So... apparently new CDs suck because of compression. (Something I've noticed but didn't realise was actually detrimental to sound quality.)

And old CDs suck because, well, they're older so they should suck, right? CD mastering surely didn't start out perfect and decline? (To me, many of my original CDs from the 80s certainly don't sound anywhere near as good as the new re-releases. For example, there seems to be almost no bass on the old ones, but I can hear it on the re-releases.)

So my question is: is there a 'perfect year', a year when CDs are optimally mastered? I would like to know this because then I can have a target year in mind to aim for when I buy songs that have been re-released a few times.

I'm listening to classical music, and the "loudness war" didn't affect this part of the editorial panorama. No perfect years here.

For 'pop' music, take a look at this graphic:



Also read the corresponding article:
http://digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmd...der_page_id=59/


You may also find some informations in Honor Roll of Good-Sounding Pop CDs


EDIT: loud mastering doesn't necessary mean awful sound. You've apparently noticed it: you didn't realized that loudness has a bad impact on objective quality. Some people really like lound mastered albums.

Guruboolez - thanks for the excellent Digital Domain link!

-3 is not too bad
I've seen even worst 0dB (Avril Lavigne - My Happy Ending)
when you scan the wave with nero wave editor, it looks really ugly.
almost the whole song is at the peak
the graph looks like a bar, not wave!

it really hurts my ear after listening to it. i can feel the pain in eardrum

There are engineers that don't squash the dynamics out the music when mastering, it's not like all CDs are so bad as made out here - it's clearly the trend, but not the rule. Steve Hoffman's one that doesn't believe in heavy compression or processing of any kind nor noise reduction. Browse his forum for CD recommendations. And there's nothing wrong with old CDs, if they sound good than what else do you want?

I've *never* seen music at -3 dB RMS. Where did you get that from? Loudest I've seen is about -8, and that sounds pretty bad by itself.

Anyway, 1994 seems to be when the race really kicked in. Before that shoudl be fine.

HA! You have not listened to:
Glassjaw - Worship and Tribute
or
Blood Brothers - Burn Piano Island Burn

IMO, the mastering makes these CD's almost unlistenable. I would pay $30 to hear a properly mastered version of each.

I think 1987 is the optimal year, representing the time range from 1985-1990:
Old-style mastering here, but already digital equipment.
@guruboolez: I've heard of definitely clipped classical recordings, but they're not very common, though.

Can you name a few examples? Just being curious...

one example here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....23867&hl=suffer
another:
Sarah Brightman-Timeless, the classics
Found this album by myself. It is actually more clipressed than many pop albums. One may argue that it is no real classical, it's somewhat progressive. The well-known hit (in Europe, at least) "Con te partiro"/"Time to say goodbye" is on this album. Probably many classical fans bought this single because it was sold so often. So why do people (apparently studio engineers) think classical fans are in general more audiophile than others ?

Heavily compressed classical music sounds very strange; the tension in the composition increases but the loudness does not. This is because classical music usually has few peak dynamics (lack of drums & percussion), but plenty of 'long-time' RMS-dynamics. So what's dynamically compressed is preferably the RMS loudness on the loud parts, not the 'short-time' peak dynamics.

I think that most audiophiles listen to classical music - and what is certain is that classical music requires more work from a technical point of view because it is a lot harder to record (properly) a symphony orchestra then a pop/rock band. Also, audio quality has a lot of impact when it comes to classical music - for example, finding the right balance between a solo violinist and his supporting orchestra...
Audio quality is mentioned (almost always) in any classical CD review (example: Gramophone). How many pop/rock/... reviewers do that?

Maybe I should make a poll about this issue.
I think the pop/rock band isn't more easy to record because it's pop/rock, but because the recording egineer thinks the quality isn't so important.
Maybe he needs more microphones to reproduce the spacial and acoustic charachteristics of the orchestra and the theater, but that's because it's an acoustic recording and a theater. To get the same quality for a pop concert, he needs the same effort.

Here's a couple more links with some great information:

The Loudness Race

Over The Limit

I would argue that pop/rock is much more work to produce what you hear. Close-micing a drum set alone is more mics than you generally use for an entire orchestra. Every track for the entire band is usually run through some effects and/or EQ to achieve the desired sound. The list goes on. An orchestra is typically two really expensive microphones arranged as a stereo pair and fed into some recording equipment and left alone as much as possible after that. You can't tell me that's harder.

This is of course an oversimplification, you can record a pop band in the same way. But why isn't that used much? I guess to have more control over each part of the recording, and often that's used in classical recording too.
Although a classic piece will sound as if it was recorded in one take it most often isn't (except live performances of course). Instead the takes of the sections, that are the ones the director and producer think are right, are carefully edited to make the recording as intended.

So you claim that classical music is often produced in the same way pop is, recorded to seperate tracks/instruments, edited, mixed down to the final track and mastered ?

I don't understand you. Is it a silly question ?

No, it is not, for me your question look like a good joke... I think we all know what you mean and we agree with you...

To answer the original question, i'd say that (and this is subjective opinion!) most of my CDs from the early 90s sound best. I think they pretty much had digital mastering down pat by 1990 or so, and then things started to get ugly by around 1995.

Lots of 80s music sounds dated though because of the effects used, not necessarily the mastering itself... so my year could be a bit too recent.

a thing to add:
The year a CD has been mixed/mastered doesn't predict that much.
The most sold album that has ever been made, Michael Jackson's "Thriller" from 1983, is clipped, for example. (not only a few samples, quite thoroughly). It's one out of two thoroughly clipped 80s albums I know.
When I listened to Celine Dion's "The colour of my love" from 1993 I was really surprised about the heavy distortions it has. This CD is much more clipped than it is usual for 1993.

@Jebus:
What do you mean with "dated" ? Except the usually hugh dynamics and their audible consequences I in principle can't find any differences on effects used.

I have been watching this post for a while. The question assumes that there is a year when things were good. That would assume a controlling power which caused it to happen. Like, maybe the moon was in the second house and Jupiter was aligned with Mars. I think that after a stumbling start back in the '80's CD's got to be pretty good. Some, not all. Just like LP's most were not good, being engineered for the masses with their poor playback equipment.

And so it remains, but worse. Most folks are listening to crap on crappy playback equipment. Live music is usually amplified now, so few people get to hear what music really sounds like. That being the case it can be packaged in the way that those guys in marketing say sells the most CD's. This is what happened. Junk sells. Most folks would not know something good if it came up and bit them on the butt. That is what this discussion is really about.

Sorry to sound so cynical. but just look around you.

In fact, it is very hard to find CDs which I'm perfectly happy with. So * Peter Gabriel has been mentioned as a reference CD in the 80s (and for the seeing (or better the hearing) ones it's still today). It has great dynamics and no clipping, but there are other problems, typical for older recordings, like tiny dropouts at the edge of the wide stereo field (for example)
So 1987 is just relative.

I mean recording techniques, synth effects, stuff like that. You know, that 80s sound!

Mate I feel the same. After got total fatigue of the recent rock CDs. I am extremely sensitive to clipping as it appears.

Out of desperation I started to look into classical music. I sampled 10+ recordings and I am yet to find one with any clipping. They sound great. Excellently produced. Lots of dynamics. I only replaygained few. They were around -2 - +2dB. The peaks are around 80% in general. So all looks good.

Also as my mate tell me, who is into classical music, classical music reviews do discuss quality. I suppose it makes sense because one can recognise a violin and if there is clipping, then since one knows what to expect, one would notice quality problems. So sad as it may be I am gonna explore the classical genre despite the fact that I am more into prog rock.

Triza

Yeah,
maybe most people who listen to classical music are audiophiles, but actually it's vice versa: Most audiophiles listen to classical music because other music is often so shittily mixed/mastered.
Possibly somewhen I'll do it, too.

I hope I'd not. Because I don't want to listen because of good sound but because of good music. In your point of view audiophiles prefer form instead of content, that's very weird but I see why you think so. I hope I'll never be an audiophile...

If good music is what you want, then you should definitely start listening to classical music. You'll see (hear) that there is much more to it then just 'good sound'

It was not a hint to say that classical isn't good enough, I'm also listening to classics but my aim was to emphesize the purpose of audiophile's listening to classics...
PS: I'm preferring "nu-classics" as the German band Necrophagist is playing...

What I hate is if classical fans think classical is in any way in principle better than everything other,
"only classical music is real art, everything other is just shit"
This is not to say you, Corsair, made me think this about you. I just want to warn everybody how to make me angry.
I remeber Luciano Pavarotti being asked that question in German TV, "Isn't classical the only real music ?" "No", he said, "that's not true in general. There are good artists in other genres, sometimes they even write their own songs." What classical artist does this, ha ?