings are so very rare? Doesn't pointing out that you know about the 1958 recording make you cool? No ... good recordings are rare, but not that rare. And no... it just makes you look like a goof with low self-esteem who betrays his own intelligence.

No, it was to show that one of the first commercially available stereo recordings still "stands up" to careful listening, whereas many modern CDs don't. That' says it all. btw not all tracks on that LP are ping pong left/right stereo. The tap dance sequence is good.

Your other point (snipped) is valid - there is a "let's all jump on the 'bashing the loudness race' band wagon" rolling. Don't newer/less experienced members of any "group" always follow what the elders/more knowledgeable people say? That's a standard social phenomenon. There's no point bashing people for trying to fit in when they're still learning, and doing no harm. If being on HA doesn't teach people to question things and have their own ideas, then they probably won't stay very long anyway...

Of course it's possible to make a "squashed" recording that sounds comparatively great, and a dynamic recording that's just terrible. But many of the faults in modern recordings - especially the complete harsh mess they sound on decent equipment - is down to excessive processing and DRC. If you have other ideas, let's hear them!

And a graph that shows clipping is a graph that shows clipping. You can’t say how audible it is (or if it’s even audible at all), but it shows that (at best) the engineer wasn’t watching the meters, or (at worst) squashed it to hell and didn’t care.



LOL! Now who's trolling? The recordings I thought of instantly were all audiophile recordings. Seems pointless to name them. Most records that I like "for the music" have faults, so I didn't name them - beyond that, nothing mainstream, recent and good came to mind. I honestly suggested an enjoyably long listening session would probably find some.

I won't be spending this weekend listening to any CDs - much better things to do (seriously: I'll post why in the OT forum next week).

I don't think my music tastes make me cool - far from it. But if anything, I make even less effort to "fit in" on the net than in real life - no false personality in either - it's just that I wouldn't bother telling my friends at work how great a 1958 stereo demo disc sounded! On HA, I'll make the comment whether anyone wants to hear it or not!

Cheers,
David.

Has anyone got both the original and remastered CD's of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon? I'd be interested to know if the remaster is substantially better or worse since it's in so many peoples collections.

hmm.... that seemed a tad personal (well, not to me, but...)

anyways. worst CDs... Californication is up there. i know there was a theme of the weathered, dirty sound, but come on. the vocals were b0rked all the way through. painful to listen to. i'd just built my stereo when this came out and i was afraid i'd have to buy some kinda gadget to fix the sound.. i thought my CD player was outputting too high (i guess it was).

and to balk in the face of the past, i'd say "disintegration" by the Cure was a horrible sounding record. i haven't got the CD, but the LP sounds like poo. sounds like it was mastered with one of those "tone" pots you get on transistor radios.

Hail to the Thief is sadly not very dynamic, but everything else in it is good (except the CopyControl. grrrrr. not sure if it's placebo, but my EAC copy seemed to sound better).

the last 2 dandy warhols albums were ho-hum. another case of good recording but poor mastering.

the early metallica stuff was gross to listen to. "brown" is the only way i can describe it. like it's coming from an old brown pair of Sanyo 10 watt speakers...

haven't heard St. Anger, except for 1 track in a mate's car. the drums are too loud. probably lars' fault. i hate that man. metallica are hanging round my town atm, and they're not impressing anyone... but that's not relevant


best album recently i'd give to Beth Gibbons' "out of season". the tiniest amount of hard limiting just to fit it on the disc. bit of a contrast to her earlier stuff with portishead (Dummy was horribly mastered as far as clipping is concerned, but a beautiful album).

[edit]
i've got the remaster of dark side of the moon... i can't remember how it sounds. i've got the LP in SQ quad as well. that sounds very very nice. alan parsons clearly knows what he's doing. i just need to get hold of an SQ decoder. (anyone know a software one that works with foobar2000? )

and i just remembered... the stupidest mastering mistake ever is one of my dad's blues albums... 3 words... inverted right channel. you switch the amp to mono and get silence. i had to rip the thing and flip it back in cooledit. whoever did that...

@FooForThought:

I don't like your attitude. Define "brain-washed HA forum devotee". HA is not trying to brainwash anybody. You can speak freely, as long as you play by the rules.
Also, show a little respect to David. He's a long time member, PhD, and a very reasonable guy who earns it, even if you disagree with him.

You have been warned due to the violation of HA forum rules:
No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.

So, if you want to keep posting to this forum, I suggest you change your attitude very quickly.

@FooForThought:

It's not like David is the only one who writes about the loudness race:
http://www.loudnessrace.net/links/
http://www.loudnessrace.net/

Sure, there is a lot of "band wagon jumping" on this topic, but that doesn't mean the problem isn't real.

And I also agree with what others said: please don't get personal on this topic.

I'm relatively new to this subject, but it was nice to find something to explain what I thought of as "unusual" sound on some recent CDs. The most recent album that has stood out to me as having very clipped / distorted sound is Third Eye Blind's "Out of the Vein". If anyone else has noticed this let me know (I want to make sure I'm hearing what I think I'm hearing).

Here's a screen cap of The Donnas' "Take It Off":

Take It Off

Maybe you know, maybe you don't, but I've been working more than 20 years as recording engineer and musical supervisor, then switched to post-production, i.e. mastering, because doing this job requires a lot of experience, extremely good hearing... and taste. And it's quite different job, so you can hardly record, mix and master the same work let alone the fact it wouldn't sound good (there's at least high probability in this statement). My name appears on more than 200 titles in the past 25 years, more than 70% of them being the classical music. So I think I may drop my 2 cents...

I am simply tired of useless threads like this with a lot of incompetent young people with no skill or experience making their judgements. The choice of titles from those people is self-explanatory. This doesn't mean you don't have a right for your opinion, but make it in a more competent way... if I may please

No punch intended to anyone, but this is really an useless thread.

P.S. It has no sense to talk about the pressure from the side of those who "call the tune", i.e. the customers aka recording companies. There's employed a lot of people who don't understand neither music nor recording, but are responsible for sales and marketing and we all know the real world we live in...

Instead of making negative general statements about other('s posts), that can be easily regarded as offensive or bashing, could you please share your experience i.e. explain how such judgements should be made in your opinion and why?


If I understand this correctly, you agree that 'loundness race' problems exist. A big part of 'judgements' in this thread is based on this loudness race, so where exactly is your problem?

There's a lot of times situation, you can't avoid this... For instance, the company takes the work from you and lets it "finish" (i.e. damage) at third party, but your name appears on the sleeve. And you're helpless... but we can't solve it here in this thread.

And yes, the loudness problem is here and has been for some time. No real audio engineer, producer or mastering engineer is glad of it. At least I believe it...

I don't understand how that justifies your first post here, nobody has mentioned the names of any mastering engineers, have they? Just the names of albums, as the title of the thread suggests.




Maybe not... but... so? That doesn't justify your branding of this thread "useless". This is a discussion forum, and people will discuss things here.



That's your opinion, but you didn't just say in your original post "I disagree". You said that people contributing here are too young to know what they're talking about:



...and then also said this:



...which is why you have been asked to explain.

Either we are simply showing less knowledge than you - in which case we want to learn from you, and know where we're going wrong in our way of thinking regarding this... or you've just got a bit upset about people making negative comments about people in the same line of work you're in.

I want to know which.

new user's question:
what do you think about banco de gaia's 10 years album? i am really curious about it.

Are you referring to the choice of musical titles ?

This reminds me of my music teacher back in school who was always referring to "good" and "evil" music.

Good in his definition was anything that has been composed (from Albinoni to Verdi - personally, I prefer JS Bach's compositions btw) ... regardless of it's interpretation quality.

"Evil music" from his point of view was anything that was new - he was a very open-minded man :roll:

I'm glad we cannot discuss musical taste since taste can never be discussed ...

You'd better be aware that you (as being involved in music production) are bashing at some (more or less) knowledgeable customers here which will most likely not buy if they consider sound quality too low ... most of the HA members are highly interested in sound quality ... they are e.g. willing to invest some serious money in playback equipment to get some "bang for buck".

I'd also like to point out that the perception of sound quality is also related to personal taste ... and rms loudness (and therefore, a lack of dynamics) alongside with clipping are the only objective means to describe production quality - some folks may like a recording with slightly boosted treble while others prefer a more pronounced low-end ... these preferences cannot be used for an objective quality discussion.

So I'm asking you ... who are you to bash at your customers ?

Best: Eric Clapton - MTV Unplugged (1992)
Worst: Metallica - St. Anger
Best in the last 5 years: Madonna - Ray Of Light

Best sounding album in recent years: Apocalyptica - Reflections
Worst sounding album of all time: In Flames - Reroute to Remain

Best: I don't know! I've heard some classic music CD's or (very scared to admit this) Celine Dion CDs where it sounded like they did a good job on the recording.

Bad Ones:
Oasis - Be Here Now - Recorded really loud or something, sounds horrible unless I'm playing it on something with a pre-amp to take it down by 10 db

Foo Fighters - Foo Fighters - similar problem with being recorded too loud if I recall correctly.

I also notice my 'Sony 5 disc CD player is fairly finicky with Foo Fighters and Stone Temple Pilots CDs. It's like when I bought them they had a scratch on the inside of the disc (where the "index") would be stored.

On the opposite: I've bought yesterday a SACD (orchestral music: Planets, from Gustav Holst) and extracted the CD layer. Sounds really quiet (introduction is at -45 dB). The peak is at -9 dB, and the lowest track was replaygained at -29.5 dB (i.e. -40dB on average).
Nevertheless, the quality of the recording is good, with a detailed and dynamic orchestra (Mars is terrible). But the mastering choice are really odd... Is it a mistake ? A stupid way to make SACD layer sound louder/better (I've no SACD player)?
SACD is from Naxos (available on CD, DVD-A and now that DVD audio seems to be dead, SACD).

I don't know about "best," but the "worst" sounding CD I have happens to be Sheryl Crow's "The Very Best of Sheryl Crow."

I'm a huge fan of Sheryl Crow's music, and I have all her albums. I hate one of the new songs (it's the first time that's happened to me, ever), and to boot, a new recording of C'mon C'mon featuring the Corrs is as clippy as hell! (And that's never happened to me, either, up till now.)

I am no expert but here I go:

Good: Sieges Even - A Sense of Change
BAD: Nevermore - Enemies Of Reality

It could well be that the latest Nevermore is even worse than st.Anger!

I was surprised to see the new CD from The Crystal Method, Legion Of Boom, is *only* -9.03dB for album replaygain. It's still clipped to hell and back though, just in the process of repairing it now. Freakin' Brian 'Big Ass' Gardener.

Best: Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms (Haven't scanned this thread, I bet it has lots of nominations )
Worst: Red Hot Chilli Peppers - Californication

There is something interesting going on with Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms here. It is the most praised CD so far (5 votes) - but a closer inspection reveals inconsistancies.

Volcano says the "original master... sounds very harsh and bright to me", and assuming this means the original 1985 release, I agree. I would actually vote it as my worst sounding CD.

But Xenion praises the "original release" and JeanLuc says the original pressing was "recommended as some kind of reference CD".

It would be interesting to get to the bottom of this. My guess is that this is an example of different people hearing different things. What sounds over bright and harsh to some people may sound impressive to others, even if it is not strictly correct.

I feel I'm on pretty safe ground saying it's not correct as none of my other CDs sound as harsh to me as this one. Before someone suggests I have a bad copy - I have just ripped to hard disk to check (EAC, no errors) and it still sounds the same as I remember.

This is due in part to the subjective view again and also the fact that music can sound very different from one stereo system to another ..

To 2Bedecided,

If you will, let me explain the point of view from which my offending comments were made. Because of your credentials, whether rightly or wrongly, I simply hold you to a much higher standard than some. In my opinion, much of your post seemed overly nostalgic, sentimental, and generalized. I didn't feel as though mincing words with you was necessary, but if so, then I apologize to you for my lack of restraint. Please note that I took the time, as mentioned in my previous post, to read your website. It was only after having read through the website that I felt compelled to point out that you had much more to contribute than was demonstrated by your post. Anytime anyone resorts to longing for the "good old days", regardless of subject matter, much proof is needed to support the contention. I'm not much for the "they don't make 'em like they used to" rallying cries, which usually imply that things old are better than things new. These types of comments can fire up certain of the troops, but they very rarely can hold up to a good review of the available data. Okay, so much for the non-apology apology.

_______________________

To JohnV,

I agree that HA does not brainwash it's members. As you stated, it's a free and open (within reason) forum. My intent was to suggest that any member of any forum can become indoctrinated by the content contributed by other members. It's a vicious cycle: subject matter / themes become popular, more and more members begin to believe and contribute their own version of this truth, new members join and see how many contributions reference this truth, and they themselves believe and contribute. In simple terms, it's good to "get out of the house" every so often and see what truths are being discussed next door. They may be quite different.

As far as 2Bdecided being a reasonable guy and a PhD, that's exactly why a was as harsh as I was (see above). I lost sight of your rules and decorum for the moment and apologize for the transgression.

________________________

To PoisonDan,

Yes. The [recording gain] problem is real but should not be elevated to the level of importance it has been, to the exclusion of the myriad other recording faults; and yes, there is a lot of "bandwagon" jumping. Lot's of other things are real as well, but have not been mentioned much.

________________________

To JeanLuc,

I didn't so much think that the comment by Budgie regarding the type of music referenced in this thread was about "good music" vs. "evil music", at least from my perspective, since I don't see "evil" or "good" as your music teacher apparently did. However, I do see the point in this way: most of the music chosen in this thread to illustrate examples of good / bad musical recordings is difficult to qualitatively assess. A lot of the recordings may be intentionally distorted (whether from too much gain or other methods) for lots of different reasons, some of which have been mentioned and some of which haven't. For instance:

1. The distortion created often resembles the sound the band creates in a live setting (is anyone really trying to suggest that Glen Danzig wants to sound "good" in the same sense that Jane Monheit wants to sound "good"?). So, it is likely that for those who are used to listening to purely audiophile recordings of artists who do not employ distortion in their signature sounds, a Glen Danzig recording never sounds excellent or even really good, it just sounds less bad, regardless of gain. Simply put, Glen is not about pleasing audiophiles. So, using him as an example (for example:)), sounds a little odd to some readers.

2. A lot of the music listed here is perceived by record labels to be destined to compete with noise. The noise is: generated by people talking / partying at home or in clubs; generated by the harsh environment of an automobile (more talking...plus road noise, engine noise, oversized-exhaust noise); generated by noise from inferior audio gear; and even "noise" generated by conversion of the original source to a compressed format. The same does not apply as much to other genres which will likely get heard in quiet(er) environments, perhaps on better (astronomically expensive) gear, and even in special rooms strictly dedicated to listening (room treatment included).

I can think of a few more, but I'll stop there.

See ya.

Now, for some examples of recordings. I have a 1200+ CDs, so this is just a "sample" in every sense of the word:

Audiophile Quality - some of the recordings listed will only reveal themselves as exceptional on high-end audio equipment. I only chose examples with audiophile sonics PLUS outstanding performances by the artists - (in no particular order):

Dire Staits - Love Over Gold (Warner Bros 1982)
Rachelle Ferrell - First Instrument (Blue Note 1990)
Patricia Barber - Verse - (Blue Note 2002)
Cowboy Junkies - The Trinity Sessions (RCA 1988)
Patricia Barber - Companion ( Blue Note 1999)
Roy Hargrove /w Strings - Moment By Moment (Verve 2000)
EmmyLou Harris - Wrecking Ball (Elektra 1995)
Mark Whitfield - True Blue (Verve 1994)
*Dianna Krall - Any Recording (Verve)
Rachele Ferrell - Individuality (can I be me?) (Capital 2000)
Jane Monheit - Come Dream With Me (N-Coded Music 2001)
Dwight Yoakum - dwightyoakumacoustic.net (Reprise 2000)
Janis Ian - Breaking Silence (Morgan Creek Music Group 1992)
Steely Dan - Two Against Nature (Giant Records 2000)
*Cassandra Wilson - Any Recording (Blue Note)
__________________

Near Audiophile - something slightly lacking ... usually a sense of the ambiance of the original recording venue, exaggerated / compressed soundstage, etc. - (in no particular order):

Madonna - The Immaculate Collection (Sire 1990)
Madonna - Music (Maverick 2000)
* Madonna generaly pays close attention to the sonic quality of her recordings, so most are highly rated
Acoustic Alchemy - Natural Elements (MCA 1988)
Alison Krauss + Union Station - New Favorite (Rounder 2001)
A Perfect Circle - Mer de Noms (Virgin 2000)
Chris Isaak - Forever Blue (Reprise 1995)
* Lucinda Williams - Most Recordings
* Lyle Lovett - Most Recordings
* Suzanne Vega - Most Recordings
Seal - Seal (ZTT Records 1994)
_________________

Good Recordings for Genre - Highly listenable, but because of high level of deliberate distortion in some cases, it's hard to really compare these with the sonic greatness of a Patricia Barber recording ... I love the music, but trust me you just can't compare it to the stuff in the previous categories.

Disturbed - The Sickness (Giant 2000)
Disturbed - Believe (Reprise 2002)
StereoMud - Perfect Self (Loud Records 2001)
MudVayne - L.D. 50 (Sony 2000)
Jane's Addiction - Kette Whistle (Warner 1997)
Seven Dust - Animosity (TVT Records 2001)
Stone Sour - Stone Sour (RoadRunner Records 2002)
RadioHead - OK Computer (Capital 1997)
*And for the person who posted about the Donnas (Veruca Salt's not quite an all girl band, but close):
Veruca Salt - American Thighs (Are You There God It's Me Music 1994)
________________

Excellent "Live" Recordings

Pretenders - The Isle Of View (Warner Bros 1995)
Sarah McLachlan - Mirrorball (Arista 1999)

________________

Older Recordings (Remastered) That Sound About As Good As You Can Make An Older Recording Sound (Quality Varies):

John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman (Impulse 1963/1995)
Miles Davis - Bitches Brew (Columbia 1970/1999)
Miles Davis - Kind of Blue (Columbia Master Sound 1959/1992)
Art Tatum - The tatum Group Masterpieces (JVC XRCD 1956/1990)
Dave Brubeck Quartet - Time Out (1959/1997)
Miles Davis - The Complete Birth Of Cool (Capital 1948/1998)
_______________

Bad / Worst Recordings:

Too many to bother mentioning.

_______________

All categories evaluated with:
Arcam Alpha 9 CD Player
Sonic Frontiers Line 3 Preamp
Bryston 7-B ST Mono Blocks
Magneplanar MG3.6 Loudspeakers (for all except heavy rock)
Revel Performa F30 Loudspeakers (for the heavier stuff)
Analysis Plus Silver Oval Speaker Cables
Silver Audio Apassionata Interconnects

Just a minor:
Seal - Seal is from 1991. It's one of my favorite records and is rather quiet with little to no peak limiting and lots of lovly quiet songs. It doesn't stress me out at all.

Addressing professional concerns on "how to fix the situation" with the loudness race, it's either a market, power or education matter.

A few years back an engineer told about this A&R, who apart from occasionaly uttering the classic words "don't see the single", had complained about a record was not sounding too little radio-like. The man didn't know that everyone and their uncle in broadcasting uses multiband limiters/compressors, like Orban units.

To anyone who doesn't know what these processors do, check out orban.com and listen to some examples they have there. Basically they unify loudness across different material. You crunch your song and it won't be louder than quiet material on the radio, no sir.

Educating executives is very hard wherever you go, because there are little people in that reign that care about art. Where can engineers leverage their power? I'd shure like to hear ideas on that.

Seal released two self-named CDs, one in 1991 and one in 1994 (he released Seal IV in 2003 avoiding confusion with the first two by appending the Roman numeral to the end). I have both "Seals", and I feel that the 1994 recording is superior in many respects to the 1991 release. With that said, I probably listen to both releases equally frequently on the strength of the performances.

The 1991 CD featured "Crazy" as the breakout single while the 1994 release was probably most famous for "Kiss From A Rose".

See ya.

Best: Smashing Pumpkins - Siamese Dream

Worst: Tie between Audioslave - Audioslave and Linkin Park - Hybrid Theory

I'm just questioning:
Only compressing a cd to 100+dB (without any clipping) would make a lot of hearable distortions. But perhaps compressing combined with chopping off the loudest peaks, clipping, would make less ditortions.?
I don't know.

But if so:
Then it would be "good" for the soundquality if the masterer, who is forced to make a 100dB cd, added clipping instead of only compressing, right?

Any comments from those that has done any mastering?

That's quite an insightful comment Loke. It is possible (under certain specific circumstances) that simple clipping sounds much more pleasing that dynamic range compression. The DRC may audibly "pump" the volume (though good, properly used DRC shouldn't) whereas the clipping will simply add distortion (which may be inaudible, or less objectionable, than loudness pumping).

Of course, we shouldn't be aiming for either!

What's more, I have CDs which sound like the DRC process just "gives up" and adds what sounds like (but doesn't "look" like) clipping distortion. Or maybe the clipping happened much earlier in the signal chain.

Cheers,
David.

FooForThought:

In the section "Older Recordings (Remastered) That Sound About As Good As You Can Make An Older Recording Sound (Quality Varies)", you choose to put "The Complete Birth of the Cool" as an example. I've been listening a lot to three different CD's from these sessions and in my opinion, the Rudy Van Gelder Edition has a much better overall sound. Just to be picky...

Miles Davis - 1949 - Birth of the Cool (RVG Edition)