I was listening to 4Ever and noticed some of the songs are so low. It also happened to some of this first cds. Hate it because i have to turn it up and down all the time.

anangellooksdown said:

I asked that question as well when I got the SOTT CD. Here's what people said: http://prince.org/msg/7/4...?&pg=1

Thanks.

TKO said:

kepurplehunter said:

Amateur Mixing Possibly Or Been Recorded Earlier Like In A Quickie Engineering.... So Needed More Music

The volume of the final master has little to nothing to do with who mixed it.

Yet another uninformed statment by someone who thinks they know better.

Monarch said:

Although I can't explain why 4ever may be quiet (is anyone else having this issue?), older CDs will get quieter over time. Research something called the loudness wars & this can explain some aspects of post 1980s mastering.

What? No they wont. As long as CDs are readable, their 1s and 0s will stay the same.

The loudness wars is about dynamic range - which DOES NOT change after the CD has been pressed.

Monarch said:

Lol well then I stand corrected. Why are all my older CDs quieter?

Because the volume standard for mastering older CD is vastly different from current ones.

Surely you would have known this if you read about the loudness war?

[Edited 12/12/16 11:35am]

What??

bluegangsta said:

Monarch said:

Although I can't explain why 4ever may be quiet (is anyone else having this issue?), older CDs will get quieter over time. Research something called the loudness wars & this can explain some aspects of post 1980s mastering.

What? No they wont. As long as CDs are readable, their 1s and 0s will stay the same.

The loudness wars is about dynamic range - which DOES NOT change after the CD has been pressed.

I think Monarch mispoke. They don't get quiter over time, but over the years the ceiling for base volume and compression on CDs has steadily gotten louder. Initially to bring the quiet sections into an 'easier to hear' range for those who have mild cases of hearing loss, but in turn bad mastering decisions led to the idea of raising that "ceiling" again while leaving the "floor" at its new loudness. And it became a vicious cycle out of quick decisions and apathy about the post process from the upper-eschelon of the industry.

Also when CDs were initially being pressed, a good number of "just-get-them-out-there" releases were not remastered for digital. The originally pressed masters from the vinyl were used - which essentially had to do with the physical groove on the record. Just because I don't feel like writing paragraphs, in a nutshell: the treble was raised and the bass was lowered so the groove wasn't enormous. When the phonograph played it, it boosted the bass signal and lowered the treble to put them back to how they were meant to be heard). Those quick buck re-issues on CDs were pressed with that idea in mind, mostly because they just didn't think.

That didn't last forever, but it happened to enough high-profile releases and the time/$/manpower was not really spent on going back to correct the issue on them - that's how the whole thing started. Once albums started to be mastered with digital in mind, problem was solved.

To the 1's & 0's statement: yes, sort of. If you connect your computer to your sound system and play a YouTube video, there are at least 3 volume faders involved: 1) YouTube's, 2) Your PCs, 3) sound system. Everything builds off of each other. If YouTube is set at "2," and your PC is set at "5," the "10" on your sound system is not going to be as loud as it could potentially be if YouTube and your PC were both set higher.

Essentially it's the same thing, except the CD has a fixed volume. The average ceiling of a CD mastered 20-some years ago, just to throw out a number was akin to a '3,' and was not as high as it is nowadays, which is more like an '8' now.

I have yet to buy 4Ever, so it's sad to hear that this really was a throw together release if they just put the original masters onto the disc. Sexy MF and LRC were not mastered with the same reference aesthetic for their compact disc release.

[Edited 12/12/16 12:43pm]

[Edited 12/13/16 7:02am]

I didn't notice anything on the any of the post '92 greatest hits compilations sounding low in volume. Which songs?

TKO said:

SoulAlive said:

His CDs are just begging to be remastered....especially Dirty Mind,Controversy and SOTT

\

but..but people dont care or want cd remasters

http://prince.org/msg/7/434900

I don't think I've ever heard anywhere before that 'compression over the years has steadily gotten louder'.... to help people with mild hearing loss?! What on earth? Where did you get that idea?

The loudness wars were/are about radio airplay/airplay in public spaces.... all albums being mastered more loudly with much more compressed sound in order to cut through the noise of everyday life and other media, to get heard so that more people will buy the music.

Unfortunately, doing this means that the natural dynamic range of a piece of music is reduced until it's almost flat.... all parts of the song - loud, quiet, and in between, end up at the same volume... great for the record companies that want their song to cut through the noise of everyday life... not so great if you care about stuff, like, I don't know... ACTUAL SOUND QUALITY.

This compression rips all the nuance and dynamics out of the music, and causes fatigue in the listener while listening... you're not sure why, uoui just don't want to listen to that record any more... or for more than one or two songs....

Shamefully, a lot of major record labels have taken it on themselves to re-release classic albums, calling them remastered, when really all they've done is push all the levels up, so that the music actually sounds like crap. A case in point is the Nirvana Nevermind Remaster. Sounds like dog shit.

It has nothing to do with helping out the hard of hearing!

InwardJim said:

bluegangsta said:

What? No they wont. As long as CDs are readable, their 1s and 0s will stay the same.

The loudness wars is about dynamic range - which DOES NOT change after the CD has been pressed.

I think Monarch mispoke. They don't get quiter over time, but over the years the ceiling for base volume and compression on CDs has steadily gotten louder. Initially to bring the quiet sections into an 'easier to hear' range for those who have mild cases of hearing loss, but in turn bad mastering decisions led to the idea of raising that "ceiling" again while leaving the "floor" at its new loudness. And it became a vicious cycle out of quick decisions and apathy about the post process from the upper-eschelon of the industry.

Also when CDs were initially being pressed, a good number of "just-get-them-out-there" releases were not remastered for digital. The originally pressed masters from the vinyl were used - which essentially had to do with the physical groove on the record. Just because I don't feel like writing paragraphs, in a nutshell: the treble was raised and the bass was lowered so the groove wasn't enormous. When the phonograph played it, it boosted the bass signal and lowered the treble to put them back to how they were meant to be heard). Those quick buck re-issues on CDs were pressed with that idea in mind, mostly because they just didn't think.

That didn't last forever, but it happened to enough high-profile releases and the time/$/manpower was not really spent on going back to correct the issue on them - that's how the whole thing started. Once albums started to be mastered with digital in mind, problem was solved.

To the 1's & 0's statement: yes, sort of. If you connect your computer to your sound system and play a YouTube video, there are at least 3 volume faders involved: 1) YouTube's, 2) Your PCs, 3) sound system. Everything builds off of each other. If YouTube is set at "2," and your PC is set at "5," the "10" on your sound system is not going to be as loud as it could potentially be if YouTube and your PC were both set higher.

Essentially it's the same thing, except the CD has a fixed volume. The average ceiling of a CD mastered 20-some years ago, just to throw out a number was akin to a '3,' and was not as high as it is nowadays, which is more like an '8' now.

I have yet to buy 4Ever, so it's sad to hear that this really was a throw together release if they just put the original masters onto the disc. Sexy MF and LRC were not mastered with the same reference aesthetic for their compact disc release.

[Edited 12/12/16 12:43pm]

[Edited 12/13/16 7:02am]

I may have truncated it a bit too much for your particular tastes, and I didn't mean people that are nearly stone deaf, Metallica drummers, or even people on their way there. The average adult has nowhere near the hearing that they should. Just about everyone has a mild case of hearing loss, both frequency and dynamics.

Dynamics became harder to pick out for a lot of people, hence the upward conversion to eliminate the extreme dynamics. Masses at listening parties and focus groups started liking dynamic range less and less because they said they couldn't hear it and that was a response to it.

You said exactly what I did, I just did it in way fewer words and moved on to the next point that hopefully better addressed the OP's question. I'd wager the vast majority of people on here lurking/reading these back-and-forths took it the way you did. Not everyone wants to read an amateur thesis on a message board.

The loudness war was a bi-product of quick-buck-mastering over-correction and then took over to become what it was. I was not addressing that because, like everything from Trump v. Hillary to the future of Prince's estate, it is a way more loaded topic than a message board can responsibly debate.

Rimshottbob said:

I don't think I've ever heard anywhere before that 'compression over the years has steadily gotten louder'.... to help people with mild hearing loss?! What on earth? Where did you get that idea?

The loudness wars were/are about radio airplay/airplay in public spaces.... all albums being mastered more loudly with much more compressed sound in order to cut through the noise of everyday life and other media, to get heard so that more people will buy the music.

Unfortunately, doing this means that the natural dynamic range of a piece of music is reduced until it's almost flat.... all parts of the song - loud, quiet, and in between, end up at the same volume... great for the record companies that want their song to cut through the noise of everyday life... not so great if you care about stuff, like, I don't know... ACTUAL SOUND QUALITY.

This compression rips all the nuance and dynamics out of the music, and causes fatigue in the listener while listening... you're not sure why, uoui just don't want to listen to that record any more... or for more than one or two songs....

Shamefully, a lot of major record labels have taken it on themselves to re-release classic albums, calling them remastered, when really all they've done is push all the levels up, so that the music actually sounds like crap. A case in point is the Nirvana Nevermind Remaster. Sounds like dog shit.

It has nothing to do with helping out the hard of hearing!

InwardJim said:

I think Monarch mispoke. They don't get quiter over time, but over the years the ceiling for base volume and compression on CDs has steadily gotten louder. Initially to bring the quiet sections into an 'easier to hear' range for those who have mild cases of hearing loss, but in turn bad mastering decisions led to the idea of raising that "ceiling" again while leaving the "floor" at its new loudness. And it became a vicious cycle out of quick decisions and apathy about the post process from the upper-eschelon of the industry.

Also when CDs were initially being pressed, a good number of "just-get-them-out-there" releases were not remastered for digital. The originally pressed masters from the vinyl were used - which essentially had to do with the physical groove on the record. Just because I don't feel like writing paragraphs, in a nutshell: the treble was raised and the bass was lowered so the groove wasn't enormous. When the phonograph played it, it boosted the bass signal and lowered the treble to put them back to how they were meant to be heard). Those quick buck re-issues on CDs were pressed with that idea in mind, mostly because they just didn't think.

That didn't last forever, but it happened to enough high-profile releases and the time/$/manpower was not really spent on going back to correct the issue on them - that's how the whole thing started. Once albums started to be mastered with digital in mind, problem was solved.

To the 1's & 0's statement: yes, sort of. If you connect your computer to your sound system and play a YouTube video, there are at least 3 volume faders involved: 1) YouTube's, 2) Your PCs, 3) sound system. Everything builds off of each other. If YouTube is set at "2," and your PC is set at "5," the "10" on your sound system is not going to be as loud as it could potentially be if YouTube and your PC were both set higher.

Essentially it's the same thing, except the CD has a fixed volume. The average ceiling of a CD mastered 20-some years ago, just to throw out a number was akin to a '3,' and was not as high as it is nowadays, which is more like an '8' now.

I have yet to buy 4Ever, so it's sad to hear that this really was a throw together release if they just put the original masters onto the disc. Sexy MF and LRC were not mastered with the same reference aesthetic for their compact disc release.

[Edited 12/12/16 12:43pm]

[Edited 12/13/16 7:02am]

TKO said:

I was listening to 4Ever and noticed some of the songs are so low. It also happened to some of this first cds. Hate it because i have to turn it up and down all the time.

Which songs are low? Are you talking about on the first disc?

ufoclub said:

TKO said:

I was listening to 4Ever and noticed some of the songs are so low. It also happened to some of this first cds. Hate it because i have to turn it up and down all the time.

Which songs are low? Are you talking about on the first disc?

If I Was Your Girlfriend is very low to me on this disc. It seems a bit lower on this disc than on SOTT.

could it be a record company scam???? my remastered versions of varous Black Sabbath CDs

are as "low" as the originals...however--- the Black Sabbath remastered greatest hits CD has some of those very same songs "loud" ...

is this done on purpose?

luvsexy4all said:

could it be a record company scam???? my remastered versions of varous Black Sabbath CDs

are as "low" as the originals...however--- the Black Sabbath remastered greatest hits CD has some of those very same songs "loud" ...

is this done on purpose?

It's all in the care they put into the master.

If they use other releases by the band for a reference level and match that, you shouldn't notice anything.

Greatest Hits releases are a mixed bag. Sometimes they master the disc to be in line with the volume level of other releases by that band, sometimes with a greatest hits package by another band.

Remember, the greatest hits collections focus on the casual fan who may not have all of the albums. The avid fan may buy them, too, but that is not their target audience. Chances are that you'll have multiple greatest hits collections and sometimes the idea is to have them generally at the same volume among those collections, not necessarily with the rest of the particular band's repetoire.

Not a scam, but there is more to it. It's like the debate going on in another thread: Remastering Purple Rain. Do you remaster and expand it as a Prince album or as the soundtrack to THE movie of 1984? Both lead you down different rabbit holes. Or do you go down some other path? Neither is wrong, but it's a choice they have to deal with. And they know with the hardcore fans, they will never win - so they don't bother to appease them.

Buy a CD burning program and "remaster" them yourself. That's what I did...SOTT and ATWIAD were the hardest to get right, but my versions are leaps and bounds better than what's out there. That being said...we still need remasters!

This is a very clumsy method that worked for me (not an elegant solution by any means) but I simply went into the iTunes preferences for those songs and set the master volume higher. Just on those songs, not my entire library.

It helped quite a bit, so at least on random if 3121 jumps into SOTT, it's not as noticeable.

The worst ones for me are SOTT and The Black Album, which is a shame because that's one of my favorite eras.

As people have said above, this is NOT a bad thing at all that Prince's albums aren't 'loud'. Prince's 80's and 90's stuff has great dynamic range on CD, actually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

Read that for more info.

Electric2k said:

As people have said above, this is NOT a bad thing at all that Prince's albums aren't 'loud'. Prince's 80's and 90's stuff has great dynamic range on CD, actually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

Read that for more info.

but if u dont have a reasonably good system it wont be loud enough

Is low wrong, though? I thought loudness wars meant that louder is not better. I'm no audiophile but my understanding was that low was better, isn't it?

databank said:

Is low wrong, though? I thought loudness wars meant that louder is not better. I'm no audiophile but my understanding was that low was better, isn't it?

If you're listening on earbuds, computer speakers, or some other inadequate system, low is bad.

If you're shuffling songs released from different eras with different standards, you better have your finger near the volume control.

Otherwise, I'm with you, low is better, here's why:

Take the CD releases that are most complained about, say SOTT or Black Album. If I listen to one of those CDs on my system they sound GREAT! I can adjust the EQ to give them a bit more bottom where needed, crank it up and nobody around opines that it "sounds bad".

Then take a more modern release like Planet Earth that was mastered way too loud with squashed frequences & no peaks & valleys. When I listen to on of those CDs on my system I can make it sound good at best, never great. I can't fix squashed frequencies or create peaks & valleys with my EQ, I can only adjust to soften the harshest of the distorted frequencies.

Everybody can't wait for remastered releases. I only look forward to the bonus tracks they might include as I do not expect the new masters to be anything but the standard adopted by the purveyors of the loudness wars and not pleasant at all.

If anything, I would prefer everything from the last 15-20 years be remastered, they're the ones that sound bad. In my not-at-humble opinion, of course...

Check out Led Zeppelin's CD releases and compare the originals from the 80s, the remasters from the early 90s and the recent remasters from a year or so ago. Of those, I prefer the first remasters from the early 90s.

In the 80s they were basically just porting over analog masters with little or no thought to remastering. In the 90s things improved when they took advantage of the capabilities of the format. In the 21st century things went to hell with the loudness wars. Just sayin'...