New topic
Printablei haven't heard the vinyl but the cd of SOTT sounds like it was recorded in a fuckin trashcan in some parts. imo its desperatley in need of remastering. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
JediMaster said: TheMaster said: I don't see what the big deal is...
Every "remastered" CD I have ever heard only had the sound level increased. I did that to some songs in Cool Edit Pro & they sound just like "remastered" tracks. I think it's a great big ripoff. Let's boost the sound level of this old ass CD & re-release it so stupid, gullible, fans will buy it up. Be sure to add another picture or 2 & song lyrics to make it seem like a great deal. Until someone shows me a real difference, that is. Ummm, no, they don't just "increase the sound levels". There are a whole lot of things that go into a remaster, not the least of which is equalizing out the sound mix. Prince's early CDs sound tinny, and are lacking much of the proper seperation and mix. You can tweak the knobs, but you still aren't going to get a proper mix. I HAVE heard remasters that I wasn't impressed with (Shout: The Very Best of Tears For Fears springs to mind), but overall most are actually quite good. The Pink Floyd catalogue remasters are a perfect example of a major correction being made to the orgininal, shitty sound on the first releases (and, in the case of The Wall, they didn't boost the volume much at all. All that was corrected was the seperation and mix). Hey, you don't want 'em, don't buy 'em, but don't assume that we are all gullible. There are plenty of audiophiles who CAN tell the difference, and want these done properly. EXACTLY ! The equalization of sound for CDs have improved greatly in the last 15 years or so . 'Re=mastering" is not a record company scam (though it can be seen as such). Instead, it is a method to provide an improved product to the public, using new and improved technology. The same way computer systems are constantly upgraded. For anybody who doesn't believe that "remastering" makes a difference, I advise this test : get any Rolling Stones CD issued by CBS in the 1980s , and compare it to the versions issued by Virgin in the 1990s. Or get any Elvis Costello CD from the 1980s, and compare it to the ones issued by Rhino in the 2000s. Even better, listen to any of Bruce Springsteen's CDs up to "Born in the USA", and compare those same tracks to the ones on 2003's "Essential Bruce Springsteen" compilation. If you don't hear an improvement, not only in volume, but in clarity, stereo imaging, and transparency, then you either new a new stereo system, or some Q-tips to clean the wax out of your ears . To me , the ideal Prince reissue program would follow the lead of Rhino's Elvis Costello catalog : each album a 2 cd set, the first CD being a remastered verion of the original album exactly as it was released, and a second CD of remixes, 12" versions, demos, B-sides, and live cuts #SOCIETYDEFINESU | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Neversin said: EmancipationLover said: Thanks, Master, for saying this! This whole "remastered" thing is a big rip off of customers imo. I mean, we're not talking about historical recordings from the Bayreuth festival from the 1920s made with some museum-like equipment here, it is stuff from the 80s!
Do a comparison with the "Sign "O" The Times" vinyl (something you probably don't even own or have even heard considering your post...) and the CD and be sure to use your ears... It seems to me people like you don't even have a clue as to what kind of half-assed job they did when they released Prince's material on CD, not to mention about 99% of all CD's released in the 1980's and 1990's... Neversin. Agreed! These days,when I wanna hear SOTT,I play the vinyl version.It's amazing how much better it sounds than the CD version. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: Neversin said: Do a comparison with the "Sign "O" The Times" vinyl (something you probably don't even own or have even heard considering your post...) and the CD and be sure to use your ears... It seems to me people like you don't even have a clue as to what kind of half-assed job they did when they released Prince's material on CD, not to mention about 99% of all CD's released in the 1980's and 1990's... Neversin. Agreed! These days,when I wanna hear SOTT,I play the vinyl version.It's amazing how much better it sounds than the CD version. That's because that CD sucks. If it was re-done today, with a good remastering engineer at the helm (such as Bob Ludwig, who did the new Springsteen "Born to Run", or Bill Inglot, who does a lot of stuff at Rhino) , the CD would sound 20 times better (and blow the vinyl away ) #SOCIETYDEFINESU | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jjhunsecker said: JediMaster said: Ummm, no, they don't just "increase the sound levels". There are a whole lot of things that go into a remaster, not the least of which is equalizing out the sound mix. Prince's early CDs sound tinny, and are lacking much of the proper seperation and mix. You can tweak the knobs, but you still aren't going to get a proper mix. I HAVE heard remasters that I wasn't impressed with (Shout: The Very Best of Tears For Fears springs to mind), but overall most are actually quite good. The Pink Floyd catalogue remasters are a perfect example of a major correction being made to the orgininal, shitty sound on the first releases (and, in the case of The Wall, they didn't boost the volume much at all. All that was corrected was the seperation and mix). Hey, you don't want 'em, don't buy 'em, but don't assume that we are all gullible. There are plenty of audiophiles who CAN tell the difference, and want these done properly. EXACTLY ! The equalization of sound for CDs have improved greatly in the last 15 years or so . 'Re=mastering" is not a record company scam (though it can be seen as such). Instead, it is a method to provide an improved product to the public, using new and improved technology. The same way computer systems are constantly upgraded. For anybody who doesn't believe that "remastering" makes a difference, I advise this test : get any Rolling Stones CD issued by CBS in the 1980s , and compare it to the versions issued by Virgin in the 1990s. Or get any Elvis Costello CD from the 1980s, and compare it to the ones issued by Rhino in the 2000s. Even better, listen to any of Bruce Springsteen's CDs up to "Born in the USA", and compare those same tracks to the ones on 2003's "Essential Bruce Springsteen" compilation. If you don't hear an improvement, not only in volume, but in clarity, stereo imaging, and transparency, then you either new a new stereo system, or some Q-tips to clean the wax out of your ears . To me , the ideal Prince reissue program would follow the lead of Rhino's Elvis Costello catalog : each album a 2 cd set, the first CD being a remastered verion of the original album exactly as it was released, and a second CD of remixes, 12" versions, demos, B-sides, and live cuts  Another good example is the first issue of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon vs the remaster. It isn't even a remote contest. Same goes for the early discs released from the Queen catalogue vs the remasters done in the mid-nineties.
I totally agree on your ideas for the reissues. Making them into two-disc sets like the Costello discs (and the current remasters that are being done for the Cure catalogue) are the way to go. If only Prince and WB would get over it already. In the end, we are the losers in their little war. 
Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones. (Ecclesiastes 7:9) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Doesnt it come down to the money issue?
The delay exists probably because of the desire to make as much money as possible out of the catalogue. Maybe they will get an initial release remeastered with no extras, and then even more years down the road get rereleased again. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I agree than remastering can b useful if not necessary 4 60's, 70's or 80's records...
But u'll admit than remastering a 1996 album like Sting's "Mercury Falling is a big joke, won't u? Mastering's quality in 1996 was identical 2 what it is now, wasn't it? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
shaomi said: Mastering's quality in 1996 was identical 2 what it is now, wasn't it?
Depends on for which format it is copied and processed to (vinyl, CD, DVD-A, Bluray, HDDVD etc.; bitrate issues, channel issues (mono, stereo, 2.0, 5.1, 6.1, 7.2 etc...) It would be quite pointless to copy a sound recording mastered for CD to a DVD-A and could even result in degraded quality as with recordings that were mastered for vinyl which they dumped on CD's as with Prince's CD's... Neversin. [Edited 1/3/06 19:24pm] O(+>NIИ<+)O
“Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man's?” - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
