starr said:

Then this is the worst remaster ever...


My T 12 inch disks smoke this one in quality

It isn't just volume... For awhile (especially when I only had the MP3s... Seriously, don't judge it until you have the actual CD or lossless files. When you have that give it a couple listens on a decent setup. Listen attentively (but multitask a little), and do not try too hard to hear all the differences at first. The harder you try, the more your ears will fake you out to thinking Ultimate is either The Second Coming or total garbage... Everything will make itself clear during the first few days, if not immediately.) I thought some good monitors or headphones might be needed to tell the difference, but I don't think thats it. The improvement has been often clear on the higher quality sound equipment in the house, but my car is total shit, and the first time listening to Ultimate in the car today provided affirmation on some of the improvements.

Also, Using ReplayGain to semi-closely match the volume of old masters with the new will also shined some light on the similarities and differences (especially hiss or lack of it, overall clarity, separation). This is by no means a precise method of comparison, but it serves its purpose.

Strong Standout tracks (IMHO) are:

Controversy (big time, especially the second 2/3rds of the song)
When Doves Cry (You will be angry that it is the single edit for sure)
I Would Die 4 U (Always one of my favorite songs, but I always thought the synth bass was way too low in the mix. Without the bottom, it *almost* sounded close to "Easy Listening" sometimes... On Ultimate, the synth bass pulses harder and clearer, and it makes all the difference. I would turn that awesome bass up so loud it would be punk rock , but Ultimate is certainly a step in the right direction. Made me smile the first time I heard it and still...)
Lets Go Crazy "Special Dance Mix" -- (Clearly better, although no first listen OMFG moment, but each listen is getting better and better. The OMFG moment comes in time...)
Lets Work (Dance Mix)
Kiss (extended version) -- already a song in better quality, but the Ultimate version is simply pristine. And a hella good mix.
Hot Thing (Extended Remix) -- The mix that should have been on SOTT. I find the album Hot Thing to be boring, yet I find this mix to be engaging. It's hard to belive its the same song even though it isn't TOO different from the original. The quality on this is great too, especially coming from the SOTT era.

Honorable Mentions:
Uptown (much more detail, cleaner, but the high end grates on my ears. it always did hurt my ears slightly, so i think that's actually the song. So now those particular frequencies a bit clearer. But I choose this one over the old master for sure).
Purple Rain (The status of this song almost guarantees an initial remaster disappointment. There is nothing earth-shattering with the Ultimate version. Still, it is better than it sounded. It is fuller. There is more warmth. Everything is a bit more crisp than it was. And its a damn good song. No full on praise, but no complaints. Satisfying enough for now.
Sign O The Times (Yes, they turned it up)
I Could Never Take The Place Of Your Man (Much clearer, slightly more bass perhaps thats just the detail improvement... but the fake drums that i've always been on the fence about are *too* noticeable and clear. So, clearly improved, yet not my thing... but it might be yours! too bad because the song itself is a favorite of mine... )
All Diamonds and Pearls material - While everything sounds overall the same, after a comparison all three D&P tracks sorta sound like a cassette tape. I didn't notice it until Ultimate, but now I can't really listen to the original masters... The Ultimate certainly lacks that slight muffle, has slightly more detail, depth and stereo width.
7 - OK, this track is REALLY darn close to the original master, but the cool thing is that on Ultimate is is *slightly* TURNED DOWN. And subtle as the effect may be, it works. The original master has hints of distortion the Ultimate does not. Many will agree that the Symbol album can be a little volume happy. But like I said, little difference, but props to the attention to that detail when it could have easily been overlooked.
Little Red Corvette (Dance Remix) - I've always thought the mix was too thin, and somehow muffled. Ultimate still has that "classic" feeling but I think it is the nature of the analogue recording itself. Sure, they could severely tweak it to make it sound super-fresh... but that wouldn't be true to the original release. That said, this mix ABSOLUTELY sounds clearer and more detailed than it ever has... almost enough for me to call it a standout... and I'm sure for many it is.
Raspberry Beret "12' Version" (Similar problems as Little Red Corvette. The best it has sounded for sure... certain string parts are more audible and detailed, a little more vocal separation, etc, etc. But it sounds like an analogue tape for sure, a little muffled, the mix is still muddy. But its the nature of the recording and the mix itself (to a large degree). On this and LRC they could have done much better in my opinion, but the tradeoff is a deviation from an accurate presentation of the original material. But now that it has been represented, I sorta hope the engineers get friendlier with the knobs next time around.


Truth is that for the most part the songs do sound better in one way or another. BUT it has to be weighed against our own personal expectations. The most accurate presentation of the original recording may not be the best presentation of a song. That is all subjective, however. As someone who has been disappointed by a few mixes (yet adored the song itself, usually the most), I was certainly much hoping for more drastic changes in specific places.

But I don't think heavy tweaks are within the scope of a greatest hits package. Perhaps on a larger, more in-depth project (like remastering the entire album catalog), extra time and attention will be paid to the best digital extraction from the tapes possible, and riskier (while still walking the line of caution, moderation and respect) refining of EQs and filters to better balance the classic sound with the modern sound. New artists do the reverse pretty well sometimes. They are heavily modern sounding, but get the retro sound just right, and it sounds hot. Prince remasters need to have a heavy classic sound, but get the modern in there just right.

Ultimate is a breath of fresh air for quite a few tracks, but it did not have the IT factor. Trying to sum Ultimate up: Detail improved across the board; less noise and hiss (but not entirely improved), less muffle (but not as improved as I originally expected), few totally "new" things to hear but a lot of previously barely audible parts are now easier to hear. Stereo width seems to have been mildly increased. Different vocal parts are easier to distinguish. But in some instances there is borderline harshness in the higher frequencies, however this is fairly rare and minimal. The bass is generally improved, but is sometimes not to my liking. In I Wanna Be Your Lover, the bass is certainly more detailed. It is also tighter (in a good way). It isn't louder, and if it is softer it is not very significant. And yet, while clearly "improved" (I can go so far as to say it is better than the original) it doesn't sit with me well, but the problem is hard to describe. It's better, yet it's just off somehow. It's a feeling more than a concrete problem. This is the trouble with Ultimate Prince. There are shining moments of brilliance, but there are a few "improved- yet not quite right moments" as well.

Furthermore, I Wanna Be Your Lover is a poor choice for the opening track. Anyone expecting to hear improved sound quality will be underwhelmed... the song has always sounded pretty good so the improvement is harder to measure.

Also, both discs have poor ending. Nothing Compares 2 U (w Rosie Gaines) and the My Name Is Prince ([Offensively Bad] Single edit) that follows is just not the best way to leave it.

Ending a disc of impressive remixes is the Cream (NPG Mix) with instrumentation that is dripping with early 90s cheese. Until then, the remixes were safe for the lactose intolerant. Its a total interuption of the groove you will find yourself in... And not the best way to end a retrospective.

The point of all this rambling? It's remastered somehow more than volume... I swear!
[Edited 3/27/06 22:32pm]

Sdldawn said:

I dunno... I mostly disagree. Working off of a needle can be charming even in the digital world for listening to some Beatles transfers, but for Prince the Ultimate Remixes are generally better than T's transfers. T's transfers are very good, and I have enjoyed them. And there's certainly much more material to enjoy than the one disc of Ultimate.

No disrespect to T as his set is indeed an essential, but releases direct from the record company will have the advantage over a third party in almost all instances when it comes to clarity, including this one.

But still, the remaster could have been better. Certainly not the worst though!
[Edited 3/27/06 19:13pm]

BorisFishpaw said:

Thanks Boris - I had a suspicion something like this was the case.

Prince probably has the original 24 track masters hidden in his vault, but isn't allowed to release them (unless they are significantly altered enough so legally it's deemed to be a 'new recording' - ie. "1999 The New Master"). WB only owns the original 2 track master (that is, 2 tracks = 1 stereo master).

At this stage there is no way Prince would let WB get their grubby hands on the original 24 track masters. It wouldn't surprise me if he's already digitised all his original tracks for his own sake (for samples etc.)

Thanks for that review Starr..

BorisFishpaw said:

Boris - I love you but you've just described "mastering". Most people would expect "remastering" to involve a remix of some sorts.

Different mastering is needed for differing mediums. The master for a vinyl pressing will sound radically different than the mastering for a CD.

Maybe the tracks on this compilation have been re-mastered (note the hyphen) but not remastered in the common interpretation of the word.

Justin1972UK said:

Correct.

I good example of remastering is when the group Genesis did their Platinum Collection. Disk 2 and 3 were completetly remastered.. things were uplifted in sound, they had a good remix, and the overall approach was very professional and worth the money.
[Edited 3/27/06 23:15pm]

metalorange said:

The only thing that is half-arse here is you. tangerine has explained exactly how it works for such best of. You should have been around for the lesson. You would sound less arrogant and ignorant.

metalorange said:

You still do not get the difference between remixing and remastering, do you ?!!!!

Justin1972UK said:

These titles have been remastered. Full stop. The only difference is contray to some Bowie's stuff, there was not a Brian Eno around spending months working every fucking sound in the mix. The job has been done in a few weeks for all the tunes.

okay, in headphones, I listened to Let's go Crazy 12" and it does sound more precise and i think i'm hearing details I never heard before... so I do think they were remastered. Very tastefully, trying to stay true to the original tone and balance.

which is not really what I want.... I want a garish remix remaster to let me into the mix and see it's nude skeletal essence with startling clarity and drama. I want a prince attitude remaster.... over the top. Prince fanatics already have these songs true to the original vision in digital form, be they bootleg/pirate that that they may in some cases.

but still, this is nice, especially the 12" mixes.

sarkozy2007 said:

I am certainly not knocking Tangerine17's contribution and info ahead of time about the album. But the fact remains he was responsible for the artwork, not the remastering. I can't find the original thread (even using google!) but my clear recollection was that when asked about the 'remastering' aspect, he said they usually sent albums to some guy who usually had it done in not much more than half-a-day. That was pretty much as far as he went and was hardly the full explanation you insist he gave, which was fine, that was all he knew about the process.

As has been established in the discussion here, there seems to be 2 sorts of remastering - one a tedious long process involving the original master tracks but which 'ultimately' leads to an outstanding new product, the other is a quick fix involving a few tweaks using the original 2 track stereo mix.

The fact in this case it seems to be have done so quickly clearly suggests the latter. I feel I have every right to be disappointed it wasn't the former.

I am sorry if I come across as arrogant, I'm more disappointed, and if I'm ignorant, then discussions like this are meant to educate.

ufoclub said:

I am listening to Lets Go Crazy 12" right now at a lower volume than usual...
It sounds even better... Amazing actually. I usually can't help but blast everything, but I am seriously glad I turned it down. Its a different xperience.

And now Little Red Corvette. At the lower volume, the new discoveries in the extra detail is more pronounced.
Now Lets Work- Its begging me to turn it up, but I'm gonna stick with it one time through.

I just got these new Beyerdynamic headphones that are excellent (especially for the price). I was going to spend double or triple and everyone on the various audiophile forums said no no no get these. They are full sized (they cover the whole ear). Everything sounds good on these so now I have to figure out if this lower volume thing only works on similar full sized headphones, or on speakers too (but its too late to test that tonight.)

I have to say that I like Ultimate more and more as I break it in. I was disenchanted at first- I wanted a different kind of remaster. I understand the conservative remastering on this compilation... and it works. But for the albums I am hoping for some balls to the wall restoration work.

ufoclub said:

That's poetic and badass and Truth.

Justin1972UK said:

Oh, but they have "in the common sense of the word". Remastering is exactly
what I've described. The fact is that a small handful of high profile
"remasters" have also involved going back to the original 24 track tapes and
remixing the tracks from square one again... but this is NOT what "remastering"
actually means, and it is not what happens with 99% of released remasters.

The reason for remastering albums is because most albums were mastered originally
with vinyl in mind as the finished end product. Now when mastering to vinyl
you tend to lose a lot of top end and the sound becomes slightly 'rounded' or
'warmer' (any 'harsh' sounds tend to get flattened out somewhat). Because of
the limitations and change in sound that vinyl gives, the masters were made
a lot 'brighter' and 'harsher' than they needed to be to compensate for the
loss of brightness that would occur when the transfer to vinyl was made.

This meant that when CDs appeared, and they used the same masters to create
the CDs that they did to create the vinyl, the CDs tended to have a much more
harsher 'toppy' sound than their vinyl counterparts. This is what remastering
is designed to correct. It's the process of going back the the final stereo
mix and tweaking the EQ, levels, brightness etc. To get the final product to
sound the way it was supposed to, and also bring the volume levels up to match
the current standard in CD recorded loudness (which often means a certain
amount of compression and limiting is done to the tracks as well).

The vast majority of remasters have NOT been remixed from the original 24 track
masters. But it's amazing how much extra detail can be brought forward with the
normal remastering process, without the need to go back and rebuild the track
from scratch again from the 2" tape. Of course a new remixed remaster job, using
the original 2" 24 track tape can produce some amazing results, highlighting
sounds previously lost in the mix. But this can also sometimes change the
music too much, so it no longer sounds the way it was originally intended, and
so it doesn't necessarily produce great results by default. It then comes
down to the skill (and reverence for the material) that the person doing the
mixing has. It's unfair to simply dismiss a 'remaster' just because they didn't
go back to the 24 track tape and rebuild the song from scratch again. There's
been numerous very successful remasters over the years that have simply
"remastered" the tracks in the true sense of the word (from the final stereo
quater inch master tape).

why can't we have a remixed 5.1 dvd audio of all the 12" mixes and b-sides?

shit I just want a 5.1 dvd audio of The Black album

Since when does remastering involve remixing a track? It doesn't usually, and it shouldn't. Zappa ended up remixing some of his 60's albums for CD and the results were woeful.

metalorange said:

Exactly.

Sdldawn said:

My T 12 inch disks smoke this one in quality[/quote]

100% agree

my dj, friend remastered all my prince tracks, what chu need?

jthad1129 said:

all your prince tracks

SquirrelMeat said:

Not true at all, Joni Mitchell had one or two early albums re-mastered for CD, with improved booklet and CD artwork yet when it arrived in shops it was almost absolutely no difference externally until the label got a clue and slapped a big orange sticker on it a while later.

Sdldawn said:

Pretty freaking untrue considering that T reversed the stereo channels on many tracks.
[Edited 4/2/06 13:39pm]

jtfolden said:

Reversed the stereo tracks? To fix that can't you just put your headphones on backwards?!

jtfolden said:

Ah yes, I had forgotten all about that. Again, T's is a quality compilation that has a wealth of rare tracks. Warner Bros will probably never come close to releasing most of it.

But the whole-hearted suggestion that the specific tracks on Ultimate are not as good as when they appeared on T's is setting off the fanboy alarms.
T's tracks clearly have various inconsistancies and anomalies (although I assume they were unavoidable). The reversed stereo is a weird thing though. I don't know why that wasn't fixed.
[Edited 4/2/06 15:11pm]

TheAStarr said:

It wasn't fixed because it was INTENTIONAL. T has a habit of doing stuff to 'mark' the items he releases. I guess this way he can know when stuff pops up on other people's projects... the listener ends up with modified audio without knowing it, however.
[Edited 4/2/06 15:50pm]

TheAStarr said:

all of the official cds and 12"ers

jtfolden said:

that doesn't decrease the quality, it just reverses the soundscape, but that's okay in countries that read right to left...

sarkozy2007 said:

Boo hoo. Don't cry just because someone else doesn't agree with you or want to suck up to a stanger.

I don't need to be "graceful" for anyones information. Especially when its half baked.

By the way, how comes you think you know all about who is right and wrong with an account less than a month old!?

Rat/A/Smell/I. Please re-arrange in any order you see fit.

This has been a great thread. I noticed that we are not all on the same page with some of the terms being used, and it's pretty easy to mix them up without realizing it. One easy way to understand these terms is to just take the "re"s out...

The making of a CD involves three steps - 1. Recording 2. Mixing 3. Mastering. And if you add "re" to the beginning of any of these terms, it just means one of these steps is being done a second time, for example when older material is being worked on at a later date, like is the case with Ultimate.

Step 1, Recording, is when the individual musical elements are put on tape (or nowadays on a hard drive) either one at a time like Prince often does, or all at once, like in a live recording. Either way, the result is a whole bunch of tape (or hard drive) tracks containing all of these elements separately.

Step 2, Mixing is taking all of these individual musical elements and blending them together, or mixing them, into one stereo recording.

Step 3, Mastering is the final preparation of the stereo recording created in step 2 for the intended format (i.e. CD, Vinyl, cassette, etc.), where the various frequencies (i.e. highs, mids and lows) are tweaked and also the dynamic range (the range between soft and loud sounds) is limited via compression.

So, when a CD is "re"-mastered, what is being done is Step 3 only. Sometimes CDs are remixed from the original master tapes AND remastered, but those are two different steps, and doing both of these steps is a lot more rare than just remastering.

So, if a CD is only advertised as being remastered, then Step 3 is all they are claiming to have done.