[m021478]

I am in search of the ideal tool to use to compare two nearly identical versions of the same song that I have in my iTunes library, in which I can make an informed decision as to which one to keep...

An example of such a case would be two versions of the same song, by the same artist, in which one version is from a Greatest Hits album and the other version is from the original album...To my ear, I 'think' I hear a slight difference, but I cannot say for sure...I would instinctively think that I should delete the track off the Greatest Hits album so that I can keep the original album intact, and then simply keep the tracks from the Greatest Hits album that I don't have elsewhere. But occasionally, Greatest Hits albums contain 'Remastered Recordings' in which the songs sound better than they did on the original album...

My initial thoughts are that if I lay these two tracks next to each other in a timeline/storyboard of some sort, in which I can see the audio waveforms to compare peaks and spikes and whatnot, and so that I can see the difference (if any) between tracks with varying bit rates and file formats?

I am using a Macintosh, and this could of course be done using iMovie or Final Cut Studio Pro (both of which I have), but I kinda figured that with all the iPod/iTunes software utilities out there, someone has probably thought of this concept before, and there's likely to be a tool out there that could assist in streamlining the process of comparing two 'near' identical tracks to weed out the lesser of the two...

Any suggestions on how to deal with this kind of situation would be greatly appreciated... Thanks!

[mduell]

Pick the one that sounds better to you. It doesn't matter what the waveform looks like.

Or keep both; can't be more than about 40MB a song.

[analogika]

There isn't much about actually looking at the waveforms that will help you determine the quality of the master.

And based on what you write, I suspect that the tell-tale signs that a recording has been ruined will actually sound more pleasing to you, since much of what passes as "remastered" is actually just "made to sound like it was produced today", which means that the dynamics are completely flattened, and the compressed noise is then MADE TO SOUND AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE WHILE STILL LEAVING THE VOCALS SOMEWHAT INTELLIGIBLE. ( <--- and that is actually what the waveform looks like.)

Gah.

</rant>

You can use GarageBand to look at the audio material on two separate tracks, or the excellent free Audacity.

When in doubt, the quieter un-remastered one is probably the better one, but in the end, trust your ears and decide by what you enjoy more.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by analogika 

And based on what you write, I suspect that the tell-tale signs that a recording has been ruined will actually sound more pleasing to you, since much of what passes as "remastered" is actually just "made to sound like it was produced today", which means that the dynamics are completely flattened, and the compressed noise is then MADE TO SOUND AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE WHILE STILL LEAVING THE VOCALS SOMEWHAT INTELLIGIBLE. ( <--- and that is actually what the waveform looks like.)

A slightly better explanation, and another example of the effect.

[analogika]

The original, and best version of my rant:

Rip Rowan: Over the Limit

What Happened To Dynamic Range?