Staind - Break the Cycle

Garbage - Bleed Like Me. It's so compressed and so badly mastered that I had to check my cable connections because I thought I was getting only mono audio... Album gain: -11.78 dB. Track gains: from -7.1 dB to -13.2 dB.

I also have to add Lemon Jelly - '64-'95. Not only is it compressed, it also sounds like it was mastered with 96 kbps MP3 samples.

while talking about all those bad mastered albums i want recommend you some healing for your ears: Thomas Newman - Road To Perdition Soundtrack

albumRG level: -1,86db
well recorded
good dynamics
sounds stereo and not mono like many albums these days do

Sleater-Kinney, "The Woods": Album gain is -13 db, and the album peak is 1.31. When foobar is set to scale down tracks that clip after replaygain it gets even more reduction.

This is actually the first album I've bought that has this kind of extreme compression... I don't buy much "mainstream" rock. It's ugly; I can't listen to it with headphones. On speakers it isn't as bad.

The funny thing is that I think this was another one of those "conscious choice" things, because there is a heavy layer of distortion on even the quiet parts. I'm sad though, I like them because there are so few girls doing real rock, and it's a shame that her voice gets so distorted.

My Chemical Romance - Three Cheers For Sweet Revenge definitely does not sound all that great, sounds very flat, especially compared to hearing them live. Kind of a shame really since their first CD sounds a hell of a lot better and is not nearly as loud.

RHCP Californication is horrible, Oasis Morning Glory is pretty bad, Powerman 5000 - Transform is pretty loud and distorted, Slipknot Vol 3, most of System of a Down's stuff... the list goes on and on.

Its too bad artists are ruined by poor mastering.

My wife bought Avril Lavigne's album "Under My Skin" recently. Easily takes top spot in our collection, lot's of clipping and distortion.

Jack Johnson's albums:
AG -5.29 dB: Brushfire Fairytales (2002)
AG -7.93 dB: On And On (2003)
AG -6.85 dB: In Between Dreams (2005)

So his latest album really isn't that bad compared to many new albums, or even his previous ones.

My pet hate in the loudness race is remastering destroying the sound of older albums.

This has become so bad, that I'm now wondering if there are any newer releases from mainstream artists that aren't clipped or over-compressed.

That could be the topic of a very short thread.

The newest release I've heard that was recorded and mastered by people who took pride in their work is Five For Fighting, "America Town" in 2000.

Yeah this is true. The distortion is really bad. But it's an amazing record nontheless. I kinda just accepted it and listened to the rockingness. All I did was imagine that they did it for artistic effect. Or something stupid to that effect. But I can enjoy it at least.

I do the same with pretty much everything I listen to though, so I guess that doesn't count for much.

Gwen Stefani's latest, whatever its called?

System of a Down - Mezmerize
AG: -11.6

especially on "Radio/Video" you can very easily hear clipping....

I'd say that Rush In Rio worse than Vapor Trails and Feedback... so, yes - the trend continues.


Other recent "dis-honorable mentions":

The Mars Volta - Frances The Mute (2005); Deloused In The Comatorium (2003)
Owsley - The Hard Way (2003)
Prince - Musicology (2004)
U2 - How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb (2004)
Audioslave - Out Of Exile (2005)

the list could go on and on...........

Agreed.

For You has such an annoying clipping and distortion, what makes it worse is that it starts right after a track with a soft ending and then the distorted guitar comes in and nearly breaks your ear.

Fozzy - All that remains (2005)

Album gain: -10.50 db

Very scratchy, crowded, annoying with headphones. Songs are not bad at all. Shame.

Immediately coming to mind are:

Audioslave - Audioslave
RHCP - Californication
Queens of the Stone Age - Songs for the Deaf
Metallica - St. Anger
and Pearl Jam's Binaural sounds pretty bad, but for different reasons.

But at least Like a Stone is a really good song and sounds wayyyy better than the rest of the songs.

Slayer - South of Heaven (remastered @199x-200x)

Maybe not the worst, but harsh treble and obvious artifacts. Ex: the bass drum in the first track makes the other instruments "breathe" because of over-compression.

P.S. I just ordered a used copy of the 1988 version for 2 bucks More on this later

Prince - Musicology. Replaygain values are ~ -10 dB throughout.

When It Falls - Zero 7

This is supposed to be chillout music, but thanks to the overcompression is anything but. I regret buying this. Unfortunately I bought it at a store closing, so can't even return it.

-Rajas

I'm shocked that my old 11 month old post has recently generated some vigourous discussion, I should be honored but since I dont have golden ears and unfortunatley I dont have the time to really find out what a badly masterered CD sounds like or how to abx etc etc but my philosophy is if it sounds good to my ears then is doesnt matter too much wot setting i use, unless i did illegal sharing [as if, why share decent rips with muppets that cant be arsed to make a decent rip themselves. Also yes its illegal because i'm denying artists [greedy record labels] money but heck i actually buy CD's but if i cant rip with my pelxtor[with EAC] its goes back to the shop and i tell em too ]

There is one thing I really appreciate is HA.org because you guys collectively have taught me more in 1yr than anyone can appreciate, I don't always follow exact guidelines but I do follow what's right for me and this is what marks out HA from the rest, I can follow others experiences and use my own judgement [It was one reason i donated]. So keep up the high standards and i'll try not to post something that ends up being discussed 11 months later LOL.

Wow, so its not just me - I can't stand listening to When it Falls, either. It just sounds wrong.

Sleater-Kinney - The Woods is my current favorite example of overcompression. I'm all for fuzz when its supposed to be powerful rock, but this just sticks out as digital clipping. If this was mastered on analog, it probably would have been bearable. Its sad, wonderful album at that.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Radiohead - Hail to the Thief. I've had people argue both ways with me, but to me, I can't stand the lack of dynamics in 2+2=5 especially. The drums might as well be tin cans.

Iron Maiden "A Real Live One." Even fans think it sounds awful.

Wow this a Recording Of The Month in Stereophile!!! With four stars in sound... Are you sure?

Check this

Well, is your opinion, I would also add REM's Reveal maybe for the antipiracy system they used...

Just for educational reasons, describe your sound system. You don´t need golden ears to know what a bad sounding record is, specially if you hear a good one first...

What kind of antipiracy system? I have that album too and succesfully ripped it with EAC.

edit: By the way, I'm listening to U2's How to dismantle.. again and I agree with esa372 that it is over-compressed and I think I hear clipping in the last part of Miracle Drug for example. This album is a great example of a good mix, recording and performance that is harmed in the mastering stage.

Hoobastank - The Reason

I gotta give props to Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication CD.
Parallel Universe is just horrendous, not to mention the distorted pops and clicks that seem to be everywhere on the album.

I didn't find the four stars, but this was in the body of the text:
Hmmm.... "space and detail", eh? They must be listening to a different pressing than the one I have!

Waveform of Vertigo:

Smashy, smashy!


This is what happens so often these days... A good band makes a good recording of good music, only to have it sonically brutalized by the mastering process.

Ah, well... sign 'o' the times...

probably the worst mastered album I have:

Oasis - What's the story morning glory? (obviously a remaster) -12.52dB album gain

the cliipping is so scratchy and harsh, its unlistenable in a few areas, particularly the title track, morning glory, with a whopping -13.03dB reduction

Have you ever heard new album of Limp Bizkit (The Unquestionable Truth Part I)? This is the worst remastered album, that I ever heard. It sounds like it was remastered from very low quality mp3 (like 96kbps).
Other are Metallica - St.Anger, Slipknot - The Sublimal Verses, first album of System Of A Down.

Indeed, when I bought that album (I was 15 years old or so) I noticed these weird distortions through the entire album. I didn't know about clipping, compressing and limiting back then.

edit: What's the Story.. is probably the worst mastered CD I have in my collection.

I have to add Faith No More - King for a Day Fool For a Lifetime. It's especially easy to hear in second track (Ricochet). Another Static-X's new album - Start A War. I'm not sure of it, because I have this album only on mp3 230-250VBR, but I can hear that there is no high frequency (like 18khz) and high frequency are disorted.

edit: i forgot to add Smashing Pumpking Greatest Hits. There is small amount high frequency (sounds like on crappy stereo) and without dynamics. Many songs are clipped.

Now this is some serious clipping, Laura Pausini - Viveme (https 'cause the uni will block mp3 transfers ), the song belongs to this album. The thing that shocked me the most is that instruments are not the problem, is her voice that's clipping.


Disclaimer: I do not own the original CD and have no way of really prove the source clips. I decided not to buy it after listening to several different mp3s at different bitrates that had the clipping, which leads me to the conclusion that the source is in fact clipping.

I somehow fail to hear the clipping on that single piece. How can it be distinguished?

The most annoying are:
from 7 to 9 seconds and from 18 to 21 seconds. Listen to her voice, and how it distorts badly.

Wow

This one is really awful .

I think a misuderstanding is prevalent in this thread. Several albums mentioned, namely those by Oasis and The Strokes are purposely pushed to the limit and beyond with gain, compressed vocals, etc. This is evidenced easily merely by listening to the voices; Liam Gallagher's voice certainly has some grit with or without compression, but the effect only improves upon his strength, and the same is true for Julian Casablancas. The "problems" with these CD's are not due to faulty mastering, they are very much intentional, and, to my ears, desireable.

That one's a weird one, actually. For one, I wish I could get my hands on one of those pre-mastered acetates of the thing (check radioheadcds.com), as the pre-release tracks that leaked often sounded a bit better (barring the MP3 compression) than the versions on the actual album. Additionally--and I'm not around my CD to check my recollection here--I think some songs may be worse than others. IIRC, "We Suck Young Blood" had a lot of dynamic range.

lol thats exactly how I described it when I first heard it

Green Day - Insomniac always seemed very loud to me

Maybe the distortions are intentional, but in the case of Oasis I really don't like them (especially the distortion on the drums). I don't know if it is digital clipping, a choking compressor/limiter or otherwise, but I think it's awfull.

So, I don't think there's a misunderstandig here. Of course a lot of rock & roll bands try to emulate old tape distortions and saturation with their sound, and that's fine, but in the case of What's the story.. I think it's just too much.


That's an example of an album where I can live with the intentional reduced dynamics, I think it is part of their sound. Even distortion sounds good when it's made by Radiohead

That specific drum sound has nothing to do with the final mastering, but with the tuning of the snare drum.

Texas Is The Reason
the songs themselves are great, but the sound quality just sux.

It is loud, but I think they didn't go overboard with it. I always thought that album was done pretty well for a punk record. It doesn't make my ears bleed when I listen to them and you can actually hear the vocals, guitar, bass, AND drums without difficulty.

Regarding What's the Story...

I get an album gain of -9.00, but the album's hard limited at -3 db. Normalizing would give a replaygain of around -12. I guess they realized if they normalized, the CD would be way too hot for 1995 standards, so they decided to just not use the top 25% of the 16 bit sample range. This tells us that the mastering decision was made to achieve a certain sound, and not for absolute loudness.

Of course, many people think that sound absolutely sucks.

Noel himself said in an interview this spring that he doesn't like the sound of Definitely Maybe or What's the Story any more. "Trebly" he called them... heh... that's not the worst of the problems, mate.

Dream Theater. I've not seen anyone mention their stuff yet, which maybe means that not many people listen to them. A prog-metal band who prides themselves on their technical proficiency (deservedly so, though many of their songs seem written to show off that proficiency). But many of their albums are mastered really loud.
The worst-sounding of them all is 1997's "Falling Into Infinity". The album gain is around 8.5 if I remember correctly, so not extremely loud compared to other hard rock, but the sound is so obviously compressed, very badly. It can be a pain to listen to on a number of songs, which isn't true for msot of their other albums, even other ones that are mastered just as loud or louder. It's really a curious thing for a band who likes to think of themselves as appealing to audiophiles.

The problem is that all of this "faulty mastering" is intentional. I believe all of the aforementioned CDs sound exactly the way they were intended to sound.

I disagree. Loud, yes, but some of their stuff I use for reference material (granted older than new). ToT and Octavarium are quite loud. However, IaW and SFaM are wonderfully mastered and rather high up there on my list. I wouldn't know about FII.


Intended by the engineers, artists, labels, all? I don't think all of the artists intended them to sound this compressed, but probably don't have much of a say due to contracts.

The only benficial result of this topic(besides avoiding particular CDs if the reader is so inclined) would be to find out exactly why specific CDs sound the way they do. I have, I believe, made it clear that Oasis and Strokes albums have been recorded to sound the way they do. It is senseless to gripe about the way the music's authors decide to record it. It is reasonabe and possibly beneficial to complain if a record is ill-mastered by a careless or meddling engineer. Certainly the majority of problem records have this to blame. So, does anyone know if CDs mentioned earlier(Californication is an infamous example) have the former or the latter to blame? Record companies will listen to consumer complaints if they are given the right way. Audio enthusiasts are only increasing in number and, thanks to websites like this one, knowledge; one thing is certain: we want audio quality. MP3 popularity, in a way, has helped consumers in general by familiarizing us with bitrates, sample rates, etc., even though it has(in general) lessend our listening experience. Is there some sort of group that listens to and reviews CDs with an ear for their mastering quality? If a particular company has a reputation for poor discs, they should be told so by consumers like us(I hope . . .) who regard such releases with the utmost of disdain. They are businesspeople; if a few dollars more in mastering expenses will make them more sales, they'll bite. They just need to be convinced of the demand.

I have never been able to sit through St. Anger. Its ugly and in a bad way not an artistic one.

I still haven't sit through even one song on that album.