Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit - 1991 vs. 2011 (loudness war - gain matched) 

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 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.

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.

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!

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.

Well when they play the song some bits are limited and some are not

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 :/.

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

Of course the remastered is much worse once it has lost all its dynamic range. The original master is much better.

+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!

check out my blog on the subject with examples of this horrible industry practice undone! demaster-nsfl.blogspot.co.uk

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.

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.

The 2011 remaster is not what Kurt wanted. The new remaster is pure crap. I just listen to the 1991 original master.

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.

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.