Back catologue in 5.1 / DTS

[super saint]

After purchasing the Depeche Mode remasters & releasing what a difference it makes, I long for the day that Underworld remaster their back catolgue in glorious 5.1 / DTS sound.

Anyone else agree ?

[Jan]

You know what they do with remasters, don't you?
that --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ
but you probably know that already...

Reminds me that on the chatroom during the broadcast some people demanded a remaster of STITI...:rolleyes: but that album actually is their best mastered album. If it's too quiet, just turn the volume up... or better use something like Replay Gain (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Replay_Gain) on all your music files. I can't stand the thought of using my MP3 player without RG.

Then again, 5.1 and SACD remasters are usually not overcompressed.

However, UW are not at a point in their career where they need remasters. It's always a sign of desperation when established bands throw unnecessary remasters on the market to rip off their fans. Of course, with that I don't mean purposeful remasters, but nothing that UW have put out sounds bad.

First step in that kind of direction should be releasing everything that is available on analog mediums only on digital mediums. Like all the music videos on one DVD, the Lemon Interupt and The Hump / ME tracks on CD... Although that probably won't happen.

[negative1]

After purchasing the Depeche Mode remasters & releasing what a difference it makes, I long for the day that Underworld remaster their back catolgue in glorious 5.1 / DTS sound.

Anyone else agree ?

welcome to the board super saint,

yeah i have all those depeche mode releases...not needed,
the videos were good though...

surround is too gimmicky in some cases to make it worth the
effort..

so to answer your question, doubt it will happen..

later
-1

[chems1919]

Nice to know there's some depeche mode fans here. I've always loved their sound and for some reason, Dave Gahan's voice shares a simliar liking to Karl's. I'm excited to hear their new album.

And I know it sounds strange, but I like the older "underground" sound of Underworld's previous albums. While it would be cool to hear it in a better format, I'll always appreciate the subliminal sounds and whispers along with some heavy bass lines in dubno and second toughest of the infants.

[galama]

You know what they do with remasters, don't you?
that --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ
but you probably know that already...


I honestly doubt that UW would willingly treat us to such horror.
I think OWB has received the best treatment in the studio. BF is OK but Dubno deserves some serious repairing.

[King of Snake]

well they did remaster some old tracks for the 1992-2002 anthology.

I also think STITI sounds quite good, although a bit quiet and a bit noisy in places. I also noticed when looking in an audio editor that strangely the left channel seems to be quite a bit louder and more limited than the right. Check out the wave of Confusion the Waitress on the lower left:

http://www.sputnikk.nl/waveforms.jpg

BF was a lot more "in your face" and quite loud. For OWB on the other hand they seem to have really tried to keep the dynamics and even on the dance tracks there's none of the usual "square block of sound" if you look at the waveforms (see Crocodile top right)

[Jan]

I did a quick test. I chose two tracks from STITI: "Confusion the Waitress" and "Rowla". I boosted their volume by 6 dB to match their volume to that of "modern" CDs with a modern limiting plugin. Then I lowered the volume by 6 dB again, similar to that youtube video.

STITI is an album that has, by modern standards, a fairly low volume. The ReplayGain value for that album is +0.68 dB, which means that while I listen to that album, the volume will get boosted by 0.68 dB by ReplayGain to match the RG reference level. For comparison, OWB has a RG value of -4.86 dB and AHDO -5.95 dB. So these albums get lowered in volume when I play them back.

So to match STITI's volume to that of OWB or AHDO, I applied a 6 dB boost with a limiter. For fair comparison, I applied ReplayGain correction to all files after that.
Some pictures:
Confusion the Waitress (original) (http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3600/confusionorigqv7.png)
The left channel appears to be clipped a bit. To explain, this is just a result from a 0.82 dB boost applied by ReplayGain to allow fair comparison. There has been a limiter applied so the sound difference to the STITI version is neglegible.
Rowla (original) (http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4585/rowlaorigpo5.png)
Here you can clearly see the kickdrums (zoom (http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/7005/rowlacompressedzoomod7.png)). Most of the dynamic range available is just used for the kickdrum.

If STITI had been mastered today it would probably look like this. Again the shots have been taken after PG correction:
Confusion the Waitress (compressed) (http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2570/confusioncompressedku0.png)
Rowla (compressed) (http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9564/rowlacompressedta9.png)
You can see how the kickdrums are "cut off" at around -6dB.

Now, I could view waveforms the whole day, but they tell me nothing about the sound. So I did a quick ABX comparison:
foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.5
2008/05/01 13:01:58

File A: J:\___losslessmusic\neu\Confusion_original.wav
File B: J:\___losslessmusic\neu\Confusion_compressed.wav

13:01:58 : Test started.
13:02:37 : 01/01 50.0%
13:02:43 : 02/02 25.0%
13:02:51 : 03/03 12.5%
13:02:54 : 04/04 6.3%
13:02:58 : 05/05 3.1%
13:03:03 : 06/06 1.6%
13:03:08 : 07/07 0.8%
13:03:12 : 08/08 0.4%
13:03:15 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)At the beginning I could not hear a difference, but when the track got louder, the kickdrum literally got buried in the mix as there simply wasn't enough dynamic range left. It really sounded horrible.
I've put the samples up so you can judge for yourself: http://www.mediafire.com/?m9nmtyyvgk9

foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.5
2008/05/01 13:05:43

File A: J:\___losslessmusic\neu\Rowla_original.wav
File B: J:\___losslessmusic\neu\Rowla_compressed.wav

13:05:43 : Test started.
13:06:42 : 01/01 50.0%
13:06:44 : 02/02 25.0%
13:06:47 : 03/03 12.5%
13:06:49 : 04/04 6.3%
13:06:51 : 05/05 3.1%
13:06:53 : 06/06 1.6%
13:06:55 : 07/07 0.8%
13:06:57 : 08/08 0.4%
13:06:58 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)The same goes for Rowla. Except here the drums are slaughtered as soon as they set in at 56s. There is no "kick" anymore, all what is left is an undefined bassy mess. Samples: http://www.mediafire.com/?l2im4xf9y7m


Bottom line: a remaster would kill that album. They could denoise it, repair some clicking etc., but they would also have to boost the volume to a "hot" level because the market requires it. They can't just leave the volume at the original level because it just would not sound good in comparison to a bad mastered indie rock CD for example. That is what's so depressing about the loudness war. All we can do is using tools to normalize the volume to a reference level like ReplayGain or the equivalent tool from iTunes (forgot the name).

[super saint]

However, UW are not at a point in their career where they need remasters. It's always a sign of desperation when established bands throw unnecessary remasters on the market to rip off their fans.

I don't think DM can be classed as desperate surely ?

Besides the the remasters were hardly big sellers anyway & were aimed purely for the fans.

I dont feel ripped off at all - each CD contained a unique listening experience with the 5.1 mix, bsides remastered, great packaging & a 3/4 hour documentary on each disc.

As I've said, a 5.1 mix sounds great if done properly...the Everything Everything DVD testifies that.

[negative1]

I don't think DM can be classed as desperate surely ?

As I've said, a 5.1 mix sounds great if done properly...the Everything Everything DVD testifies that.

part a: maybe

part b: dont compare live tracks to album tracks, see analysis above

you're talking apples and oranges

later
-1

[mondokat]

I always kind of figured STITI sounded that way because it was mastered for vinyl first and no one bothered to re-master it for CD release. Either way, if it was mastered like more modern pop music, it would definitely sound like crap. Songs like Rowla totally depend on the ebb and flow, rise and fall of the music. It would sound like ass if it were compressed...

[King of Snake]

So to match STITI's volume to that of OWB or AHDO, I applied a 6 dB boost with a limiter. For fair comparison, I applied ReplayGain correction to all files after that.
Some pictures:
Confusion the Waitress (original) (http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3600/confusionorigqv7.png)
The left channel appears to be clipped a bit. To explain, this is just a result from a 0.82 dB boost applied by ReplayGain to allow fair comparison. There has been a limiter applied so the sound difference to the STITI version is neglegible.
Rowla (original) (http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4585/rowlaorigpo5.png)
Here you can clearly see the kickdrums (zoom (http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/7005/rowlacompressedzoomod7.png)). Most of the dynamic range available is just used for the kickdrum.

If STITI had been mastered today it would probably look like this. Again the shots have been taken after PG correction:
Confusion the Waitress (compressed) (http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2570/confusioncompressedku0.png)
Rowla (compressed) (http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9564/rowlacompressedta9.png)
You can see how the kickdrums are "cut off" at around -6dB.



not sure what's going on with your files but your originals seem to have a strange DC offset. Notice how the waveforms aren't centered anymore so that would definitely not lead to any kind of decent result when you start limiting.
I'm sure they could make STITI be louder without it starting to sound like crap. With good professional equipment and a good mastering engineer you can make something reasonably loud without completely destroying it. Just compare STITI Pearl's Girl to the version on 1992-2002. The latter is definitely louder but it still sounds good to me.

In any case I think the way they mastered OWB is definitely a sign that UW care about dynamics and sound quality over loudness.

[Jan]

I used this copy of STITI for the comparisons:
http://www.discogs.com/release/12154

This is not DC offset, the drum machine simply exhibits that behaviour. I'm quite sure that a TB909 for example has this. Do you know with what kind of filter one can bring those "spikes" back in line with the rest of the waveform?
It may be that other versions have been mastered slightly differently... I'll check this with my UK copy...

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

dubno in need of serious repair? Really? Honestly I've never had much of a problem with it, except in order to play "River of Bass" loud, you need a really good system or it sounds like garbage. But it's fine either way. I too noticed that STITI was a good deal 'quieter' than my other CDs. Honestly I prefer it that way. I really don't think there's any problem with UW's releases sound-wise. They are some of the best sounding CDs I own.

[King of Snake]

I used this copy of STITI for the comparisons:
http://www.discogs.com/release/12154

This is not DC offset, the drum machine simply exhibits that behaviour. I'm quite sure that a TB909 for example has this. Do you know with what kind of filter one can bring those "spikes" back in line with the rest of the waveform?
It may be that other versions have been mastered slightly differently... I'll check this with my UK copy...

well if you look at the pic I posted earlier you can see that Confusion the Waitress does not show that offset there. And while I'm not a technician, it certainly looks like a dc offset (http://www.harmony-central.com/articles/tips/eq_dc_offset/) to me. Even if "the drum machine simly exhibits that" (which I doubt) it's still a dc offset. It's more likely that whatever processing you did introduced the offset. A good wave editor (I use Steinberg Wavelab) should have a "remove DC offset" option.
Also there's no such thing as a TB909 (it's either a TB303 or a TR909 with B standing for Bassline and R for Rhythm) :)

[Jan]

I don't know what drum machines UW use exactly, but I do know for sure that their drum machine shows that behavior. Here (http://img396.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crocxr3.png)is a closeup on a kick of Crocodile. You can see how the waveform suddenly drops down and up again. Both Rowla and Confusion have very prominent kicks, thats why I used them in the comparison. And it's surely no DC offset because the waveform is perfectly centered. The pic of the waveform is a bit misleading. Here (http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/9109/kicksgz3.png)is a better one.

May I ask what CD your waveform is from?
I've just checked, and all my copies of STITI have that.

[Jan]

Also, I'm no expert at mastering. So if anybody thinks he can boost Rowla by 6dB fairly transparently, please try.
I don't think it can be done.

[negative1]

I honestly doubt that UW would willingly treat us to such horror.
I think OWB has received the best treatment in the studio. BF is OK but Dubno deserves some serious repairing.

actually there are differences (slight) between the vinyl version
of 'oblivion with bells' and the cd also.....so don't go by that either..
i haven't checked with the other cds vs vinyl....but so many tracks
from each one have been rereleased in different countries/singles
etc...so its hard to tell which is better...

http://www.darktrain.org/dirty/forums/showthread.php?t=6982&highlight=oblivion+bells+vinyl

later
-1

[negative1]

BF was a lot more "in your face" and quite loud. For OWB on the other hand they seem to have really tried to keep the dynamics and even on the dance tracks there's none of the usual "square block of sound" if you look at the waveforms (see Crocodile top right)

actually, it is just as bad for 'oblivion with bells' tracks on cd,
(but not on vinyl).......check out what happened to
'beautiful burnout'...

http://img34.picoodle.com/img/img34/5/11/9/f_beautwavesm_caa593f.jpg

also, see my previous link, for more information on it..

later
-1

[joethelion]

just to put my two cents in...

it is a bit frustrating to try and throw in an older UW track into a mix set (especially from Dubno... and well - I've only ever tried using "Rowla" off of STITI) only to find how incredibly quiet the tracks are, and even when you up the gain (a lot) there's still not that much 'power' in the tracks, compared to more recent works

you really don't notice it when you're just listening to Dubno, or hell - even other electronic albums from that time period, but when you compare the 'classics' to more contemporary stuff... it's a bit of a difference

[lowbit]

I'd setting for the Riverrun suite being released in something a little higher quality than MP3, like FLAC or (dare I say it) actual, physical CD media. I mean, MP3 at the higher bit rates is decent for a lossy format and all, but this is Underworld we're talking about here, not the Boredoms. Fidelity matters.

[King of Snake]

I don't know what drum machines UW use exactly, but I do know for sure that their drum machine shows that behavior. Here (http://img396.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crocxr3.png)is a closeup on a kick of Crocodile. You can see how the waveform suddenly drops down and up again. Both Rowla and Confusion have very prominent kicks, thats why I used them in the comparison. And it's surely no DC offset because the waveform is perfectly centered. The pic of the waveform is a bit misleading. Here (http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/9109/kicksgz3.png)is a better one.

hmm well maybe it's just the way your program visualises the waveform. When you look at the individual kicks, you get that pronounced downward slope (this tends to happen with kickdrum or other sharp percussive sounds and is not really dependent on any particular machine, it's just an idication of the sharp attack of the sound), but it doesn's show up in the zoomed out picture in Wavelab as it does in your picture.


May I ask what CD your waveform is from?
I've just checked, and all my copies of STITI have that.I used a normal european version I guess. What is the software you're using? It will probably show up the same if with me if I used that software...

[Jan]

You could try Audacity as it's free... But it's still the same waveform (http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1144/confusionaudacitynj3.png)... the sharp transients just do down.
you really don't notice it when you're just listening to Dubno, or hell - even other electronic albums from that time period, but when you compare the 'classics' to more contemporary stuff... it's a bit of a difference
Yeah, that's what record producers usually want to archieve. They intentionally sacrifice sound quality in exchange for more loudness, which makes the recording seem better. And without loudness correction it will sound better than the quieter one.

But that's where RG comes into play...
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6159/foobar2000cs0.png
When I play old, well mastered albums like STITI, the volume stays just about the same. But when I play newer stuff, the volume gets lowered to match the RG reference level.

The waveform from the example above looks like this:
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7255/rgcomparisonlf5.png
STITI makes use of nearly all the available dynamic range. But BS 2003 and AHDO, after their volume got lowered, are wasting much headroom.

This all becomes even more depressing looking at a closeup on a single kick from Little Speaker:
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/6641/littlespeakervn1.png
While limiting has been applied to Little Speaker, the transients from the kicks have been cut off. I can only guess where they were in the original but I marked it in red.

Fortunately, though, most modern limiters don't introduce clipping or distortion anymore. But sharp attacks in the sound will be damaged or buried in the mix. And that sounds like this:
http://www.mediafire.com/?l2im4xf9y7m
This is the comparison between the original and a compressed Rowla I posted earlier.

[King of Snake]

You could try Audacity as it's free... But it's still the same waveform (http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1144/confusionaudacitynj3.png)... the sharp transients just do down.


ok it looks the same for me in Audacity, so it's just a difference in the software and the way it draws the waveform.



This all becomes even more depressing looking at a closeup on a single kick from Little Speaker:
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/6641/littlespeakervn1.png
While limiting has been applied to Little Speaker, the transients from the kicks have been cut off. I can only guess where they were in the original but I marked it in red.

Fortunately, though, most modern limiters don't introduce clipping or distortion anymore. But sharp attacks in the sound will be damaged or buried in the mix. And that sounds like this:
http://www.mediafire.com/?l2im4xf9y7m


well this is a bit of an oversimplification. There's no reason why that closeup of the little speaker kickdrum means anything "depressing" has happened. It's just a normal result of limiting and compression, both perfectly valid tools for shaping and sculpting sound. What matters is the overall mix, and indeed as you say a lot of stuff these days is over-compressed/limited and has lost punch and definition. I've never found this to be the case for Underworld records though, even when some of them obviously have been processed more heavily than others.