Pearl Jam and the "Loudness war"

Interesting website.

I looked for Led Zeppelin..
http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.p ... &order=asc

I have the 1994 remasters as well as Mothership. Mothership is even more compressed than the '94 remasters, but it sounds better to my ears. So the question is, should I really care? And the answer is No.

Also interesting that Yield and No Code are rated poorly, since those are considered by many to have the best sound.

I have the ears of an audiophile and notice all of the nuances and breaches in sound but I have also learned not to allow that to guide my listening pleasure. If it did then I would be a disgruntled audio reviewer like most audiophile in the industry. If you enjoy then listen to it.

I do get that there should be standards in quality though. That is important.

NO Code was up and down in audio integrity for me but it was that album where they tried new things and moved instrumentally towards a new sound. Much of that made it's way to the mixes and production as well.

The greatest hits compilation was just pure audio amplification. You can tell that they wanted to just maintain a consistent line of sound among all of the tracks.

Riot Act could be used as a bit of an example of the audio wars regarding loudness and mixing techniques. Still a great album though.

Binaural was just what it was intended to be. It was a method of sound production they had not done before and it sounds stable for the most part. On par for me.

The self-titled album was a victim of the loudness war. It is chaotically too loud and compressed to hell and back. My opinion though.

Backspacer was taken down a notch from the self-titled album and a lot of new and improved technique and production with some of the good old production skill set was applied. It's bearable. Could be better.

Ten met standards but it's ambiance was lacking in the over abundant reverb/echo. Still better than the compressed reissue and redux as far as loudness goes.

The Ten reissues were better for clarity in instrumentation. That's about all I have to say on that. It fails every where else.

Vs. and Vitalogy were both mixed and produced well. Above standards and within conform of standards.

Vitalogy was an effort to give the live appeal to the listener and they did it well without compromise. The band should have stuck with that application of sound from there on in my view.

Yield sounds great but too much bass and muffled in certain aspects. Still quality but could be better.

The reissues of Vs. and Vitalogy were again products of compression and loudness. Still good quality as far as bringing out the instrumentation for the listener to hear though.

Jeremy's Spokesman wrote:

I'm no audiophile and I don't really have an ear for these things. But, this confirms my suspicions after listening to the original mix of Ten VS Ten (Redux).

Out of curiosity, I opened mp3 versions of the songs in a wave editor on the ol' computer and the original sounded much more clear to my untrained ears.

Neat link!

Self fulfilling prophecy?

PearlJamaholic wrote:

Great site been using it for awhile now. A real shame where sound is heading these days. I wonder if pj records do better? has anyone converted any lp and ran this program on the .wav files? i remember there being a thing with californaction being terribly loud but the vinyl release was actually done right... i could see pj doing that too.

That only really matters if they did a special master for vinyl. All vinyl is quieter than CD, so it may "look" better if you examine the waveform. However, most LPs made today are NOT mastered for vinyl, they're just the CD masters, so the difference in actual audio quality is nominal.

the ten reissue sounds like shit. i haven't listened to the vs/vitalogy enough to compare.

I don't know what the hell this is all about.
All it really confirms for me is that THE DISSIDENT SINGLE(S) WAS AND IS EPIC.
Atlanta '94 for the win.



PS -
this site is describing differences in *volume* compression? or *frequency* compression?
i'm confused.
?

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I don't know what the hell this is all about.
All it really confirms for me is that THE DISSIDENT SINGLE(S) WAS AND IS EPIC.
Atlanta '94 for the win.



PS -
this site is describing differences in *volume* compression? or *frequency* compression?
i'm confused.
?

Volume compression, i.e. making the quiet parts louder so everything is the same volume.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I don't know what the hell this is all about.
All it really confirms for me is that THE DISSIDENT SINGLE(S) WAS AND IS EPIC.
Atlanta '94 for the win.



PS -
this site is describing differences in *volume* compression? or *frequency* compression?
i'm confused.
?

The original Atlanta broadcast which I recorded onto cassette tape, was actually far superior to the CD/Single version they released with Dissident, in my humble opinion. When it was "professionally" mixed, it completely lost its rawness.

The other poster further up/back had it completely right about Vitalogy too. Audio perfection.