Audiofiles, unite

2 amplifies background noise and imperfections, 1 may gate some of them out

Op here, the irony is that the 3rd version is a 2018 "new" release.

I can't hear any one of them.
Mastering isn't just "squashedness of sound" - it's dynamics, punch, saturation, harmonics, stereo image, sometimes even equalisation.
Not only are they just images, they're also low resolution images. You've zoomed out way too far. Even highly dynamic waveforms can look squished when you view them like that.
If you've ever mastered your own songs (with good software/hardware) you'd know that mastering isn't evil. Mastering often makes things sound better, on a wider range of sound systems.

That argument might work for 2 but 3 is definitely brickwalled and smashed in.
Very rarely does that ever sound good.

There's more silence at the end of 2.

>zoomed out way too far
Here you go. I've kept just the first two tracks (1: 2017 remaster, 2: 2015 remaster).

Attached: Untitled.png (1280x720, 152K)

But here's the most important piece of information for this riddle:
- spectrum analysis of the 1st track (2017 remaster)

Attached: 1.png (1280x625, 177K)

- spectrum analysis of the 2nd track (2015 remaster)

Attached: 2.png (1280x625, 175K)

Here's a photo of a waveform viewed 2 different ways. Something very dynamic can look brickwalled.

Better, but still, using an image like this to determine the quality of a master is just dumb. I'm surprised so many people in this thread are doing so

Massive roll off at 16kHz, it's probably 128kbps.

Attached: same waveform.jpg (1898x621, 293K)

Your theory does fall apart a bit in this case because all three images are the same scale in relativity.
Your point is otherwise correct

more sound is more better so the right

>using an image like this to determine the quality of a master is just dumb
You're exaggerating, In most cases you can make an educated guess just by looking at the waveform. Also, this:

I have recently started to store a lot of the mid 2000's songs because I discovered a lot of them are getting censored.
It is not the type of music I listen to all the time, but I can't stand it when they take a mediocre song and make it worse by removing or changing words.
I grew up with these songs and they are changing history, my history.
But orignal recordings usually have worse quality and it is harder to find. How do you deal with this?

>16khz
Why not complain about something audible?

3 is trash, it's been volume compressed or clipped.

Hard to tell between 1 & 2 without them being normalized, seeing the spectrum, and listening to them.

True but people ITT assume that song #3 is brickwalled when in reality it may have very healthy dynamics.
In most cases, sure. But not in this case where OP has condensed a 2:30 song into a 400 pixel wide waveform.
You guys are completely ignoring all the other aspects of mastering. It's not just dynamics, it's equalisation, brightness, stereo image etc. None of these things show up in a waveform. Listening is essential

Unless you're very old you can definitely hear 16kHz. I hear it all the time when I upload a song to both YouTube (384 kbps) and Soundcloud (128 kbps). Soundcloud truly sounds like trash

You're saying that they're only reconditioning and re-releasing censored versions of your favorite tunes? Dunno, can't relate to this. Maybe find better sources for your music?

Hard to tell between 1&2, but 3 is complete shit

You can tell 3 has suffered less degradation via rotational velocidensity. You might want to consider moving this file to solid state storage, to avoid future damage.

Shouldn't you leave like 3-6db of space for processing if you want to get your music cut? If so then preferably 1.
2 seems alright by my standards

They are not my favorite tunes at all, that is not the point.
My point is that the new releases are changed.
I can't come with a ton of examples on the top of my head, but two "classical" songs with the chorus changed is
youtube.com/watch?v=6uikJTnmtgw
and
youtube.com/watch?v=N9hazmsUxrM
These seem to be fine with the singer as it is from their youtube channels.
There are way more songs like this it is happening to, so it is a serious problem aside from changing my childhood.

>It's not just dynamics, it's equalisation, brightness, stereo image etc. None of these things show up in a waveform.
As always, the more information you have, easier it is to get to a conclusion and be sure it was the right one.
Having op's image as the only piece of information at hand, what can you deduce? That's the challenge.
And you're saying that it's irrelevant and it's not enough, while all the other people posting itt agreed that judging by that pic, 3 is trash.

Attached: hmm.png (1500x1800, 415K)

i can say with confidence, 3 is trash.

YouTube sucks balls as a music library.
For tracks with alternate versions, if you're dedicated and know how/where to look I'm sure it's not impossible to find "that one".
deezer.com/search/99 Problems

Well I picked these two because I had found original versions of them. I guess I was just offended that some idiot wanted to censor it and made the original the "explicit, raw or uncensored version".
I am not even passionate about the song, but I want everyone who censored songs to be wiped off the planet or at least call the censored version that.

No, people are agreeing that pic 3 is trash as a knee-jerk reaction to the loudness war. It's a popular opinion. OP's pic looks bad but it could just be a case of faulty visual representation like this If he posted something like this for the 3rd one maybe I could make a guess
Something else that is getting ignored ITT is genre. Nobody has mentioned that the waveform is a Johnny Cash song. There is such a big sonic difference between acoustic and electronic music.

Oops, faulty visual representation is here

Most infuriating is when specialized music services (Google, Spotify) push the censored version as the result of your search.
Or, when you upload your track to them and it's matched (replaced) by the "clean", "radio edit" version.

Don't get me wrong, I like you're dedicated to your cause, but you're displaying mild autism traits. Answer this:
"Having op's image as the only piece of information at hand, what can you deduce (about the 3rd track)?"
1) it's good.
2) it's bad.
3) it's not possible to form an opinion.

4) It's louder
That is literally the only thing you can deduce about the 3rd track using OP's image

>That is literally the only thing you can deduce
So, QUALITY-WISE (the point of this discussion until now) your answer is, in fact:
3) it's not possible to form an opinion.