Album Rating: 3.0

@Titan: I have an audiophile speaker system myself plus a large collection of headphones. I don't know if I'd say BiB is THE best produced album ever, but it's up there. Steely Dan's/Donald Fagen's stuff is still probably tops for me, but they don't RAWK like BiB of course.

@Sabrutin: There's more to production than just peak dynamic range. Those early albums are dry as a bone and the guitar tones are very brittle/crackly. I don't know if (or when) AC/DC changed amps for studio recordings and I've heard various reports that they always use JTM45s in the studio, or that they've always used 1959 Super Leads, or that they used a mix. I do remember reading that the solos on BiB were recorded with a JCM800s, which might explain why they sound more gainy/compressed than their earlier stuff. After For Those About to Rock they started adding more and more reverb, especially to Bryan's vocals, probably to imitate the popular hair metal/"arena" rock sound of the period and it just sounded awful IMO. Plus, Flick of the Switch sounds like it was recorded in a cardboard box as there's so little separation between instruments. Thankfully most everything post-TRE onwards sounds good too. Otherwise I agree about avoiding the remasters and that the originals sound much better just because of the added dynamic range.

For those who use torrents, on RUTracker someone has all of AC/DC's digital editions including the original Australian, Germany, USA, and Japanese releases (which are probably sonically identical) and the mid-90s Germany and Australian remasters. I haven't extensively compared any of them but I always listen to the originals.

Album Rating: 3.0

I actually prefer the production job on 'Highway' over 'Back in Black''s. It just comes across crisper for some reason. Maybe it's the fact that I have a remastered 'Highway' and an original first-pressing CD edition of 'Back in Black'.



Also @Sabrutin I was about to point out how on every album between BiB and Razors Edge, Brian's vocals come through AMID the instruments rather than OVER them, which causes them to get lost in the shuffle, especially in worse-produced albums like Fly (infamously) and 'Video'. Their only really well-produced album since 1980 (in my opinion) has been Stiff Upper Lip (and, OK, maybe Ballbreaker.) Even this one only started to not sound like a murky wall of sound when I stopped playing it on my laptop and put it through some actual speakers.

Album Rating: 3.5

solrage bro yeah probs not the best but a damn good one

Album Rating: 3.0

@ReturntoRock: Highway is well produced too, certainly the best of their 70s albums. It's a little bit rawer than BiB but still crystal clear and I totally get why someone would prefer that sound/style for AC/DC. FWIW, Remasters are uniformly worse. All they do is jack up the volume, which squashes the dynamic range. Remasters can sound better initially because our ears interpret "louder" as sounding better (mostly because of Fletcher-Munson curves), but if you put the remasters and original into a program that can equalize the volume (JRiver can do this), you'll notice the originals have more punch, especially on drum hits.

EDIT: I should add that this is true for probably 99% of all remasters, not just AC/DC.

"There's more to production than just peak dynamic range. Those early albums are dry as a bone and the guitar tones are very brittle/crackly."

Yes, hence the "some are rougher or overproduced" part. I find it very hard to tolerate compression as it makes music worse to listen to, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize merits. You can see in the other thread I praised Power Up for its drums and bass production for instance. And we are on the same page about Flick, it's not a very pleasant-sounding record and I say it as somebody who greatly enjoys a record as bright as Rush's Presto because there the instruments are crystal clear and beautifully dry (either the SACD or the 2015 remaster, I own both but I usually use the dl that came with the 2015 vinyl).

It all comes down to preference really. I think there's a galaxy of difference between BiB and Highway, as the latter is quite thin. However, Highway is still a significant improvement over Powerage which sounded even thinner. At the same time, personally LTBR's roughness satisfies me more than all these AC/DC records mentioned (though objectively BiB is BiB).

"Brian's vocals come through AMID the instruments rather than OVER them"

Fair! But I really dig Razors Edge's production, it doesn't suffer from that problem that much either.

Album Rating: 3.5

I like the production of Flick, much better than that of Presto (and you fellas know me when it comes to Rushhhhh). This one is similar just not as good in my opinion.



And Highway is thin? Not my copy bro! That record sounds great.

"I like the production of Flick, much better than that of Presto"

bro

disagreed hard haha, Flick is a tad anemic imo.

"And Highway is thin? Not my copy bro! That record sounds great."

Oh I can agree, but the bass guitar is still a bit shy to my ears. The kick drum almost covers it!

Album Rating: 3.5

I have an original copy of Presto. It's thin, and doesn't have enough volume. I remember having to put my ipod's volume all the way up and it still wasn't loud enough.



I know you like that crisp and clear sound, and so do I to a certain extent, but it needs to punch you in the chest. Presto doesn't do it. Flick Of the Switch does.

Album Rating: 3.0

@Sabrutin neither Razor nor (most of) BiB suffer from that problem. It's the 80s ones where Brian is little more than a wispy reverb-y echo lost in the murk. Flick not so much, but definitely a problem in FTATR, Fly and Video. Razor and Ballbreaker still suffer from that in parts, it only really fully goes away in Stiff Upper Lip, which is a great-sounding record.



(Also, look at us nerds having a discussion about compression levels and shit. Quick! Back to memes!)

Album Rating: 3.5

Stiff Upper Lip sounds good, agreed

I've had similar discussions with a friend in which he preferred a less crystalline/separated sound in favor of a more rounded and punchy body, so I understand.

"definitely a problem in FTATR, Fly and Video"
I can see it. It doesn't particularly bother me, but it does disturb the soundscape there after a certain volume.

"Stiff Upper Lip, which is a great-sounding record."
The production is fine and I don't dislike listening to it but I can't call it great-sounding if it's that compressed, as loudness is not an abstract concept and I have a personal crusade (lol) against it. It just makes stuff sound worse

Album Rating: 3.0

I confess I do tend to prefer the older albums where everything was separate and given room to breathe. For example, in The Ramones' first few albums, the vocals and guitar are in one channel and the bass and drums in another (or something along those lines) so you can clearly make out where everyone is in the mix and what everyone is playing.



In modern albums, the finer details just tend to get lost in the mix. Which is why, going back to the album at hand, it's so nice to be able to hear the bass clearly coming through on several occasions - because the rule of thumb in modern rock records is to drown the elements deemed less 'important' to the sound (you know, like the bass) and just give prominence to the guitars and vocals, and maybe the drums if you're lucky. I'm sure keyboard fans feel the same way, too. A band like Yes or Pink Floyd might sound like an awful wall of sound fustercluck if those albums had been released today, because no one would have room to shine through and assert themselves within the sound, is what I mean. Hopefully that makes sense.



As for my point about Brian's vocals, compare and contrast how audible the vocals are in the title tracks to 'Highway', 'FTATR' 'Fly On The Wall' and 'Stiff Upper Lip', or compare any song off a Bon-era album or Stiff Upper Lip with any song from Power Up, and see how the production on the vocals impacts the overall sound of the song. Hopefully you'll see what I mean.

Album Rating: 3.0

HtH is thin on SOME tracks. I just listened to it last night with a frequency analyzer going and there are some tracks (especially on the first half) where the bass never reaches the same level as the mids. Another flaw is that on some tracks they mixed the rhythm guitar extremely loud and don't turn it down for the solo so that the solo just disappears into the mix. This is certainly a problem BiB doesn't have (which I also listened to last night).

Peak compression is mostly noticeable on drums (at least in rock music). Drums are supposed to have punch, which you can't have when there's very little difference between average volume and peak volume.

I also like a little room in the mix but there's usually a tradeoff between the clarity of smaller-sounding, hard-panned instruments/vocals and larger-sounding instruments/vocals that blend well together without getting murky. Early AC/DC was mostly too far on the former side, 80s AC/DC went too far the other direction. HtH and BiB are the sweet spot IMO.

As for fine details getting lost in the mix on modern albums, I think that just depends on the albums and who's producing/mixing them. I would certainly agree that's the case for most modern rock and metal, though the latest Fates Warning had really good production where you could clearly hear each individual instrument.

Album Rating: 3.5

'I just listened to it last night with a frequency analyzer'



Bro, you're pretty hardcore man! Good post...

Album Rating: 3.0

@Sol run the album through a shitty speaker (laptop, etc) and tell me it doesn't sound compressed as fuck. Until I played it in an actual stereo, the album sounded awful to me; in the stereo, it sounded great.

"Another flaw is that on some tracks they mixed the rhythm guitar extremely loud"
True, Walk All Over You is a prime example.

"As for fine details getting lost in the mix on modern albums, I think that just depends on the albums and who's producing/mixing them"
Absolutely.

@ReturnToRock mate I agreed with you about the vocals' disturbance, I just said it doesn't bother me too much haha.

tbh technically I'm a simple listener to please, give me good dynamics and I'll close an eye (ear?) on many things as long as I can hear what's going on... but they just don't give them to me anymore lol

Album Rating: 3.0

@Titan: Haha, not really. I'm just doing an AC/DC discog run and those two were up. I listen on JRiver which has a frequency analyzer that I usually keep on unless I want to trip out and then I turn on the visualizations.



@ReturnToRock: I don't have any shitty speakers so I couldn't tell you. Most things sound bad through shitty speakers though.

Album Rating: 3.5

ahhh yes, tripping......the good ole days lol!

If an album is heavily compressed I often find weaker headphones or speakers to be more “forgiving“ than high end equipment. Quality speakers reveal all the deficiencies whereas shitty ones are, well, just shitty in general or they impose an unnatural coloration on the sound veiling some flaws in the process.

Album Rating: 3.0

^ There's definitely some truth to that. Part of it is just what what Floyd Toole calls the "circle of confusion" where "SPEAKERS are evaluated using RECORDINGS that are made by MICROPHONES, EQ, & EFFECTS that are evaluated using SPEAKERS." So there's no neutral "basis" by which to judge any of them. The people that record and mix recordings often aren't doing so on "neutral" speakers and may even have very different hearing than us, so it's easy for good recordings to sound bad or bad recordings to sound good depending on the equipment you're using. Personally, I've just gotten comfortable using EQ, and I have some presets for music that's mixed too brightly or with too much bass or whatever. I try to buy relatively "neutral" speakers/headphones that makes it easier to EQ recordings since I don't have to worry much about EQing my equipment.