Is remastered mainly just less jitter?

georgehifi
2,430 posts
04-23-2017 7:11pm
It looks like the older the recording the higher the dynamic range

Just inferring this is what I said in my first post, and gave the DR website for everyone to check.

Correction to your original post: it’s not that they’re recorded at a higher volume, it’s that they’re re-mastered at a higher volume (and lower dynamic range). That’s why many original LPs and CDs have relatively high dynamic range whereas their *reissues* have relatively lower dynamic range, in fact lower and lower as time goes on. But it’s still the same recording, often with high dynamic range originally. The loudness wars apparently didn’t have much impact on audio cassettes, they were probably being phased out about the time loudness became ubiquitous. I always look for and admire the cassettes labeled HiDR, I.e., high dynamic range.

George, your reading comprehension is lagging a bit.

kalali
It looks like the older the recording the higher the dynamic range. Just scrolling through the chart, regardless of the artist, the lossless CDs from late 80’s and 90’s all have consistently higher DR. This is completely the opposite of the common wisdom. Anyone else noticed this or am I just misreading the numbers?

uh, that’s kind of the whole point. The industry has become more and more aggressive in compressing dynamic range in favor of loudness. This all starting about 20 years ago. Check out the more recent recordings in the past few years, LP, SACD, CD, even downloads. The trend is not your friend. You’ll notice many of the recent releases are all in the red. Hel-loo!

Just to mention CDs aren’t the only thing being overly compressed these days, as shown in the Dynamic Range Database. Vinyl reissues, SACDs, even hi res downloads. Even those cool SHM CDs from Japan are getting the business. The horror, the horror... There are now more than 106,000 albums contained in the DRDB. But who's counting?

+1 George, I agree - no one said DR is the only factor to consider but it’s way up there. In fact I'd guess that if anyone made a list of his least favorite CDs the CDs would score very low on the Dynamic Range Database.

Whoa! What? Look who's talking.

Young folks boogie on headphones and iPods. Old dudes listen to classical on their big home systems. The market is young people. Which is why rock and pop are compressed and classical isn't.

georgehifi
Most of the re-masters I’ve heard are just louder and more compressed.

+1
not only are many if not most remastered overly compressed, sometimes to the point that all the numbers are in the RED on the Dynamic Range Database, but many original issues are overly compressed, examples include the last few Rolling Stones, Dylan, almost all Radiohead, the list goes on.

Pretty sure the answer to the question why do they remaster CDs is to compress their dynamic range.