I was an expert witness in an audio trial....

[<eargiant]

Volume was one of the first things I thought of. The volume seems to be the same on both. If there is a difference, I couldn't tell you which is which. They match as well as any two versions of a song/CD that I have tried this with. Volume would defintely skew the result.

From Discogs: Re-issues of Bad feature a number of changes when compared to the original 1987 release:

"Bad" – The original mix was replaced with the 7" Single Mix. The most notable difference is the lack of horns in all the choruses except for the last two. Horns are also missing from the second and third pre-choruses. The rhythm guitar during the choruses is also turned up along with the hi hats.

The horns are where they should be. Easy to hear.

"I Just Can't Stop Loving You" omits Michael Jackson's spoken intro.
The spoken word intro is there. I can see why someone would want to take it out. For a song most often played on the radio, that intro would suck. But its there


I am confident I have an original CD with the stuff on it just based on the Epic Catalog number.
What I am not as sure of is what crap I may be comparing it to. I can go and listen for those same items sometime this weekend and see if they are missing or present.

Were the horns and spoken word intro missing on the later "remaster" version that you have?

Also, how did you rip the CD and what do you use to play your FLAC files?

BTW kudos to you! I think your offer to send out the CD is very cool and in the spirit of this hobby. This is what true audio aficionados do... listen. I hope on a site like this you get a ton of requests. I already have a CD coming in from an associate otherwise I would have taken you up on the offer. I'll post my findings/impressions here when I have a chance to compare.

 

[PENG]

I have posted many times about recording and mastering having the most influence on the perceived sound quality difference, followed by speakers and the rooms. To me, it was an easy job for Mr. Fremer. Most other things he said in his audio electronic components review for S&V, Stereophile etc., I would still ignore. He did seem to have done an excellent job educating the jury in this case.

 

[PENG]

Interesting take on the remastering...I guess it largely depends on who is doing its...I have couple of remasters that sound good on my system but I don't have the original to compare.

IMO...Mj was a one of a kind artist...probably (actually no question) he was better live than his studio work.

I am a fan..but I have exactly 2 of his albums...Bad & Thriller but haven't played either in years.

When he was on top you heard it so often on the radio there wasn't much need to buy it.

I agree, it can go both ways, so it would be wrong to say remasters are always bad.

 

[<eargiant]

I agree, it can go both ways, so it would be wrong to say remasters are always bad.

I agree but I would guess that the majority of popular music remasters were done so with compression which will not sound better. This is what seems to be the case here.

With loudness wars the loser was always the discerning listener with quality gear, not the typical mass market audience they were targeting.

Bucknekked- If you do compare them again try to focus on the level of the individual sounds within the tracks. Sometimes in a compressed recording (especially the really horrible ones) everything sounds like its at the same volume level. Dynamics and realism can be lost and clipping/distortion may be evident.

 

[highfigh]

eargiant:
I liked your comments and found them all to apply to me as well as a wider audience.
That's part of why I found it disappointing: those things apply to me.
I feel educated and yet I still couldn't hear any difference. I am in the same age ballpark as Fremer, yet......

I would say this about educated ears: In Floyd Tooles book he makes it very clear that educated or no, hearing declines with age. He himself was an astute and trained listener. He tested himself for his book and learned that father time beats us all, no one is excluded. He makes a clear statement that he is no longer actively doing audio tests: father time has affected him too.

Like me, he still enjoys all of his audio hobby same as before. But now he has to step aside from audio tests that require a critical ear. I was hoping this MJ thing was as obvious as he made it out to be in his video. That's why I'd like to send my MJ CD to someone else to try it out and get a 2nd opinion. The offer still stands. Its a no charge offer.

Part of the problem with Dr Toole's hearing has to do with the side-effects of medication he used- if you search AH, it was one of the first threads he joined.

 

[highfigh]

4) While Fremer did not see how the gear was set-up until the trial, he was the one who contacted experienced audio business associates to set-up the gear. I'm sure he explained what he was tasked to demonstrate. As he would have expected (and probably requested), the equipment provided was very capable high end gear. He knew they weren't going to set up a $200 AVR with Infinity Primus speakers. I'm one of those that believes that sometimes gear like what was used in the courtroom demo does make an audible difference in resolution and presentation.

P.S. A little trivia, the audio engineer on Thriller (also produced by Quincy Jones) was Bruce Swedien and he used his beloved JBL 4310 speakers. I used to own a pair and actually played Thiller on them. Talk about hearing exactly what the engineer heard! Not the most neutral speaker but Bruce was familiar with them and knew how to work them.

I would think the differences could be heard with decent headphones, which would have also taken the room out of the equation. If the phones were tested and, assuming they used one set for each juror, they would need to reproduce sound without being wildly different in order to be a fair test.


As far as "Talk about hearing exactly what the engineer heard!"- nope!

The only equipment that was the same were the speakers- the rest was all different. The recording is several generations away from hearing it from the tape, through the processors, mixing console and their amplifiers & speakers which, in all likelihood, were tweaked specifically for their preferences. Then, there was the process of mixing for vinyl, adding another generation for the vinyl master tape (which would have been chosen because of some audio characteristic), the wear to the tape due to being played so many times for the various test pressings, the changes due to the engraving process, transfer to the mold and then, whatever the quality of the vinyl does to it. That says nothing about the effects from the level of quality of the playback hardware (turntable and cartridge). If you look through the window in the photo, the silver piece that looks like it may be an equalizer is a Crown PSA-2 amplifier. Hard to say if that was the main amp for the control room or the playback amp for the studio, though.

Also, if anyone here is a fan of heavy audio cables and fancy plugs, look beyond the right end of the board, at the skinny black wires sticking up and arcing downward- those are very typical of recording studio cables and they often have smaller diameter plugs because patch bays don't have a lot of surface area for the jacks. The cable itself was likely Belden 8451 or 9451, which is still available now and it works great- pretty much the standard for a lot of installations in several areas of the audio industry. It's easy to terminate, flexible, doesn't take up much space and shields very well.

 

[<eargiant]

I would think the differences could be heard with decent headphones, which would have also taken the room out of the equation. If the phones were tested and, assuming they used one set for each juror, they would need to reproduce sound without being wildly different in order to be a fair test.

I thought the same thing and I agree up to a point... but, I have Sennheiser HD-650, AKG 7XX and Audio Technica M50 and while headphones can be excellent for detail retrieval IME they have never been able to create the dimensional perception of a performance like good speakers can. At least in my experience. None of my headphones can compare to listening to my 805D2 in open space.

When I get the CD I will definitely listen on all the headphones but will primarily rely on my speakers set up in the main room.

As far as "Talk about hearing exactly what the engineer heard!"- nope!

The only equipment that was the same were the speakers- the rest was all different. The recording is several generations away from hearing it from the tape, through the processors, mixing console and their amplifiers & speakers which, in all likelihood, were tweaked specifically for their preferences. Then, there was the process of mixing for vinyl, adding another generation for the vinyl master tape (which would have been chosen because of some audio characteristic), the wear to the tape due to being played so many times for the various test pressings, the changes due to the engraving process, transfer to the mold and then, whatever the quality of the vinyl does to it. That says nothing about the effects from the level of quality of the playback hardware (turntable and cartridge). If you look through the window in the photo, the silver piece that looks like it may be an equalizer is a Crown PSA-2 amplifier. Hard to say if that was the main amp for the control room or the playback amp for the studio, though.

Agreed. I suppose that comment was more tongue in cheek but it's a point that inevitably always comes up in discussions had anywhere about the reproduction "accuracy" of a any given audio system.

You also forgot to mention the room size and layout itself (treatments, etc.) and his seating positioning from the speakers. Who could duplicate that? Impossible.

Regardless, theoretically if I had a digital version of the original master tape and played it through a neutral DAC & amp and feed it to the JBL 4310's and the Bowers & Wilkins 805D2's I think it would be safe to say that the JBLs would be closer to what he heard seated at the mixing console.

Also, if anyone here is a fan of heavy audio cables and fancy plugs, look beyond the right end of the board, at the skinny black wires sticking up and arcing downward- those are very typical of recording studio cables and they often have smaller diameter plugs because patch bays don't have a lot of surface area for the jacks. The cable itself was likely Belden 8451 or 9451, which is still available now and it works great- pretty much the standard for a lot of installations in several areas of the audio industry. It's easy to terminate, flexible, doesn't take up much space and shields very well.

Correct. I use pro cables too. Twisted pairs just like Gene recommends.

Now back to the MJ's BAD... the good and bad version.

 

[KEW]

MrBoat (and anyone else reading this thread)

I got my official MJ Bad CD from 1987 (Ek40600 from 1987) today from ebay. I shelled out $10 bucks or so to get my very own "original release" so I could do my own test against the compressed copies of later years. The court case was specific: Casey Jones was suing because the sound on the remasters was so bad it affected his professional reputation (his name is all over the production notes) AND they did the remaster without his permission.

I took my CD ripped it in and put it in my library like everything else. I then went and grabbed a 320KBPS copy from Spotify for one of the 2012 copies of the "Bad" song for my A B test. I wasn't going to shell out another $10 to $15 bucks for the crappy condensed CD. A Spotify rip of a 2012 version should do the trick.

MAN AM I DISAPPOINTED. I AM SORELY DISAPPOINTED.
I did my A B tests and I couldn't realistically tell the difference between the two versions of the "BAD" song.
I could say I preferred the CD version that I bought. But, going back n forth, I would readily acknowledge that if someone was doing it blind, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I tried several other Spotify vintages of the song. Same difference. No difference to my ears.

I feel like either I am a crappy judge of musical quality, OR, this was a tempest in a teapot in the courtroom.
Either way, I'm disappointed. I was all set for a cool experience. Didn't have one.
I will put forth a challenge/opportunity in a new post. If you make your posts too long, nobody reads them

One explanation for your experience is that there is actually little or no difference between the versions.
With Fremer giving an impassioned account of what to expect, placebo could be very prominent in the jury's perception. It was not a blind test. Just as a capable (and unscrupulous) salesman has little trouble convincing customers that they hear a $100+ difference in snake oil cables! The build up of the Q. Jones version creates an emotional excitement/anticipation and prepares you to enjoy it. We don't know how much delay existed between the two versions, but audio memory is not perfect and especially if Fremer spent another 5-10 minutes telling them what won't sound good, setting off the emotional biochemical mix of disappointment for the remastered version!

I have no reason to believe one way or the other about the versions, but I am comfortable stating that there was plenty of opportunity for biased results from this endeavor.

 

[<eargiant]

One explanation for your experience is that there is actually little or no difference between the versions.
With Fremer giving an impassioned account of what to expect, placebo could be very prominent in the jury's perception. It was not a blind test. Just as a capable (and unscrupulous) salesman has little trouble convincing customers that they hear a $100+ difference in snake oil cables! The build up of the Q. Jones version creates an emotional excitement/anticipation and prepares you to enjoy it. We don't know how much delay existed between the two versions, but audio memory is not perfect and especially if Fremer spent another 5-10 minutes telling them what won't sound good, setting off the emotional biochemical mix of disappointment for the remastered version!

I have no reason to believe one way or the other about the versions, but I am comfortable stating that there was plenty of opportunity for biased results from this endeavor.

I doubt this is placebo. The effects of compression and brickwalling are real and can be measured but it doesn't mean that all audio systems or ears can detect it's effects.

It would be pretty cool if someone on this forum would compare both Bad version files on an audio program. My guess is that if this went to court, the 1987 version and 2012 version differed substantially. I'd be curious to see by how much.

Illustrative example of compression

 

[KEW]

I doubt this is placebo. The effects of compression and brickwalling are real and can be measured but it doesn't mean that all audio systems or ears can detect it's effects.

It would be pretty cool if someone on this forum would compare both Bad version files on an audio program.

I am not so much making a case as simply pointing out that there was plenty of opportunity for this court case to be decided based more on bias than reality.
Looking at the charts you posted, the 83 and 91 versions don't appear to have much difference, but the 99 seems drastically limited.
If this is analogous to the BAD CD, it is possible that it matters tremendously which later version of BAD Bucknekked listened to. Certainly they would have found the worse to compare for the court case.

 

[PENG]

I don't recall ever agreeing with eargiant so this maybe the first time. It should not be hard to tell the difference between the two versions, given the significant difference in the DR. I wonder if Buck was comparing the right versions, maybe the two versions were mixed up, ended up being the same one?

 

[<eargiant]

I am not so much making a case as simply pointing out that there was plenty of opportunity for this court case to be decided based more on bias than reality.
Looking at the charts you posted, the 83 and 91 versions don't appear to have much difference, but the 99 seems drastically limited.
If this is analogous to the BAD CD, it is possible that it matters tremendously which later version of BAD Bucknekked listened to. Certainly they would have found the worse to compare for the court case.

Agreed, there are varying degrees of this practice but it usually never produces a truly better result. For clarity, the illustrative graph in post #29 was not MJ's music.

Interestingly, if you lookup Loudness Wars on Wikipedia there are 3 examples of the compression of Michael Jackson's "Black or White" over time.

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

 

[KEW]

Agreed, there are varying degrees of this practice but it usually never produces a truly better result. For clarity, the illustrative graph in post #29 was not MJ's music.

Interestingly, if you lookup Loudness Wars on Wikipedia there are 3 examples of the compression of Michael Jackson's "Black or White" over time.

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

Are you certain that is "Black or White"?
I ask because the first one looks like "Bad" and then it looks like it goes to "Worse"!

 

[<eargiant]

Are you certain that is "Black or White"?
I ask because the first one looks like "Bad" and then it looks like it goes to "Worse"!

Not certain at all, that's just the example on the Wikipedia page link I posted.

I agree, the 1995 one doesn't look that great to start with but I think that by the mid-nineties the practice was in full swing especially for pop music.

 

[<eargiant]

So I happen to have the original 1991 CD release of Nirvana- Nevermind as well as the 2011 release which the Wikipedia page I linked lists as one of the examples of a recording that was remastered too "loud". The Wiki page in turn linked this:

http://www.lostturntable.com/2011/09/28/the-nevermind-20th-anniversary-release-anatomy-of-a-disaster/



While the original Nevermind is by no means an audiophile reference quality recording, the playback of every song in the 2011 version is indisputably inferior to the original.

The best word I can use to describe what compressed recordings sound like to me is Jumbled. Everything just comes right at you, it lacks the subtlety and interplay of real music. It's like every sound is unnaturally at the same level vying to get heard. I think that's why it sounds flat (not in the frequency or soundstage sense). There's no layering and interplay like with real music. It is not very pleasurable to listen to long term. Especially when you've heard the alternative.

I always thought this part of the movie Amadeus captured what music (in all forms) is all about. Watch the placement of his hands as he talks about the interplay between the bassoons, basset horns, oboe and clarinet in the composition. Can you imagine compressing the crap out of what Salieri is describing?

It's Serenade No. 10 for winds in B flat Major ("Gran Partita"), K. 361 (K. 370a): 3rd Movement- for anyone that's interested.

 

[highfigh]

I thought the same thing and I agree up to a point... but, I have Sennheiser HD-650, AKG 7XX and Audio Technica M50 and while headphones can be excellent for detail retrieval IME they have never been able to create the dimensional perception of a performance like good speakers can. At least in my experience. None of my headphones can compare to listening to my 805D2 in open space.

When I get the CD I will definitely listen on all the headphones but will primarily rely on my speakers set up in the main room.



Agreed. I suppose that comment was more tongue in cheek but it's a point that inevitably always comes up in discussions had anywhere about the reproduction "accuracy" of a any given audio system.

You also forgot to mention the room size and layout itself (treatments, etc.) and his seating positioning from the speakers. Who could duplicate that? Impossible.

Regardless, theoretically if I had a digital version of the original master tape and played it through a neutral DAC & amp and feed it to the JBL 4310's and the Bowers & Wilkins 805D2's I think it would be safe to say that the JBLs would be closer to what he heard seated at the mixing console.



Correct. I use pro cables too. Twisted pairs just like Gene recommends.

Now back to the MJ's BAD... the good and bad version.

I meant that headphones would eliminate the effects from the room and differences in seating positions- the only way to provide the most consistent sound, only one set of cans could be used.

I didn't forget those, I just didn't want to get too muddled down with details.

I used to have customers who said they wanted it to sound like the studio and I had to explain all of that to them- they were bummed at the time, but it kept them from going crazy trying to achieve the unachievable.

Twisted pair wire is more for line level, mic, phones and networking- you don't need to twist speaker cable that way because it's not as susceptible to noise pickup as low level signals that are then amplified. The wires in speaker cable are twisted as a way to get them to slide through the jacket more easily, not to lower noise. It won't hurt anything, but it really won't do much to help. The best for low level signals that will be amplified is shielded, twisted pair- that allows different configurations WRT shield and ground, like what is used for low impedance line and mic feeds. Best practice for all AV and other communications cabling is to keep them at least 12" from any power wiring and if they must cross, do it at a right angle, never parallel.

 

[Bucknekked]

Ok, after a little experimenting I don't fee quite so bad. I still feel gypped by the miniscule differences, but at least I can hear some now. Big $10 million dollar differences, no. But at least audible ones.

1. Horns on the chorus's in the "Bad" song, missing in the remaster. Yes, there are horns in the original and none exist on the remastered copy. If you're thinking Tower of Power horn section, forget it. These are wee little things on the original and just plain missing on the remaster. On my first couple of listens, I never heard the difference. I could only tell the difference after having all the "differences" pointed out by Eargiant and several 100 Google posts on the topic. I would have never heard that without it being pointed out. Many experts point out how fast our audio memory decays in side by side testing. Hell ya it decays.

2. Spoken word intro on the song "I just can't stop loving you". Its there on the original and missing on the remaster. I dunno about you, but I agree with the remaster folks: that spoken intro is creepy. Especially if you know about MJ and the Chimp. It is definitely missing on the remaster of the song. That's one of those puzzle pieces that again, if someone doesn't point it out, its really easy to miss. I'd side with the remaster folks.

So, by taking a list of known audible differences, and I believe there are 6 or 7 of them, you can indeed year them if someone points them out and you are specifically looking for them. But they are underwhelming differences.

In the Fremer video, I was set up to believe they were so plain even a jury of young women could hear it.
He did graphic displays to show the compression (he had printed graphs like some have put in this thread) in the songs. If you watch the video (I highly recommend the 19 minutes) you'll see he was indeed very, very convincing.

Having listened to the material myself, even with an enormous expectation bias of hearing something, I must say I am underwhelmed. I can hear differences now. But not on the Fremer scale. I don't know what that means exactly. It does mean I am comparing the correct versions of the songs.

And if there's one thing I have learned for sure, I'm still not MJ's target audience. I probably won't play that CD again for another 10 years.

 

[shadyJ]

You don't need golden ears to hear dynamic compression. Anyone can hear it, once they know what to listen for.

Another thing about dynamic compression, it doesn't absolutely have to happen over all the elements of the tracks. It could be applied to only the percussion, or percussion and guitars, but not affect vocals as much. You have to listen for relative levels of loudness between the individual instruments.

Some dynamic compression is fine, and even necessary in some cases, but to blast every single moment of the track to full scale is just awful. That should only be done when the music is deliberately trying to be obnoxious, like punk or thrash metal.

 

[<eargiant]

Twisted pair wire is more for line level, mic, phones and networking- you don't need to twist speaker cable that way because it's not as susceptible to noise pickup as low level signals that are then amplified. The wires in speaker cable are twisted as a way to get them to slide through the jacket more easily, not to lower noise. It won't hurt anything, but it really won't do much to help. The best for low level signals that will be amplified is shielded, twisted pair- that allows different configurations WRT shield and ground, like what is used for low impedance line and mic feeds. Best practice for all AV and other communications cabling is to keep them at least 12" from any power wiring and if they must cross, do it at a right angle, never parallel.

Thanks. Good to know that there's no harm. The reason I twisted them was because I was combining two of the wires into one to effectively reduce the gauge of the cable by 3 AWG. I don't want to derail this thread but for anyone interested the link below provides some background:

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/thank-you-gene-hugo-co.103863/

Now back to this thread...

Got my hands on the MJ Bad EK 40600 CD today. Ripping with EAC as I type. As soon as I have time to listen and compare I'll update this thread.

 

[<eargiant]

OK, just gave a few songs a listen on both headphones and speakers. Verdict-clear differences.

As expected the volume of the remaster is much louder but even after adjusting it manually I could immediately hear clear differences. Whether I raised the volume on the original or lowered the volume on the remaster, I could still hear that the original was the better version IMO.

I also used software to normalize the volume, -8.5dB on the original and -15.9dB on the remaster. The results were the same, clear differences in certain areas depending on the track.

Interestingly, the track on the original CD with the highest dynamic range is Dirty Diana with a DR (R128) of 9.4 LU.

As soon as I have time I'll try to put together list of tracks with specific sections where you can clearly hear the differences.

Cool thread Bucknekked!