https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/beatles-to-re- release-anthology-documentary-1236350154/
More squeezing of every last drop of juice out of the Apple, so to speak.
I have the doc on VHS which I didn't pay a lot for, lol. Suits me fine
for as often as I watch it.
And the three original CD's, I couldn't see investing in them again just
for a few extras.
OK, so you are not interested in video and audio presumably
better than the old VHS or DVD. And have no interest on what
may be of the new (and presumably 'improved') CDs. Techology
has come a long way since 2003, not always 'for worse'.
The doco might be worth a watch either way.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/beatles-to-re-release-anthology-documentary-1236350154/
More squeezing of every last drop of juice out of the Apple, so to speak.--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
I have the doc on VHS which I didn't pay a lot for, lol. Suits me fine
for as often as I watch it.
And the three original CD's, I couldn't see investing in them again
just for a few extras.
Yes sir! More rotalties for Pete Best
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:48:38 -0500, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/beatles-to-re-release-anthology-documentary-1236350154/
More squeezing of every last drop of juice out of the Apple, so to speak.
I have the doc on VHS which I didn't pay a lot for, lol. Suits me fine
for as often as I watch it.
And the three original CD's, I couldn't see investing in them again
just for a few extras.
Geoff wrote:
OK, so you are not interested in video and audio presumably
better than the old VHS or DVD. And have no interest on what
may be of the new (and presumably 'improved') CDs. Techology
has come a long way since 2003, not always 'for worse'.
Count me in!
I'd rather be bled dry for Beatles music and merch than the
shit that passes for music these days.
In article <xn0p9uvr724lqr5005@post.eweka.nl>, "Blueshirt" <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
I'd rather be bled dry for Beatles music and merch than
the shit that passes for music these days.
The Anthology volumes were released on vinyl, I think, right?
I'll check Discogs shortly, bet they'd cost an absolute
fortune.
In article <xn0p9uvr724lqr5005@post.eweka.nl>, "Blueshirt" <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:'Interested in vinyl' is a thing in itself.
Geoff wrote:
OK, so you are not interested in video and audio presumably
better than the old VHS or DVD. And have no interest on what
may be of the new (and presumably 'improved') CDs. Techology
has come a long way since 2003, not always 'for worse'.
Count me in!
I'd rather be bled dry for Beatles music and merch than the
shit that passes for music these days.
I got into vinyl about 5 or 6 years ago as the resurgence really started
to pick up speed and have bought a handful of "new" releases - but the overwhelming majority of my music collection is mid-60s to very
early-200s, and almost nothing past that. I just don't get new music,
On 22/08/2025 5:48 am, super70s wrote:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/beatles-to-re- release-anthology-documentary-1236350154/
More squeezing of every last drop of juice out of the Apple, so to speak.
I have the doc on VHS which I didn't pay a lot for, lol. Suits me fine for as often as I watch it.
And the three original CD's, I couldn't see investing in them again just for a few extras.
OK, so you are not interested in video and audio presumably better than the old VHS or DVD. And have no interest on what may be of the new (and presumably 'improved') CDs. Techology has come a long way since 2003, not always 'for worse'.
On 8/21/25 4:08 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 22/08/2025 5:48 am, super70s wrote:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/beatles-to-re-
release-anthology-documentary-1236350154/
More squeezing of every last drop of juice out of the Apple, so to
speak.
Apple *refuses* to issue and reissue needed Beatles music:
over 50 years of digital and Apple has never released the
uncompressed Abbey Road, like the original UK vinyl,
just CDs and downloads muffled by compression and then
further muffled by so-called Noise Reduction.
I have the doc on VHS which I didn't pay a lot for, lol. Suits me
fine for as often as I watch it.
And the three original CD's, I couldn't see investing in them again
just for a few extras.
The 6 CDs of Anthology released in the mid-90s were saturated
with noise reduction.-a All they have to do is to release it
without noise reduction for a vast improvement in sound
quality but I'm not expecting Apple to do that, Apple is
obsessed with revisionist engineering, and keeping the
originals off the market.
OK, so you are not interested in video and audio presumably better
than the old VHS or DVD. And have no interest on what may be of the
new (and presumably 'improved') CDs. Techology has come a long way
since 2003, not always 'for worse'.
Technology progress is of no use if it's being
used to muffle the sound.-a I don't like Apple's
engineering of muffling the loud notes by
Compression and muffling the quiet notes by
Noise Reduction, or the glorified fake stereo called
"de-mixing".
On 16/10/2025 4:07 pm, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 8/21/25 4:08 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 22/08/2025 5:48 am, super70s wrote:Apple *refuses* to issue and reissue needed Beatles music:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/beatles-to-re- release-anthology-documentary-1236350154/
More squeezing of every last drop of juice out of the Apple, so to speak. >>
over 50 years of digital and Apple has never released the
uncompressed Abbey Road, like the original UK vinyl,
just CDs and downloads muffled by compression and then
further muffled by so-called Noise Reduction.
I have the doc on VHS which I didn't pay a lot for, lol. Suits me fine for as often as I watch it.
And the three original CD's, I couldn't see investing in them again just for a few extras.
The 6 CDs of Anthology released in the mid-90s were saturated
with noise reduction.-a All they have to do is to release it
without noise reduction for a vast improvement in sound
quality but I'm not expecting Apple to do that, Apple is
obsessed with revisionist engineering, and keeping the
originals off the market.
OK, so you are not interested in video and audio presumably better than the old VHS or DVD. And have no interest on what may be of the new (and presumably 'improved') CDs. Techology has come a long way since 2003, not always 'for worse'.
Technology progress is of no use if it's being
used to muffle the sound.-a I don't like Apple's
engineering of muffling the loud notes by
Compression and muffling the quiet notes by
Noise Reduction, or the glorified fake stereo called
"de-mixing".
Um, obviously you are labouring under quite a misapprehension here, and have little real understanding of audio technology.
CD is not 'compressed' or 'muffled'. It by far exceeds the fidelity of the original masters, in all parameters.
And the processing (NR, compression, etc) does not muffle 'loud or quiet notes' .
On 10/16/25 2:49 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 16/10/2025 4:07 pm, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 8/21/25 4:08 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 22/08/2025 5:48 am, super70s wrote:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/beatles-to-re-
release-anthology-documentary-1236350154/
More squeezing of every last drop of juice out of the Apple, so to
speak.
Apple *refuses* to issue and reissue needed Beatles music:
over 50 years of digital and Apple has never released the
uncompressed Abbey Road, like the original UK vinyl,
just CDs and downloads muffled by compression and then
further muffled by so-called Noise Reduction.
I have the doc on VHS which I didn't pay a lot for, lol. Suits me
fine for as often as I watch it.
And the three original CD's, I couldn't see investing in them again >>>>> just for a few extras.
The 6 CDs of Anthology released in the mid-90s were saturated
with noise reduction.-a All they have to do is to release it
without noise reduction for a vast improvement in sound
quality but I'm not expecting Apple to do that, Apple is
obsessed with revisionist engineering, and keeping the
originals off the market.
OK, so you are not interested in video and audio presumably better
than the old VHS or DVD. And have no interest on what may be of the
new (and presumably 'improved') CDs. Techology has come a long way
since 2003, not always 'for worse'.
Technology progress is of no use if it's being
used to muffle the sound.-a I don't like Apple's
engineering of muffling the loud notes by
Compression and muffling the quiet notes by
Noise Reduction, or the glorified fake stereo called
"de-mixing".
Um, obviously you are labouring under quite a misapprehension here,
and have little real understanding of audio technology.
CD is not 'compressed' or 'muffled'. It by far exceeds the fidelity of
the original masters, in all parameters.
Of course, except "fidelity" refers to replicating the original
signal, so a perfect copy cannot exceed the fidelity of the master tape.
And the processing (NR, compression, etc) does not muffle 'loud or
quiet notes' .
It definitely does.-a What's called Compressed Music has had all
it's loud notes turned down, aka, muffled.
Compressed music's
only benefit is listening to it at the lowest possibly volume,
something I never do.-a Turn up the volume and it sounds flat,
weak, muffled.
Noise Reduction muffles the whole audio spectrum but is
most damaging to quiet notes, particularly fadeouts.
Quiet notes are the very sections in the songs that
you need the most fidelity to the original and
Noise Reduction muffles that signal.
The CD Format is never the fault of any *bad* engineering
issued on CD, bad engineering in any format is
entirely the fault of the record company.
On 18/10/2025 11:40 am, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 10/16/25 2:49 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 16/10/2025 4:07 pm, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 8/21/25 4:08 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 22/08/2025 5:48 am, super70s wrote:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/beatles-to-re- release-anthology-documentary-1236350154/
More squeezing of every last drop of juice out of the Apple, so to speak.
Apple *refuses* to issue and reissue needed Beatles music:
over 50 years of digital and Apple has never released the
uncompressed Abbey Road, like the original UK vinyl,
just CDs and downloads muffled by compression and then
further muffled by so-called Noise Reduction.
I have the doc on VHS which I didn't pay a lot for, lol. Suits me fine for as often as I watch it.
And the three original CD's, I couldn't see investing in them again just for a few extras.
The 6 CDs of Anthology released in the mid-90s were saturated
with noise reduction.-a All they have to do is to release it
without noise reduction for a vast improvement in sound
quality but I'm not expecting Apple to do that, Apple is
obsessed with revisionist engineering, and keeping the
originals off the market.
OK, so you are not interested in video and audio presumably better than the old VHS or DVD. And have no interest on what may be of the new (and presumably 'improved') CDs. Techology has come a long way since 2003, not always 'for worse'.
Technology progress is of no use if it's being
used to muffle the sound.-a I don't like Apple's
engineering of muffling the loud notes by
Compression and muffling the quiet notes by
Noise Reduction, or the glorified fake stereo called
"de-mixing".
Um, obviously you are labouring under quite a misapprehension here, and have little real understanding of audio technology.
CD is not 'compressed' or 'muffled'. It by far exceeds the fidelity of the original masters, in all parameters.
Of course, except "fidelity" refers to replicating the original
signal, so a perfect copy cannot exceed the fidelity of the master tape.
And the processing (NR, compression, etc) does not muffle 'loud or quiet notes' .
It definitely does.-a What's called Compressed Music has had all
it's loud notes turned down, aka, muffled.
'Muffled' is a tonal thing - not a levels thing.
CD releases do not require compression
or limiting whereas vinyl releases do. Often remastering may have changes in compression level over a previous CD. This may be good, or maybe not great. Can you point to a Beatles CD where you think some bad decisions were mage regarding dynamics ?
Compressed music's
only benefit is listening to it at the lowest possibly volume,
something I never do.-a Turn up the volume and it sounds flat,
weak, muffled.
Over-compressed music has some of the dynamics potentially reduced. That is not 'muffling'. Again, this is not a relevant factor for CD releases.
In remasters where some compression may be applied, it is done carefully and should not detract from the musical quality - instead can enhance it.
Noise Reduction muffles the whole audio spectrum but is
most damaging to quiet notes, particularly fadeouts.
Quiet notes are the very sections in the songs that
you need the most fidelity to the original and
Noise Reduction muffles that signal.
Bollocks. Noise reduction can be done without affecting music content whatsoever, 'quiet notes', fade-outs and all. If done badly, sure it can.
The CD Format is never the fault of any *bad* engineering
issued on CD, bad engineering in any format is
entirely the fault of the record company.
Again, can you point to a Beatles reissue or remaster that was done badly ?
On 10/18/25 10:39 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 18/10/2025 11:40 am, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 10/16/25 2:49 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 16/10/2025 4:07 pm, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 8/21/25 4:08 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 22/08/2025 5:48 am, super70s wrote:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/beatles-to- >>>>>>> re- release-anthology-documentary-1236350154/
More squeezing of every last drop of juice out of the Apple, so >>>>>>> to speak.
Apple *refuses* to issue and reissue needed Beatles music:
over 50 years of digital and Apple has never released the
uncompressed Abbey Road, like the original UK vinyl,
just CDs and downloads muffled by compression and then
further muffled by so-called Noise Reduction.
I have the doc on VHS which I didn't pay a lot for, lol. Suits me >>>>>>> fine for as often as I watch it.
And the three original CD's, I couldn't see investing in them
again just for a few extras.
The 6 CDs of Anthology released in the mid-90s were saturated
with noise reduction.-a All they have to do is to release it
without noise reduction for a vast improvement in sound
quality but I'm not expecting Apple to do that, Apple is
obsessed with revisionist engineering, and keeping the
originals off the market.
OK, so you are not interested in video and audio presumably better >>>>>> than the old VHS or DVD. And have no interest on what may be of
the new (and presumably 'improved') CDs. Techology has come a long >>>>>> way since 2003, not always 'for worse'.
Technology progress is of no use if it's being
used to muffle the sound.-a I don't like Apple's
engineering of muffling the loud notes by
Compression and muffling the quiet notes by
Noise Reduction, or the glorified fake stereo called
"de-mixing".
Um, obviously you are labouring under quite a misapprehension here,
and have little real understanding of audio technology.
CD is not 'compressed' or 'muffled'. It by far exceeds the fidelity
of the original masters, in all parameters.
Of course, except "fidelity" refers to replicating the original
signal, so a perfect copy cannot exceed the fidelity of the master tape. >>>
And the processing (NR, compression, etc) does not muffle 'loud or
quiet notes' .
It definitely does.-a What's called Compressed Music has had all
it's loud notes turned down, aka, muffled.
'Muffled' is a tonal thing - not a levels thing.
That's from my perspective, that of the listener.-a The
music industry denies it ever harms music by muffling.
CD releases do not require compression
Yet this compression is forced on the customers
by the record labels.-a It is not necessary and
cheats customers.
or limiting whereas vinyl releases do. Often remastering may have
changes in compression level over a previous CD. This may be good, or
maybe not great. Can you point to a Beatles CD where you think some
bad decisions were mage regarding dynamics ?
I already mentioned Abbey Road, which has not
been issued as a CD release that didn't have
revisionist compression to it.
The vinyl issue from 2012 also was deficient being
subject to compression and noise reduction.
There is no excuse for the record company to refuse to
do this, and on CD.
Compressed music's
only benefit is listening to it at the lowest possibly volume,
something I never do.-a Turn up the volume and it sounds flat,
weak, muffled.
Over-compressed music has some of the dynamics potentially reduced.
That is not 'muffling'. Again, this is not a relevant factor for CD
releases.
That's absurd.-a It is CDs that are most victimized by
compression, by engineers and record labels that
brick wall CDs.
In remasters where some compression may be applied, it is done
carefully and should not detract from the musical quality - instead
can enhance it.
False, the compression war is muffling the loud notes,
by revisionist record labels who aim for a flat harsh
droning quality, like the radio.
Noise Reduction muffles the whole audio spectrum but is
most damaging to quiet notes, particularly fadeouts.
Quiet notes are the very sections in the songs that
you need the most fidelity to the original and
Noise Reduction muffles that signal.
Bollocks. Noise reduction can be done without affecting music content
whatsoever, 'quiet notes', fade-outs and all. If done badly, sure it can.
Noise Reduction is a destructive process, there
is no way to "EQ" back a file destroyed by NoNoise, etc.
The CD Format is never the fault of any *bad* engineering
issued on CD, bad engineering in any format is
entirely the fault of the record company.
Again, can you point to a Beatles reissue or remaster that was done
badly ?
The Yellow Submarine Songtrack and the original "1" compilation,
both from the turn of the century, are examples of
muffling of the loud notes by compression, and the softer
notes by noise reduction.
On 25/10/2025 3:25 pm, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 10/18/25 10:39 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 18/10/2025 11:40 am, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 10/16/25 2:49 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 16/10/2025 4:07 pm, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 8/21/25 4:08 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 22/08/2025 5:48 am, super70s wrote:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/beatles-to- re- release-anthology-documentary-1236350154/
More squeezing of every last drop of juice out of the Apple, so to speak.
Apple *refuses* to issue and reissue needed Beatles music:
over 50 years of digital and Apple has never released the
uncompressed Abbey Road, like the original UK vinyl,
just CDs and downloads muffled by compression and then
further muffled by so-called Noise Reduction.
I have the doc on VHS which I didn't pay a lot for, lol. Suits me fine for as often as I watch it.
And the three original CD's, I couldn't see investing in them again just for a few extras.
The 6 CDs of Anthology released in the mid-90s were saturated
with noise reduction.-a All they have to do is to release it
without noise reduction for a vast improvement in sound
quality but I'm not expecting Apple to do that, Apple is
obsessed with revisionist engineering, and keeping the
originals off the market.
OK, so you are not interested in video and audio presumably better than the old VHS or DVD. And have no interest on what may be of the new (and presumably 'improved') CDs. Techology has come a long way since 2003, not always 'for worse'.
Technology progress is of no use if it's being
used to muffle the sound.-a I don't like Apple's
engineering of muffling the loud notes by
Compression and muffling the quiet notes by
Noise Reduction, or the glorified fake stereo called
"de-mixing".
Um, obviously you are labouring under quite a misapprehension here, and have little real understanding of audio technology.
CD is not 'compressed' or 'muffled'. It by far exceeds the fidelity of the original masters, in all parameters.
Of course, except "fidelity" refers to replicating the original
signal, so a perfect copy cannot exceed the fidelity of the master tape. >>>>
And the processing (NR, compression, etc) does not muffle 'loud or quiet notes' .
It definitely does.-a What's called Compressed Music has had all
it's loud notes turned down, aka, muffled.
'Muffled' is a tonal thing - not a levels thing.
That's from my perspective, that of the listener.-a The
music industry denies it ever harms music by muffling.
CD releases do not require compression
Yet this compression is forced on the customers
by the record labels.-a It is not necessary and
cheats customers.
or limiting whereas vinyl releases do. Often remastering may have changes in compression level over a previous CD. This may be good, or maybe not great. Can you point to a Beatles CD where you think some bad decisions were mage regarding dynamics ?
I already mentioned Abbey Road, which has not
been issued as a CD release that didn't have
revisionist compression to it.
The vinyl issue from 2012 also was deficient being
subject to compression and noise reduction.
There is no excuse for the record company to refuse to
do this, and on CD.
Compressed music's
only benefit is listening to it at the lowest possibly volume,
something I never do.-a Turn up the volume and it sounds flat,
weak, muffled.
Over-compressed music has some of the dynamics potentially reduced. That is not 'muffling'. Again, this is not a relevant factor for CD releases.
That's absurd.-a It is CDs that are most victimized by
compression, by engineers and record labels that
brick wall CDs.
In remasters where some compression may be applied, it is done carefully and should not detract from the musical quality - instead can enhance it.
False, the compression war is muffling the loud notes,
by revisionist record labels who aim for a flat harsh
droning quality, like the radio.
Noise Reduction muffles the whole audio spectrum but is
most damaging to quiet notes, particularly fadeouts.
Quiet notes are the very sections in the songs that
you need the most fidelity to the original and
Noise Reduction muffles that signal.
Bollocks. Noise reduction can be done without affecting music content whatsoever, 'quiet notes', fade-outs and all. If done badly, sure it can.
Noise Reduction is a destructive process, there
is no way to "EQ" back a file destroyed by NoNoise, etc.
The Yellow Submarine Songtrack and the original "1" compilation,
The CD Format is never the fault of any *bad* engineering
issued on CD, bad engineering in any format is
entirely the fault of the record company.
Again, can you point to a Beatles reissue or remaster that was done badly ? >>
both from the turn of the century, are examples of
muffling of the loud notes by compression, and the softer
notes by noise reduction.
Dude, again, 'muffling' is a TONAL thing (typical reduction of hi-MF and HF) - nothing to do with dynamics.
What does affect dynamics is compression, brick-walling, whatever it nothing to do with CDs. CDs actually facilitate a far wider dynamic range than other media. Compression, over-compression, or hyper-compression is a mastering choice - like it or hate it. Yes, more typical with digitally-mastered music - CD, or digital streamed files. But hyper-compressed music actually easier for vinyl to play than dynamic music, albeit at a lower peak level. And hugely more dynamic music is easier for digital media to reproduce, with zero 'effort.
'Digital' mis-described as in lossy-encoded MP3, Apple equiv (and even MQA to a far lesser degree), does 'lose' some of the finer detail of the music, depending on the degree of application. Even at higher encoding rates most discernible not in fade-outs, but in ambience.
No Beatles remasters 'suffer' from this that I am aware of, and some listeners may prefer more highly-compressed versions. Compilations may be treated differently to 'pure' albums, to suite different target audiences.
Record masters are inherently compressed and limited for vinyl and cassette releases in order for the disc to be playable at a reasonable level,
or the tape music not to be buried in noise, Dolby B/C notwithstanding.
Noise-reduction can be done with effectively no discernible effect on the actual music content. Certainly nothing that you could notice affecting the 'softer notes' unless incompetently applied.
Noise reduction has improved further than it was 25 years ago.
In your "1" Yellow Sub, all I hear is a different fade-out curve, which is likely with single tracks in a compilation.
FWIW I have been doing this sort of thing for a living, for over 4 decades. So I feel that I do have a bit of a clue. And I loathe over-compressed music.
On 10/26/25 10:13 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 25/10/2025 3:25 pm, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 10/18/25 10:39 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 18/10/2025 11:40 am, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 10/16/25 2:49 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 16/10/2025 4:07 pm, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 8/21/25 4:08 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 22/08/2025 5:48 am, super70s wrote:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/beatles-to- >>>>>>>>> re- release-anthology-documentary-1236350154/
More squeezing of every last drop of juice out of the Apple, so >>>>>>>>> to speak.
Apple *refuses* to issue and reissue needed Beatles music:
over 50 years of digital and Apple has never released the
uncompressed Abbey Road, like the original UK vinyl,
just CDs and downloads muffled by compression and then
further muffled by so-called Noise Reduction.
I have the doc on VHS which I didn't pay a lot for, lol. Suits >>>>>>>>> me fine for as often as I watch it.
And the three original CD's, I couldn't see investing in them >>>>>>>>> again just for a few extras.
The 6 CDs of Anthology released in the mid-90s were saturated
with noise reduction.-a All they have to do is to release it
without noise reduction for a vast improvement in sound
quality but I'm not expecting Apple to do that, Apple is
obsessed with revisionist engineering, and keeping the
originals off the market.
OK, so you are not interested in video and audio presumably
better than the old VHS or DVD. And have no interest on what may >>>>>>>> be of the new (and presumably 'improved') CDs. Techology has
come a long way since 2003, not always 'for worse'.
Technology progress is of no use if it's being
used to muffle the sound.-a I don't like Apple's
engineering of muffling the loud notes by
Compression and muffling the quiet notes by
Noise Reduction, or the glorified fake stereo called
"de-mixing".
Um, obviously you are labouring under quite a misapprehension
here, and have little real understanding of audio technology.
CD is not 'compressed' or 'muffled'. It by far exceeds the
fidelity of the original masters, in all parameters.
Of course, except "fidelity" refers to replicating the original
signal, so a perfect copy cannot exceed the fidelity of the master
tape.
And the processing (NR, compression, etc) does not muffle 'loud or >>>>>> quiet notes' .
It definitely does.-a What's called Compressed Music has had all
it's loud notes turned down, aka, muffled.
'Muffled' is a tonal thing - not a levels thing.
That's from my perspective, that of the listener.-a The
music industry denies it ever harms music by muffling.
CD releases do not require compression
Yet this compression is forced on the customers
by the record labels.-a It is not necessary and
cheats customers.
or limiting whereas vinyl releases do. Often remastering may have
changes in compression level over a previous CD. This may be good,
or maybe not great. Can you point to a Beatles CD where you think
some bad decisions were mage regarding dynamics ?
I already mentioned Abbey Road, which has not
been issued as a CD release that didn't have
revisionist compression to it.
The vinyl issue from 2012 also was deficient being
subject to compression and noise reduction.
There is no excuse for the record company to refuse to
do this, and on CD.
Compressed music's
only benefit is listening to it at the lowest possibly volume,
something I never do.-a Turn up the volume and it sounds flat,
weak, muffled.
Over-compressed music has some of the dynamics potentially reduced.
That is not 'muffling'. Again, this is not a relevant factor for CD
releases.
That's absurd.-a It is CDs that are most victimized by
compression, by engineers and record labels that
brick wall CDs.
In remasters where some compression may be applied, it is done
carefully and should not detract from the musical quality - instead
can enhance it.
False, the compression war is muffling the loud notes,
by revisionist record labels who aim for a flat harsh
droning quality, like the radio.
Noise Reduction muffles the whole audio spectrum but is
most damaging to quiet notes, particularly fadeouts.
Quiet notes are the very sections in the songs that
you need the most fidelity to the original and
Noise Reduction muffles that signal.
Bollocks. Noise reduction can be done without affecting music
content whatsoever, 'quiet notes', fade-outs and all. If done badly,
sure it can.
Noise Reduction is a destructive process, there
is no way to "EQ" back a file destroyed by NoNoise, etc.
The CD Format is never the fault of any *bad* engineering
issued on CD, bad engineering in any format is
entirely the fault of the record company.
Again, can you point to a Beatles reissue or remaster that was done
badly ?
The Yellow Submarine Songtrack and the original "1" compilation,
both from the turn of the century, are examples of
muffling of the loud notes by compression, and the softer
notes by noise reduction.
Dude, again, 'muffling' is a TONAL thing (typical reduction of hi-MF
and HF) - nothing to do with dynamics.
I say that compression muffles the loud notes because
that's what it does.-a Hear the same recording before
and after it's compressed and I hear the compression
muffling the loud notes.-a I could care less that
every industry expert says muffling the loud notes
makes the music more powerful, it's not true.
The use of the term "muffled" is intended as an
insult to what appears to be this industry standard.
Dude, what you re complaining about is production choices in masteringWhat does affect dynamics is compression, brick-walling, whatever it
nothing to do with CDs. CDs actually facilitate a far wider dynamic
range than other media. Compression, over-compression, or hyper-
compression is a mastering choice - like it or hate it. Yes, more
typical with digitally-mastered music - CD, or digital streamed files.
But hyper-compressed music actually easier for vinyl to play than
dynamic music, albeit at a lower peak level. And hugely more dynamic
music is easier for digital media to reproduce, with zero 'effort.
'Digital' mis-described as in lossy-encoded MP3, Apple equiv (and even
MQA to a far lesser degree), does 'lose' some of the finer detail of
the music, depending on the degree of application. Even at higher
encoding rates most discernible not in fade-outs, but in ambience.
No Beatles remasters 'suffer' from this that I am aware of, and some
listeners may prefer more highly-compressed versions. Compilations may
be treated differently to 'pure' albums, to suite different target
audiences.
Record masters are inherently compressed and limited for vinyl and
cassette releases in order for the disc to be playable at a reasonable
level,
This is ignoring what the music industry has been doing,
issuing brickwalled masters on CD, downloads and streaming,
while using not as compressed versions on LP.-a This is
counterintuitive and this bad engineering is entirely the
fault of the record labels.
It is a Rube Goldberg marketplace that requires me buying
the LP and digitizing it, burning to CD-R, to get the CD,
because the record label shows such contempt for their
customers to brickwall the CDs they press.
or the tape music not to be buried in noise, Dolby B/C notwithstanding.
"tape hiss" has been extremely overrated by noise reduction
salesmen as a harm.-a It's noise reduction artifacts that
are significantly more harmful, though not as bad in loud
music than is compression.
Noise-reduction can be done with effectively no discernible effect on
the actual music content. Certainly nothing that you could notice
affecting the 'softer notes' unless incompetently applied.
If noise reduction can be heard by the listener than it
is incompetently used.
Noise reduction has improved further than it was 25 years ago.
No, faking it has improved, after destroying the ambience
with noise reduction artificial ambience is added to cover
it up.
Noise reduction is substantially worse in films,
which have so many muffled soundtracks.
In your "1" Yellow Sub, all I hear is a different fade-out curve,
which is likely with single tracks in a compilation.
"fade-out curve", that is altering the music to fit a goal of
using noise reduction.-a Pretty much the original Fade Outs can
only be fully heard if no noise reduction is applied to muffle
the music.
FWIW I have been doing this sort of thing for a living, for over 4
decades. So I feel that I do have a bit of a clue. And I loathe over-
compressed music.
Then let's start calling brickwalled music "muffled".So it should be called The Muffled Wars, rather than The Loudness Wars ?
It is ridiculous to call it "loud".
On 2/11/2025 3:48 pm, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 10/26/25 10:13 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 25/10/2025 3:25 pm, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 10/18/25 10:39 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 18/10/2025 11:40 am, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 10/16/25 2:49 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 16/10/2025 4:07 pm, Pluted Pup wrote:
On 8/21/25 4:08 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 22/08/2025 5:48 am, super70s wrote:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/beatles-to- re- release-anthology-documentary-1236350154/
More squeezing of every last drop of juice out of the Apple, so to speak.
Apple *refuses* to issue and reissue needed Beatles music:
over 50 years of digital and Apple has never released the
uncompressed Abbey Road, like the original UK vinyl,
just CDs and downloads muffled by compression and then
further muffled by so-called Noise Reduction.
I have the doc on VHS which I didn't pay a lot for, lol. Suits me fine for as often as I watch it.
And the three original CD's, I couldn't see investing in them again just for a few extras.
The 6 CDs of Anthology released in the mid-90s were saturated
with noise reduction.-a All they have to do is to release it
without noise reduction for a vast improvement in sound
quality but I'm not expecting Apple to do that, Apple is
obsessed with revisionist engineering, and keeping the
originals off the market.
OK, so you are not interested in video and audio presumably better than the old VHS or DVD. And have no interest on what may be of the new (and presumably 'improved') CDs. Techology has come a long way since 2003, not always 'for worse'.
Technology progress is of no use if it's being
used to muffle the sound.-a I don't like Apple's
engineering of muffling the loud notes by
Compression and muffling the quiet notes by
Noise Reduction, or the glorified fake stereo called
"de-mixing".
Um, obviously you are labouring under quite a misapprehension here, and have little real understanding of audio technology.
CD is not 'compressed' or 'muffled'. It by far exceeds the fidelity of the original masters, in all parameters.
Of course, except "fidelity" refers to replicating the original
signal, so a perfect copy cannot exceed the fidelity of the master tape. >>>>>>
And the processing (NR, compression, etc) does not muffle 'loud or quiet notes' .
It definitely does.-a What's called Compressed Music has had all
it's loud notes turned down, aka, muffled.
'Muffled' is a tonal thing - not a levels thing.
That's from my perspective, that of the listener.-a The
music industry denies it ever harms music by muffling.
CD releases do not require compression
Yet this compression is forced on the customers
by the record labels.-a It is not necessary and
cheats customers.
or limiting whereas vinyl releases do. Often remastering may have changes in compression level over a previous CD. This may be good, or maybe not great. Can you point to a Beatles CD where you think some bad decisions were mage regarding dynamics ?
I already mentioned Abbey Road, which has not
been issued as a CD release that didn't have
revisionist compression to it.
The vinyl issue from 2012 also was deficient being
subject to compression and noise reduction.
There is no excuse for the record company to refuse to
do this, and on CD.
Compressed music's
only benefit is listening to it at the lowest possibly volume,
something I never do.-a Turn up the volume and it sounds flat,
weak, muffled.
Over-compressed music has some of the dynamics potentially reduced. That is not 'muffling'. Again, this is not a relevant factor for CD releases.
That's absurd.-a It is CDs that are most victimized by
compression, by engineers and record labels that
brick wall CDs.
In remasters where some compression may be applied, it is done carefully and should not detract from the musical quality - instead can enhance it.
False, the compression war is muffling the loud notes,
by revisionist record labels who aim for a flat harsh
droning quality, like the radio.
Noise Reduction muffles the whole audio spectrum but is
most damaging to quiet notes, particularly fadeouts.
Quiet notes are the very sections in the songs that
you need the most fidelity to the original and
Noise Reduction muffles that signal.
Bollocks. Noise reduction can be done without affecting music content whatsoever, 'quiet notes', fade-outs and all. If done badly, sure it can.
Noise Reduction is a destructive process, there
is no way to "EQ" back a file destroyed by NoNoise, etc.
The CD Format is never the fault of any *bad* engineering
issued on CD, bad engineering in any format is
entirely the fault of the record company.
Again, can you point to a Beatles reissue or remaster that was done badly ?
The Yellow Submarine Songtrack and the original "1" compilation,
both from the turn of the century, are examples of
muffling of the loud notes by compression, and the softer
notes by noise reduction.
Dude, again, 'muffling' is a TONAL thing (typical reduction of hi-MF and HF) - nothing to do with dynamics.
I say that compression muffles the loud notes because
that's what it does.-a Hear the same recording before
and after it's compressed and I hear the compression
muffling the loud notes.-a I could care less that
every industry expert says muffling the loud notes
makes the music more powerful, it's not true.
The use of the term "muffled" is intended as an
insult to what appears to be this industry standard.
Again, muffling is softening of tone (hold you hand over your mouth when talking) often combined with a reduction in volume which is linear. Compression does not affect tone, and in non-linear wrt volume. Hyper-compression will cause some parts to be drowned out, in volume but not frequency content. Yeah, just semantics, but if you are on a rant get the terminology correct.
Dude, what you re complaining about is production choices in mastering and is not universal or inherent. This has nothing to do with CD or other digital media, other than that they can handle any volumes at any frequency where vinyl couldn't. Because of limitations of the vinyl media and capabilities of the average playback chains, mastering for vinyl requires heavier limiting of higher higher volume peaks compared to the noise floor, especially low frequencies at higher volumes. You can have an equally bass-heavy, highly compressed signal on an LP. But the overall level of the cutting must be much lower, which further reduces the s/n inherent of the vinyl surface and playback electronics.What does affect dynamics is compression, brick-walling, whatever it nothing to do with CDs. CDs actually facilitate a far wider dynamic range than other media. Compression, over-compression, or hyper- compression is a mastering choice - like it or hate it. Yes, more typical with digitally-mastered music - CD, or digital streamed files. But hyper-compressed music actually easier for vinyl to play than dynamic music, albeit at a lower peak level. And hugely more dynamic music is easier for digital media to reproduce, with zero 'effort.
'Digital' mis-described as in lossy-encoded MP3, Apple equiv (and even MQA to a far lesser degree), does 'lose' some of the finer detail of the music, depending on the degree of application. Even at higher encoding rates most discernible not in fade-outs, but in ambience.
No Beatles remasters 'suffer' from this that I am aware of, and some listeners may prefer more highly-compressed versions. Compilations may be treated differently to 'pure' albums, to suite different target audiences.
Record masters are inherently compressed and limited for vinyl and cassette releases in order for the disc to be playable at a reasonable level,
This is ignoring what the music industry has been doing,
issuing brickwalled masters on CD, downloads and streaming,
while using not as compressed versions on LP.-a This is
counterintuitive and this bad engineering is entirely the
fault of the record labels.
It is a Rube Goldberg marketplace that requires me buying
the LP and digitizing it, burning to CD-R, to get the CD,
because the record label shows such contempt for their
customers to brickwall the CDs they press.
Maybe some yes, and maybe in some cases we were being deprived previously. Brickwalling more often relates to-a more recent music, and is the artistic choice of the producer and their instructions to the mastering engineer (and acceptance of the final master). It has nothing to do with the media itself, apart from offering the capability.-a >
or the tape music not to be buried in noise, Dolby B/C notwithstanding.
"tape hiss" has been extremely overrated by noise reduction
salesmen as a harm.-a It's noise reduction artifacts that
are significantly more harmful, though not as bad in loud
music than is compression.
Noise reduction 'artifacts' for the last 15 years or so have been effectively non-existent unless totally screwed up in implementation. Again, compression is not inherently harmful. You don't like it, don't buy it. The degree of it is the choice of the producer, label, and band itself.
Noise-reduction can be done with effectively no discernible effect on the actual music content. Certainly nothing that you could notice affecting the 'softer notes' unless incompetently applied.
If noise reduction can be heard by the listener than it
is incompetently used.
It usually can't, unless poorly implemented. Examples ?
Noise reduction has improved further than it was 25 years ago.
No, faking it has improved, after destroying the ambience
with noise reduction artificial ambience is added to cover
it up.
Bullshit.
Noise reduction is substantially worse in films,
which have so many muffled soundtracks.
Irrelevant. Films are hardly a yardstick for real audio fidelity.
In your "1" Yellow Sub, all I hear is a different fade-out curve, which is likely with single tracks in a compilation.
"fade-out curve", that is altering the music to fit a goal of
using noise reduction.-a Pretty much the original Fade Outs can
only be fully heard if no noise reduction is applied to muffle
the music.
Noise-reduced original fade-outs should be able to be heard in their entirety, even with noise reduction applied and without adverse effects apparent to listeners even with very high quality equipment.
So it should be called The Muffled Wars, rather than The Loudness Wars ?
FWIW I have been doing this sort of thing for a living, for over 4 decades. So I feel that I do have a bit of a clue. And I loathe over- compressed music.
Then let's start calling brickwalled music "muffled".
It is ridiculous to call it "loud".
The overall effect to to increase apparent loudness, like it or not.
Put your hands over your ears to muffle sounds. The predominant effect is tonal (loss of high frequencies, and cavity filtering affecting overall frequency response), and any volume decrease is linear. What higher degrees of compression can do is overwhelm QUIETER parts of the music, drowning them with other louder or boosted parts.
The frequency content is not changed. OK call that 'muffling' if you insist, but it is akin to calling colour brightness-reduction a 'hue'.
Compression and limiting non-linear, and do not themselves affect frequency response.
Some remasters are over-compressed. Like them, or don't.
Many original 'straight' CD versions were taken from masters designed for the limitations of vinyl, and sound thin and lack bass (and some less so). Prefer them, or don't.
Some subsequent remasters issued on CD are done to different tastes to those who (like me) prefer a full dynamic range.
Prefer them or don't.
Remastered versions are not 'forced' on anybody, be they over-compressed or not.
Many first remasters were done 'over-enthusiastically', over-using tools that are now far more sophisticated. Especially as in over-boosting of high frequencies, and blanket compression rather than more judicious and specific frequency-range targeted.
On 6/09/2025 6:33 pm, scole wrote:
In article <xn0p9uvr724lqr5005@post.eweka.nl>, "Blueshirt" <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Geoff wrote:
OK, so you are not interested in video and audio presumably
better than the old VHS or DVD. And have no interest on what
may be of the new (and presumably 'improved') CDs. Techology
has come a long way since 2003, not always 'for worse'.
Count me in!
I'd rather be bled dry for Beatles music and merch than the
shit that passes for music these days.
I got into vinyl about 5 or 6 years ago as the resurgence really started'Interested in vinyl' is a thing in itself.
to pick up speed and have bought a handful of "new" releases - but the overwhelming majority of my music collection is mid-60s to very
early-200s, and almost nothing past that. I just don't get new music,
Get whatever music you can in whatever format you can. But, FWIW, the CD version is the more definitive of whatever source.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 14:39:22 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,842 |
| Posted today: | 1 |