http://picosong.com/FNEe/
 
Most of you know this song by Pearl Jam.
I listened to this album for a few years when it came out 2 decades ago.
 
I totally forgot about it till i recently bumped into this reissue of the album. Apparently it's also quite old by now but when it first listened to it, it blew me away!
I was almost shocked by how much they can do with the original tapes to make it sound so much better 10 years later.
Where the original album sounded ok, this newer version has everything that i'm looking for when it comes to how a rock song should sound!
 
Compared to the original album every instrument has its own space and distance. You can hear every note, every sound so clearly. It sounds way more heavy without getting chaotic or having intruments/voices colliding with each other.
To me the original, compared to this, just was so uhm...flat? English is not my first language so maybe that word doesn't make any sense to you.
I mean it had no highs, no lows...everything was in the middle. Just like a nice meal with some potatoes, veggies and a piece of meat. It tastes good but nothing stands out. This version of the song has also all those ingredients but they all stand out while at the same time are part of a great f-ing meal!
 
Now the thing is, i can hear it BUT i don't know what i'm hearing. Why does this remastered version of the song sounds so amazing to me?
The song and the instruments are pretty straight forward. It isn't very complicated. I could probably play most of it myself (minus the voice obviously) but it will never sound the same.
I'm not looking to copycat it, but i'd just love to hear some tips from the professionals here. If you would re-record this song and make it sound as close as possible to the original how would you do it?
 
What makes it so full? How can you manage that without having instruments (guitars) all over the place? How is Ed's voice done? It's clearly on top of everything without taking over the song. The bass sounds amazing as well!
 
The impact of the chorus (at 1min25) is massive! What happens there?
 
Hoping for your input!
 
Thanks!
 
 

The simple answer is digital has significantly greater overhead threshold. More than double that of 1/4" tape and about 1.5 times that of vinyl. This provides for significantly more space for detail and energy.

The complex answer is the mastering process for digital distribution media is very different than the same process for vinyl, whch requires RIAA EQ, or tape which requires compression and noise filtering (Dolby or DBX). Both of the old types of media have some pretty significant limitations vis a vis digital.

Sounds too compressed. You can hear it pumping. It has been brightened up maybe with some eq or excitement. Hard compression with a pretty fast attack but once that still lets the click of the drum hits come through to try and make them sound more punchy. But in that process it has squashed everything else so much that it just pumps really bad. It's actually quite bad... The bass has been boosted a lot which makes it sound more energetic and powerful. I like elements of both. I much prefer the dynamics of the original, but I prefer the eqing of the remastered version.

I'd go as far as saying the pumping on this is really quite unprofessionally bad. I can hear it clipping and distorting on the remastered version near the end of the song and that sounds terrible. Yes, it's loud and that's what everyone's doing these days, might as well get used to it - but they didn't pull it off very well. I'd be curious to know who the mastering engineer was because I think they did a bad job and it could have been just as loud but without the pumping.



As you said, it originally sounded flat (yes that's an appropriate terminology). The main difference is that they boosted the low end and boosted the high end plus the compression, of course. Tape naturally saturates the highs and things don't tend to sound quite so bright on it - hence they have added some brightness back that was lost from the tape sound. Bass back then tended to not be such a big thing and if it was also indtended for vinyl, the bass must be low in the mix or you get problems with your needle jumping off the track. We have much less limitation now so can make it as bright and bass heavy as we want - which is happening with most new music these days - it's the style. I honestly think this is the 'main' thing you're hearing and liking. It's done carefully and done well. It's just that went and brought it back down again with the compression...

Tripod


http://picosong.com/FNEe/
 
Most of you know this song by Pearl Jam.
I listened to this album for a few years when it came out 2 decades ago.
 
I totally forgot about it till i recently bumped into this reissue of the album. Apparently it's also quite old by now but when it first listened to it, it blew me away!
I was almost shocked by how much they can do with the original tapes to make it sound so much better 10 years later.
Where the original album sounded ok, this newer version has everything that i'm looking for when it comes to how a rock song should sound!
 
Compared to the original album every instrument has its own space and distance. You can hear every note, every sound so clearly. It sounds way more heavy without getting chaotic or having intruments/voices colliding with each other.
To me the original, compared to this, just was so uhm...flat? English is not my first language so maybe that word doesn't make any sense to you.
I mean it had no highs, no lows...everything was in the middle. Just like a nice meal with some potatoes, veggies and a piece of meat. It tastes good but nothing stands out. This version of the song has also all those ingredients but they all stand out while at the same time are part of a great f-ing meal!
 
Now the thing is, i can hear it BUT i don't know what i'm hearing. Why does this remastered version of the song sounds so amazing to me?
The song and the instruments are pretty straight forward. It isn't very complicated. I could probably play most of it myself (minus the voice obviously) but it will never sound the same.
I'm not looking to copycat it, but i'd just love to hear some tips from the professionals here. If you would re-record this song and make it sound as close as possible to the original how would you do it?
 
What makes it so full? How can you manage that without having instruments (guitars) all over the place? How is Ed's voice done? It's clearly on top of everything without taking over the song. The bass sounds amazing as well!
 
The impact of the chorus (at 1min25) is massive! What happens there?
 
Hoping for your input!
 
Thanks!
 
 

To me it's a combination of what fox told you as well as a different technology and mastering engineer calling the shots on this version.
 
Unlike Matt, I didn't hear any massive pumping on this that made me cringe. It's loud and a bit too limited, but to me, when something pumps, you lose something in the recording where it appears to sound like something faded down and cancelled something else out....and your snare drum will ALWAYS suffer and lose crack. I don't hear the snare losing crack in this at all. I also don't hear any clipping so to me, this is just a very loud modern master of today.
 
I too prefer the dynamics of the old version but I'm so used to hearing stuff like this the way it is now, I've just learned to accept it. You can't put too much stock in that mp3 either. You don't know who encoded it or what they used. A 222 kb mp3 isn't a standard encoding in my realm...so any artifacts we hear might come from that. You also have to treat an mp3 different when you encode it from a wave or it will literally pick up clipping points, DC offsets and other artifacts that don't exist. So don't ever trust an mp3 unless someone that knows how to create one from a loud wave file master does it.
 
I recorded my own version of this from the site since their "download" did not work for me. I recorded it in real time at -6 dB going in and it still ended up at -2.5 dB. LOL! To me it actually sounds better and doesn't look like a square box.
 
What makes up what you hear? For starters you need to have a good mix of the song before it can be mastered to any value. The better a song is recorded and mixed, the better the master will sound as long as the mastering engineer knows what he's doing.
 
As for the impact, stereo enhancement plugs as well as eq's in the higher end of the spectrum are the reasons. When you squash something this hard you just about always experience what we call "smearing" where the stereo field gets more narrow because you are limiting the heck out of the song. So they usually add the spread back in to either bring back what they lost, or they make the spread more noticeable.
 
The higher end frequencies and their abilities to "reach out to us" happened when we got into the digital world. Most analog albums didn't use the sub lows we have today nor did they have the crispy "air" high-end frequencies we have today due to digtal bringing this stuff more up front. This is another reason for the impact you hear...as well as volume smashing your skull. LOL! :)
 
The eq on this song is a prime example of why I no longer care for that old analog sound. It just sounds too dark, dull and lifeless for me when we can have something that hits you at all angles like this. I'm not down with the excessive loudness this tune has, but everything else sounds really good and it's definitely better than the original. 
 
-Danny

Amplitude Analysis From the OPs download link:

Left Right
Min Sample Value:       -32768    -32768
Max Sample Value:        32767     32767
Peak Amplitude:         0 dB             0 dB
Possibly Clipped:        1194      538
DC Offset:                 -.016     -.012 
Minimum RMS Power       -76.18 dB    -78.09 dB
Maximum RMS Power:       -6.26 dB      -5.79 dB
Average RMS Power:       -11.08 dB    -11.94 dB
Total RMS Power:        -10.46 dB    -11.28 dB
Actual Bit Depth:             16 Bits       16 Bits

Using RMS Window of 50 ms





Amplitude Analysis from the original release:

Left Right
Min Sample Value:       -32768     -32768
Max Sample Value:       32767      32767
Peak Amplitude:         0 dB               0 dB
Possibly Clipped:          16                35
DC Offset:                -.012      -.013 
Minimum RMS Power:     -78.39 dB    -79.86 dB
Maximum RMS Power:      -7.69 dB       -8.48 dB
Average RMS Power:      -16.06 dB    -16.31 dB
Total RMS Power:        -15.23 dB     -15.4 dB
Actual Bit Depth:          16 Bits      16 Bits

Using RMS Window of 50 ms





Conclusion: 

The averaged RMS volume level is 5dB louder on the new version... that is sort of like saying "twice as loud".

I'm not going to draw any conclusion on how that effected the quality of the sound... that's a personal thing.






"The simple answer is digital has significantly greater overhead threshold. More than double that of 1/4" tape and about 1.5 times that of vinyl. This provides for significantly more space for detail and energy. "


In this case the digital file linked to by the OP has exactly 0dB (zero) of overhead threshold.




With regards to 1/4" tape... A typical reel to reel application like 1/4" tape at 7 i.p.s. has more dynamic range than a vinyl disc. It has approximately 80dB dynamic range... without dolby, dbx, etc.


Cassettes, which use one half of a 1/8" tape (1/16th) at 1-7/8"per/sec don't. They have approximately 55dB dynamic range.


An excellent vinyl record on a top of the line playback system has approximately 65dB dynamic range.

A 16/44.1 digital file has approximately 90dB dynamic range.


best regards,
mike

mike_mccue


Amplitude Analysis From the OPs download link:

Left Right
Min Sample Value:       -32768    -32768
Max Sample Value:        32767     32767
Peak Amplitude:         0 dB             0 dB
Possibly Clipped:        1194      538
DC Offset:                 -.016     -.012 
Minimum RMS Power       -76.18 dB    -78.09 dB
Maximum RMS Power:       -6.26 dB      -5.79 dB
Average RMS Power:       -11.08 dB    -11.94 dB
Total RMS Power:        -10.46 dB    -11.28 dB
Actual Bit Depth:             16 Bits       16 Bits

Using RMS Window of 50 ms





Amplitude Analysis from the original release:

Left Right
Min Sample Value:       -32768     -32768
Max Sample Value:       32767      32767
Peak Amplitude:         0 dB               0 dB
Possibly Clipped:          16                35
DC Offset:                -.012      -.013 
Minimum RMS Power:     -78.39 dB    -79.86 dB
Maximum RMS Power:      -7.69 dB       -8.48 dB
Average RMS Power:      -16.06 dB    -16.31 dB
Total RMS Power:        -15.23 dB     -15.4 dB
Actual Bit Depth:          16 Bits      16 Bits

Using RMS Window of 50 ms





Conclusion: 

The averaged RMS volume level is 5dB louder on the new version... that is sort of like saying "twice as loud".

I'm not going to draw any conclusion on how that effected the quality of the sound... that's a personal thing.






"The simple answer is digital has significantly greater overhead threshold. More than double that of 1/4" tape and about 1.5 times that of vinyl. This provides for significantly more space for detail and energy. "


In this case the digital file linked to by the OP has exactly 0dB (zero) of overhead threshold.




With regards to 1/4" tape... A typical reel to reel application like 1/4" tape at 7 i.p.s. has more dynamic range than a vinyl disc. It has approximately 80dB dynamic range... without dolby, dbx, etc.


Cassettes, which use one half of a 1/8" tape (1/16th) at 1-7/8"per/sec don't. They have approximately 55dB dynamic range.


An excellent vinyl record on a top of the line playback system has approximately 65dB dynamic range.

A 16/44.1 digital file has approximately 90dB dynamic range.


best regards,
mike

Hey Mike, remember us having this conversation before? The mp3 you scoped will ALWAYS show those numbers when it gets bounced from a hot wave file. I don't know what new modern music you may have at your disposal, but try something for me and see what results you get.
 
If you have a CD of something modern of today that is pretty loud....rip it to a wave and then encode it to mp3 just like it is. Try a few different mp3 encodings without touching any levels on the mp3. After doing a few encodings, check the numbers like you did here on both the mp3 and the original wave file. You should see the numbers looking different. Sometimes they are DRASTICALLY different, but just about always, the mp3 will show clipped samples because of a few important factors.
 
1. Most music lovers that aren't geeks like us do not know that you should re-level a wave file to at least -0.3 dB before creating an mp3 out of it. Each time you do not, you'll see clipped samples and min sample values of 32768 and max values of 32767.
 
For example, this is a piece of one of my songs which was mastered by Bob Katz.
 
Wave file taken directly from the CD:  
 

 
Mp3 encoded at 320 using the best and slowest encoder via Wave Lab:
 

 
As you may or may not know, Bob isn't much of a loud mastering guy. So my example here isn't a good one with massive volume as my CD is not a super loud one. But if you try this yourself with something you have on CD, you'll REALLY see what I mean. So we can't hold much stock on mp3's these days.
 
*For your head Mike*(Off the record and you can try this yourself.....pat yourself on the back if you can nail it because I can't lol) No one I know other than Bob Ludwig has been able to get min and max numbers at 32767 on all sides right from a CD. As soon as you hit a 32768 in min, you've clipped. As soon as we mortals see 32767 on both sides of max, we've probably clipped. The best I have ever been able to get with tedious tweaking is 32764 on min and max samples and most times when I've been experimenting with this, I end up at like 32765 on the left, 32764 on the right for max samples and my mins are at like 32762.
 
None of that is super important though really because you have to base that at -0 dB. As long as we master out at -0.1 dB or lower, we will never get 32767. I don't believe the industry even masters to -0 dB anymore...but Bob used to and he had perfect numbers on any rock act he mastered. I'm assuming you're using Adobe Audition for that reading as that is what I use as well. Nothing tops it in my opinion. It's numbers are super accurate....even more so than Wave Lab. But if you were to check out som Ludwig master of years ago, he hits those numbers religiously and to be honest, it always upset me because I wanted them too! LOL! Not because it makes a huge difference but because if Bob gets them, I want them! He also NEVER has even a slight DC offset on his projects. I sometimes cannot totally remove it and may end up with .001% on one side which is nothing...but I HATE when I see it.
 
2. Most music lovers don't pay attention to encoding options. We geeks know to use 320 whenever possible and that anything under 192 will have artifacts that annoy us. We also know not to use those "in between" encoding options because they can skewer things even more.
 
So as you can see, quite a few variables can come into play here. Try some of this stuff for yourself and see what you find out. It's actually very cool and quite a learning experience once you really dive into it. :)
 
-Danny

Hey!

Sorry for the late response. Didn't have time to check back earlier.

This is more than i hoped for! I'm still reading and learning but i just want to say that i totally appreciate the time you guys spent on my question. It's very informative for a noob like me.

I have one more question atm though. As mentioned above apparently its volume is way higher than before.
Why do they do this? What's the difference between doing this and someone simply hitting the volume button on his computer or where ever you listen to it as he pleases?

"Why do they do this? What's the difference between doing this and someone simply hitting the volume button on his computer or where ever you listen to it as he pleases?"


This is done for 2 primary reasons:


1) It makes cheap stereos sound more powerful. For example; Katy Perry's infamous -4dBFS averaged RMS "I Kissed a Girl" song sounds killer on my puny 1" laptop speakers. There are so many cheap stereos out there that some folks have decided to prioritize making the music sound good on all of them even if it does sound less than ideal on an ideal stereo system.

2) The practice of compressing the peaks heavily has the side effect of making the quietest parts louder too and this makes the music easier to hear in a noisy environment when it's played back as muzak or background music. There is a lot of money in background music licensing, so some folks have decided to prioritize making the music sound good on the sort of systems that have dozens of cheap and nasty speakers mounted in a dropped ceilings even if it does sound less than ideal on an ideal stereo system.


best regards,
mike

Tripod

I have one more question atm though. As mentioned above apparently it's volume is way higher than before. 
Why do they do this? What's the difference between doing this and someone simply hitting the volume button on his computer or where ever you listen to it as he pleases?

It's known as The Loudness War.


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

This video is a good example of some of the negatives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

"Why do they do this? What's the difference between doing this and someone simply hitting the volume button on his computer or where ever you listen to it as he pleases?" 

This is done for 2 primary reasons:  1) It makes cheap stereos sound more powerful. For example; Katy Perry's infamous -4dBFS averaged RMS "I Kissed a Girl" song sounds killer on my puny 1" laptop speakers. There are so many cheap stereos out there that some folks have decided to prioritize making the music sound good on all of them even if it does sound less than ideal on an ideal stereo system.  2) The practice of compressing the peaks heavily has the side effect of making the quietest parts louder too and this makes the music easier to hear in a noisy environment when it's played back as muzak or background music. There is a lot of money in background music licensing, so some folks have decided to prioritize making the music sound good on the sort of systems that have dozens of cheap and nasty speakers mounted in a dropped ceilings even if it does sound less than ideal on an ideal stereo system. 

3) It's become a bit of a competition on who can be the loudest. If you play one CD against another, the louder one tends to sound better than the quiet one. Bit of psychoacoustics explaining why, but that's not important, we perceive loud as better. So artists tend to compete to be loud or loudest. The seem to forget about the volume know as you mention...

Mike makes some good points - especially point 2. Listening in a car can be annoying if the music is too dynamic as you're constantly turning it up and down, effectively simply manually compressing it yourself.

To add to point 1, the amount of gain on many small systems is quite limited (no pun intended). If you want your song to play back loud enough so you can hear it on your device which doesn't turn up very loud, something from the 70's you're probably barely going to be able to hear. You simply CAN'T turn it up louder from the device. Solution? Make the original audio track louder.

Right, that expains a lot. Thanks!