Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit - 1991 vs. 2011 (loudness war - gain matched)
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- This was requested. The 1991 CD release against 2011 Deluxe Edition 2 x CD release (which is of course remastered). My ears are not optimized for this kind of music, so you be the judge ;)
Flatness, which causes lack of punch/impact, is obvious in the 2011 remaster just by looking at the waveform.
The 24-bit 96 kHz release from HDTracks.com:
www.hdtracks.c...
...has similar characteristics as the 2011 remaster you see in this video. What a waste of bits :P
This is literally the song I had in mind when I was thinking how Dynamic loudness affects a song. The quiet part and the loud part.
Always buy original CD, first pressing if possible.
It's digital data, all copies are original, you ignorant. No "first pressing" bullshit
*release
It’s often true but not always.
Green Day American Idiots and 21st Century Breakdown 2012 remaster are much better than the original releases for exemple.
Also Death Magnetic MFiT is much better than the original CD.
Not true, many times CDs in the 80s were poorly mixed from less than stellar tapes.
@@hectortorres8188 They have often used different mastering for the later pressings/releases. An example would be the album Eliminator by ZZ Top. The original 1983 CD master has a higher dynamic range than even the vinyl from the same year, the 1990 CD release had about 4-5 dB less dynamic range, and the 2008 CD release another 4-5 dB less.
Yes, the data is digital, but they don't always use the same data on every release. But it's also not a given that an older release is better, some were crap all along. If you want to find the best mastered version, the only way to really know is to try and hunt for information about the specific releases online from sites dedicated to comparing versions to each other.
I didnt even realize it was two songs I was waiting for you to change it but then I realized its different and only because I was then listening for it I heard the difference
To me the the earlier version's snare drum has more punch, and the whole mix has a lttle more high frequencies to it.
Btw: wow, I can hear the bass clearly in both recordings. I found out that a lot of nowadays rock/metal recordings have bass guitar covered by the rhythm guitar.
I hate how the 2011 remasters have completely taken over music streaming services, even the auto-generated uploads on CZcams. You pretty much have to hunt for the original recordings which sucks
I feel the same. Spotify only has 2011, 2021 and the Devonshire Mix. I dont see anyone talking about the 2021 much online and I really want to know how it compares to the original.
@@joebob2311productions I listened to both side-by-side in Audacity and the 2021 remaster is _slightly_ less brick-walled than the 2011 remasters, but still lacks the full dynamics of the originals
@@amazingamer360 It did sound a bit better than 2011 to me when just switching streams in the app.
I’ve buy the 2011 remaster deluxe and wonder why it sounds so different from the one that I got from the internet (I assume it was the original mix version), I’ve noticed the difference, mainly the effects of the drum from the 2011 is not as punchy and satisfying, i need to admit the clarity in 2011 version is good like the vocals and certain guitar part but the drum part almost make it unlistenable for me. now just recently ordered the first pressing of japanese cd and hope that it would sound the same as the version I got from the internet.
Right you are, because the more you compress it, the more it will interfere the EQ that has been done. Compression flattens out the EQ-setting as well. So I'm not suprised if the remastering engineer only brickwalled it, and nothing else.
It is weird how much better it is, but it is hard to explain quite why. The drums are the main thing.
Original is more open sounding. The drums breathe more.
the 91 track is more dynamic, they have cut the top of the drums off (with a limiter) so they can make the track louder.
I recently checked out the reissues after having regularly listened to these albums since the early 90s, and I'm appalled by how bad the remaster sounds for Nevermind.
The best sounding one I found was the 24 bit vinyl rip. The thick rubbery bassline on "Breed" sounds so awesome on it.
This is also a thing of going against what the artist wanted with the track - Kurt was known for hating the Nevermind sound because of it's many overly produced sound. He referring to the album sounding like a Motley Crue album at one point for that reason. Widening the guitars beyond what he saw as horrible is just going against a dead man's wishes. Regardless, I don't think this is a perfect example of the loudness wars killing music. It has certainly taken the life out of the drums, but it still has a bit of life in it.
Agreed! Not all engineers do the client's bidding. I would be a broke mastering engineer: Do no harm to my client's hard work!
The 2011 remaster of Nevermind was truly an abomination.
Kurt only started to hate on the mix when the record became popular, and he felt the need to protect his cred; he didn't have any grievances prior to that. Lest we forget, it was his decision to hire Andy Wallace, specifically because of his work with Slayer.
Man, I seriously can't tell the difference.
Try with headphones maybe. As you can see the signal peaks and dynamics are gone, sound is squashed as it should breathe more, drums are mashed with everything else.
I don't understand what is this. Where is the comparison?
Well when they play the song some bits are limited and some are not
it misses a lot on the snares, that original dinamic rules
Yeah, there is compression/limiting, and it definitely sounds a little worse on the peaks, but it's not brickwalled by any stretch. Pearl Jam's Ten got RAPED. The original master of Ten wasn't even very good, but still a little punch vs. no punch is a big difference. I want a re-remaster of Ten Redux with the superior remix, but with less compression than even the 1991 CD.
I know Pearl Jam and Neil Young are buddies and all, but it seems hypocritical for them to support Pono with its dubious effect on quality while allowing AWFUL digital masters to be released (INCLUDING in "HD audio").
The 2011 version is not that bad. In fact I liked the widening of the guitars.Though, the disappearance of the kick drum makes it a bit flat.The track has a certain limiting/compression on it, but I wouldn't call it "brickwalled" or "overcompressed".It reminds me the radio kind of sound.
I agree. Version inbetween of those two would be better than any of them. 1991 sounds to much like german techno, probably to keep up with audio cassette release freq. response. 2011 could spare some transients but brings some mid which the 1991 is lacking.
nonseans Well, the cassette frequncy response explains the absence of mids in the old one. Good point, I did not think about it.
The 2011 version made my ears hurt after a while as is the problem with many of these badly mastered recordings. If you want to hear the best sounding version of Nevermind, check out the flac rip of the back to black vinyl pressing. Best version i've heard.
alittle too much mid imo. I like how easy it is to discern the bass from the guitar in the 91 version. In 2011 they occupy too many similar frequencies in the mid range
where was the comparison? Am I missing something??.. It seemed as though the same thing played in a loop, w/out any comparison at all..
+James Livingston You'll need some decent headphones or speakers to hear the difference. The 91 version (with more spikes) has more dynamic range (between loud and quiet) and distinct sounds. The 2011 version has everything compressed so they're closer in volume (less dynamic range) this also makes the details muddier.
+James Livingston I'll bite. As VicMorrowsGhost said, use headphones, preferably good ones. To me the most obvious difference between these versions is the lack of impact in the newer version. Starting from around 0:22, the waveform shows both versions (first half is old version, second half is newer version - in case it wasn't obvious). Looking at the waveforms you can SEE why the impact is not there. The waveform simply is flatter. Volume level of v1991 is original here. Volume of v2011 has been lowered to match that of v1991 (it was much louder than v1991, which is one of the annoying problems of loudness war - everything is LOUD by default).
+VicMorrowsGhost You know what's funny? I have my open-back headphones on my headphone stand and i start playing this video loud enough that i can hear the music from where i'm sitting (couple of feet away). I can still, without a shadow of doubt, hear the difference between these versions. The lack of impact is so obvious.
Great. since the majority of the time most people listen with nice headphones or speakers?!? compression doesn't matter when i'm holding the phone a foot or two away from my face listening to the phone speaker.
Either way, a deaf guy'd be happy to hear it!
whichever the first one is, that's the one that sounds better
I dont get the diffference! The second time it plays from the start is it the old version because it sounds better
I hate the remaster version. Remasters are USUALLY loud but have less dynamic range and cause fatigue with extended listening. More dyanmic music feels like the music is played live in front of me, like I can distinguish where all the instruments are and the bass section really stands out. Olders music from 80's - late 90's has mostly dynamic range of 10 to 15 which is great. With loudness around -10 to -15 DB. But remasted versions are less dynamic with a DR rating of around 7-8, they are very loud too, around -7 or -8 DB. Let alone modern music, it sucks, they all are brickwalled with DR rating of 4, 5, or 6 and Peaking over -0.0 level. Shit!
a DR rating isn't the be-all-and-end-all, but its a good guide. I reckon they should print a picture of the waveform on the case so you can see how brick-like it is before you give them you money.
demaster-nsfl.blogspot.co.uk
Visit my blog for a rant!
I can't hear the difference. I don't know, maybe my sound card isn't so good.
graphiteplacenta What about Grado SR60's?
graphiteplacenta Right now I'm hearing no difference with Koss UR40 headphones and a lap top computer. I do have some hearing loss.
I feel like a nosebleed is coming on the new one. Get that feeling on many songs, sadly :/.
Holy shet the difference
What the guy did was called level matching, you don't have to look at the wave form to tell which is better.
Of course the remastered is much worse once it has lost all its dynamic range. The original master is much better.
So many people can't hear any difference (sigh!) This justifies " the louder the better" philosophy. So they can squash their ears using devices that cost as little as possible.
On high-resolution the louder one doesn't sound bad, on CD it does, since it can't handle more than 96dB of dynamic range.
That's a pretty close level-match that one can make by ear, so why are you saying that it isn't a fair comparison? The new software that is using the R128 -regulations, would probably turn down the remastered version even more to make a comparison.
plenty of problems on youtube but never any solutions
check out my blog on the subject with examples of this horrible industry practice undone!
demaster-nsfl.blogspot.co.uk
I can hear a difference with my cheap headphone & even my phone speaker. You'll notice how flat the remaster is.
original is better :)
there is too much compression today ! veverywhere ! Tv, radio, cinema, etc..., it's sucks :)
I see yet another remastering job in the future with better gear and/or plugins. Today there isn't a loudness war as much as a how-loud-can-you-make-it-while-keeping-it-super-clean war. In this case it's a total fail.
I kinda liked the first mix better from 0:23-0:39, is it the 1991 og the 2011 remastered?
From 0:23 to 0:31 is the 1991 one, with the spikes in the waveform. From 0:31 to 0:39 is the more compressed one with less dynamics (the two master are gain matched meaning that the loud master volume is lowered down here so that the average sound level would be more or less the same).
Lol
@@jarischolman3949 lmao
@@peteralbert9805 I much prefer the one from 0:23. I only watched the comments and the video once I was set on it just to make sure I'm not kidding myself.
still pretty weenie11
Can you still buy the original on CD?
i hear a lot more "midrange" in the guitar in the 2011....that wave just looks ugly too
nice
Loudness of war is better
that is the 1991
holy shit that compression made it lose all its dynamics!
MGTOW Ten Commandments
Sad sad world
one person joked saying smells more like crap?
the levels were not the same so how is it a fair comparison
The comparison is the dynamic range of the track when played back at the same perceived volume level. Or said another way, the one on the right is how it sounds when you turn it down to a comfortable listening volume.
The sad thing is Kurt wanted it bad and he’s also called a genius
The 2011 remaster is not what Kurt wanted. The new remaster is pure crap. I just listen to the 1991 original master.
Why would you even kill music like this?
That 2011 version sounds awful, gritty mush guitar sound
I really gotta go with the louder one here. I think the awesome drum (snare) sound on this recording (at the recording/mixing level) and the different EQ on the remaster really make up for the missing dynamics. Also, the bass drum still has a lot of punch and the additional grit of the bass give the whole thing more balls and fills up some air in the lower mids. The overheads and cymbals are a lot louder but not to an annoying degree and again, the different EQ makes a lot of difference (in a positive way). This is really an awesome Master given it's really loud (according to dr.loudness-war it's just short of -8dB). Listening on ATH-M50x on moderate volume.
Can't hear a difference
I'm not getting any sound on this video.
I own a Metallica's "...And Justice For All" remastered CD, for Japanese market... I opened the wave of Blackened in Cool Edit Pro and it's really a rectangular block wave. It's a disaster... Although it's the only release of this record that sounds so crappy, it ireally is there. For comparison, I opened a compressed MP3 of this track (Blackened) and it was more dynamic than the market release... This loudness war is shit. Really, music don't sound like MUSIC, it's flat, LOUD AS F**K, makes me headache and after 2 minutes od a 6 min. track, I'm tired more than if I was pushing a car for all day ;) I recommend looking for original releases, but what with modern music...? Well... too bad ;)
totally agree. take the original cds and do a better job yourself. My blog provides examples. If it looks like a brick it will sound like one.
demaster-nsfl.blogspot.co.uk
REPLY
That original album is musically incredible but just so fucking hollow on the production side of things - notorious for it.
fuck compression
I prefer the remaster lol