independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Why does 'Batman' sound better than SOTT?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 07/24/06 7:22am

mikek1

Why does 'Batman' sound better than SOTT?

I mean in terms of sound quality; it's superior.

was there some change in the way things were recorded?

damn shame it wasn't the other way round sad sad
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 07/24/06 7:33am

luv4u

Moderator

avatar

moderator

I like both nod
canada

Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture!
REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince
"I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 07/24/06 7:39am

UndercovaBroth
a

avatar

I think he might have recorded it with the compact disc format in mind, since they were becoming a bit more common in '89 than in '87.

Pure speculation, on my part.
Ooh, little darlin' if you're
free 4 a couple of hours (Free 4 a couple of hours)
If U ain't busy 4 the next 7 years (Next 7 years)
Say, let's pretend we're married and go all night
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 07/24/06 7:45am

Giovanni777

avatar

UndercovaBrotha said:

I think he might have recorded it with the compact disc format in mind, since they were becoming a bit more common in '89 than in '87.

Pure speculation, on my part.


I suspect that this may be the basis 4 the Q here.

"mikek1" has probably compared CD 2 CD.

When comparing vinyl 2 vinyl, they simply sound different, as every Prince album did from year 2 year.

None of Prince's albums from '78 through '88 were given any justice when CD versions were released. They R all low level, and flat sounding.

Ironic that 2 of my biggest musical influences, Stevie Wonder and Prince, were never properly remastered.

Peace.

G.
"He's a musician's musician..."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 07/24/06 7:57am

IstenSzek

avatar

Giovanni777 said:

UndercovaBrotha said:

I think he might have recorded it with the compact disc format in mind, since they were becoming a bit more common in '89 than in '87.

Pure speculation, on my part.


I suspect that this may be the basis 4 the Q here.

"mikek1" has probably compared CD 2 CD.

When comparing vinyl 2 vinyl, they simply sound different, as every Prince album did from year 2 year.

None of Prince's albums from '78 through '88 were given any justice when CD versions were released. They R all low level, and flat sounding.

Ironic that 2 of my biggest musical influences, Stevie Wonder and Prince, were never properly remastered.

Peace.

G.


what is even more staggering is that someone like Prince who is known
for his perfectionism can stand the fact that his albums are in shops
all around the globe in far far less than perfect soundquality.

it's such a shame. same goes for the fact that half his releases seem
to be out of print or were never even released on a cd but only in an
unsatisfactory mp3 format.

sigh
and true love lives on lollipops and crisps
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 07/24/06 11:38am

superspaceboy

avatar

I imagine that WB had more say so in regards to how the album was to be produced and recorded. Also SOTT spans a few years in terms of songs. It's sort of a catchall "best of" for much of what was happening around that time.

I can even see Batman being recorded very quickly, all int he same place, where as SOTT wasn't.

Christian Zombie Vampires

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 07/24/06 11:41am

superspaceboy

avatar

IstenSzek said:

Giovanni777 said:



I suspect that this may be the basis 4 the Q here.

"mikek1" has probably compared CD 2 CD.

When comparing vinyl 2 vinyl, they simply sound different, as every Prince album did from year 2 year.

None of Prince's albums from '78 through '88 were given any justice when CD versions were released. They R all low level, and flat sounding.

Ironic that 2 of my biggest musical influences, Stevie Wonder and Prince, were never properly remastered.

Peace.

G.


what is even more staggering is that someone like Prince who is known
for his perfectionism can stand the fact that his albums are in shops
all around the globe in far far less than perfect soundquality.

it's such a shame. same goes for the fact that half his releases seem
to be out of print or were never even released on a cd but only in an
unsatisfactory mp3 format.

sigh



Yeah...I'm willing to bet these are hard to get and some are as you said mp3 only...

Black Album
Gold Exp
Come
Rainbow Children
NEWS
TCI
Slaughterhouse
Xpectation
C-Note
ONA
Rave In2
The truth

Christian Zombie Vampires

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 07/24/06 1:05pm

metalorange

avatar

superspaceboy said:

I imagine that WB had more say so in regards to how the album was to be produced and recorded. Also SOTT spans a few years in terms of songs. It's sort of a catchall "best of" for much of what was happening around that time.

I can even see Batman being recorded very quickly, all int he same place, where as SOTT wasn't.


I don't think it makes a difference how you record it as such (I mean, it makes a difference to the individual song, but not the whole sound quality of the album), it is more when the actual music is mastered ie. the different instrument and vocal tracks are merged to make a final stereo tape from which all the albums are then made from. Over-all, Sign has quite a subdued sound on CD, Batman is much clearer. I do think this is because they began to master the music with CDs in mind and their dynamic EQs rather than vinyl as previously.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 07/24/06 1:20pm

mikek1

metalorange said:

superspaceboy said:

I imagine that WB had more say so in regards to how the album was to be produced and recorded. Also SOTT spans a few years in terms of songs. It's sort of a catchall "best of" for much of what was happening around that time.

I can even see Batman being recorded very quickly, all int he same place, where as SOTT wasn't.


I don't think it makes a difference how you record it as such (I mean, it makes a difference to the individual song, but not the whole sound quality of the album), it is more when the actual music is mastered ie. the different instrument and vocal tracks are merged to make a final stereo tape from which all the albums are then made from. Over-all, Sign has quite a subdued sound on CD, Batman is much clearer. I do think this is because they began to master the music with CDs in mind and their dynamic EQs rather than vinyl as previously.


word; shame though, right; imagine a full remastered sign of the times lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 07/24/06 1:56pm

metalorange

avatar

mikek1 said:

m
word; shame though, right; imagine a full remastered sign of the times lol


Yes. It would sound slightly better. And I wouldn't have to turn my volume knob up so high.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 07/24/06 4:25pm

superspaceboy

avatar

metalorange said:

mikek1 said:

m
word; shame though, right; imagine a full remastered sign of the times lol


Yes. It would sound slightly better. And I wouldn't have to turn my volume knob up so high.


I hhhhhate that. It's worse on that one than some of the earlier ones it seems.

Christian Zombie Vampires

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Why does 'Batman' sound better than SOTT?