The songs are exactly the same, right?

Was this WB initial intention?

Anyone have any info?

This was much discussed at the time of the release. The older tracks have been 'cleaned up' digitally so the audio clarity is better, the first time Prince has given his permission for this - some were not ever put on CD, for instance. To a certain extend this can be referred to 'remastering' but it is not a proper full-on 'remaster' where the tracks are completely disected and re-assembled at source.

metalorange said:

thankyou you 100% sure or is that another myth?

I have let's work extended and it sounded AMAZING; i mean AMAZING .the bass lev els are just perfect and sonically i would say a masterpiece. I wish all his albums sounded like that.

BTW; ever heard girls and boys extended? The sound is phenomenaly better than all of parade. Would you know why this is?

Well, it's pretty much the conclusion we all came to with the info around.

Ermm, there isn't a Girls & Boys extended, is there? At least, the album version is as long as anything released, so I would say it is just the 'full' version rather than the released radio edit. I wouldn't know why it sounds different, put it down to the vagaries of final mastering.

metalorange said:

Ugh. Will you PLEASE stop with this misinformation? Remastering is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS done from the original stereo masters.

Anything else is reMIXng.

So, yes, this compilation was REMASTERED from stereo masters and all the songs are 'the same' whatever that means to you.



.
[Edited 12/13/06 14:50pm]

Jestyr said:

I don't think I said anything that was misinformation. People expect more from the term 'remastering' than running the stereo masters through some digital noise reduction filters. When I think of 'remastering' I always think of the Led Zep remasters which were the first famous ones I ever heard about and took months of work with Page involved. When people think of 'remixing' they think of entirely new versions of songs created from the original tapes, not recreations of the original track. Technically your terminology may be correct but it is not what laymen first think of when hearing the terms.

Jestyr said:

YEP! Have 2 agree 100%! Re-Mastering is just a nice way of saying "New Complation" Or "Mix Tape"! LOL!

metalorange said:

This kind of adjusting terminology for the layperson IS misinformation. Also, saying that remastering is simply running stereo masters through digital noise reduction filters is a grave error and an injustice to those of us who do this work. Much more is involved, but trying to make it sound more 'spectacular' for the 'layperson' only unfairly diminishes the real work involved. Yes, the Led Zepplin remasters were wonderful, but great strides have been made in technology even in the short time since those were accomplished. Maybe some confusion comes from the term 'original tapes'. There are two kinds of original tapes - the multitrack tapes that contain all the instruments recorded for a song - and the stereo master tape which is a mix down of the multitrack tapes.

Also, telling people what they 'think' is correct about remixing does remixers a disservice as well. Remixing involves combining the many tracks recorded for a song in a new way, perhaps adding some new tracks, but not always. This 'new way' is then recorded to stereo and called a master. Remastering is simply returning to and 'tuning up' this master tape. That's all. It's not too difficult for the layperson to understand this.

Jestyr said:

I think since you work in the industry you're too close (and touchy!) about this. It's not too difficult to understand - when it is explained. I tried to explain to KeenlyTheGod my understanding of what my layperson's understanding of remastering is, and a simplified version of the dispute over terminology. I could just have said 'No, it was not remastered' without further explanation or perhaps you would have said, 'yes, it is' similarly. As I said, I think there is a general understanding about the terminology that may be in error but has come to be accepted by the general population, like it or not. Perhaps we need to come up with some new terminology.

But I never completely understand what people expect from remastering, how about we ask KeenlyTheGod, KeenlyTheGod what do you actually expect from an album or tracks that have been remastered? What does the term mean to you as a layperson?

metalorange said:

I just wanted to know IF THEY SOUND DIFFERENT?

Do they sound any better sonically?

keenlythegod said:

Have the songs been changed from the original? No. Do they sound better sonically? Yes, especially those that were only previously available on vinyl.

metalorange said:

How can they sound better if they've not been touched?

keenlythegod said:

I mean nothing's been changed in the sense of no new instrumentation or lyrics. Just the sound quality has been improved, whatever you take that to mean. Ask Jestyr, I struggle to understand it myself.

metalorange said:

You're right - it hurts to have your hard work be dismissed as just a noise filter.

I can't imagine what makes you presume to speak for the general population. Even if you've spoken to hundreds of your friends and you're all in agreement about what a 'layperson' thinks remastering or remixing is, it wouldn't mean you have a definition about what remastering or remixing means to the entire Earth's population. Knowledge is not something determined by consensus.

Please do NOT take this at all personally; I love to read your posts, metalorange, but my suggestion would be to stop trying to answer questions about this thing you have admitted you don't understand. It seems as though keenlythegod gets the picture perfectly from what's been posted in this thread anyway.

Jestyr said:

Not talking about knowledge, talking about opinion, which IS determined by consensus. In reality, yes, I can't speak for the Earth's population anymore than you can, but all I can say is that within the sphere of people I know and posts on here about the subject, the general consensus is laypeople seem to expect more from the term remastering than your admittedly technically accurate definition.

I find it interesting that the people's encyclopedia 'wikipedia' has a discussion about the meaning of the term to people in general and actual reality of the term, including such quotes as:

Despite its status as an industry buzzword, however, remastering actually refers to a fairly distinct process, one which does not inherently include the notion of a positive upgrade

Here buzz-speak and practical application collide. In actuality, all CDs created from analogue sources are technically digitally remastered. The process of creating a digital transfer of an analogue tape re-masters the material in the digital domain, even if nothing "special"--no equalization, compression, or other processing--is done to the material.

As you can see, the difference between the meaning of the 'buzzword' and actuality are not my making, I have simply pointed out that there really is an expectation in the public's mind as to what 'remastering' actually means. I mean, to some it even means extra tracks have been added, for instance.
[Edited 12/14/06 11:43am]

Jestyr said:

This is absolutely correct.

metalorange said:

But truthfully, metalorange, this isn't subject to opinion, perception, or consensus. Remastering is exactly what it is... "re-mastering". Remixing is also what is... pulling up the separate tracks on the original recording, which is generally either on 2" tape, or a GLYPH drive, and creating a different mix.

metalorange said:

Wikipedia has proven itself to be an unreliable source of information over and over again, 'orange, we all know this. It's populist propaganda.

An opinion from a wikipedia entry does not equate any universal public truth either. The quote about 'inherently including the notion of a positive upgrade' is true as a subjective opinion on a CD by CD basis, but does not mean the project in question has not been remastered. I like the Zepplin remasters on CD just fine but the guy down the street prefers the sound of his vinyl. That does not mean the remastering was faulty or that 'nothing "special--no equalization, compression, or other processing--was done to the material'. It certainly was done. Of course, all words can be used as 'buzzwords' and that does not make them inherently false or misleading. Certs do contain retsyn.

So saying that because YOU don't think the sound of the Ultimate Prince CD is good, does not mean it was simply sent through a digital noise filter as you stated. Also, I don't think you should be assuming that most people expect more from the word remastering, simply because your friends and a few folks who don't know what they are talking about have posted that opinion. That is not a consensus of prince org opinions. Also, believing that remastering implys extra tracks is not an opinion - it is plain and simply incorrect.

If you don't like the way something is remastered, that is indeed an opinion. But the definition of the process is not an opinion, it is knowledge. And your view on how many people believe this opinion is itself an opinion, not knowledge.

I agree 100% w/Jestyr! Besides...is their any arguement that the sound quality of the set is much better then what's been previously available of these tracks in the past? Disecting the process is like trying to understand why a Krispy Kreme dougnut is so freakin' good!! Just sit down...grab a cup of coffee...and simply enjoy eating the whole box! Don't fuck it up by trying to comprehend why...

Just my 2 cents!

The stupid thing, is that in my original post the whole point of my pointing out the different, what I call 'generally' held views about what remastering actually is, was to inform anyone reading that remastering was indeed a process simply using the stereo masters, as you guys have been saying: The older tracks have been 'cleaned up' digitally so the audio clarity is better... this can be referred to [as] 'remastering' Maybe that came across as unreverential, but it wasn't meant to.

I did this because I know full well that people's understanding of what 'remastering' is vary from person to person, especially laypersons ( or a few folks who don't know what they are talking about to put it another way). I didn't want keenlythegod thinking the tracks had been through some amazingly complicated process involving Prince at the mixing desk himself.

People's understanding of what 'remastering' is varies from what it really is. You cannot possibly argue that everyone in the world thinks exactly the same way you do about the subject, because not everyone is that clued up. That is why I brought up Wikipedia - yes, it is unreliable, it reflects people's ideas on stuff which themselves can be in error, hence it is actually quite reflective of a wide selection of people's views in general, even if it only proves that a lot of people think erroneously on all manner of subjects. In other words, the one thing it is factual about is that it relects people's opinions rather than the real truth. And that's all I've been saying, that when you mention remastering you have to clarify what it is because not all people have the same expectations - which is what I tried to do in my initial post, albeit as it turns out clumsily.

metalorange said:

Well, I've heard the set being advertised as "remastered", so I'd assume some semblence of the process was completed prior to it being marketed. And again...the sound quality (IMO) is outstanding, so as far as I am concerned, it is a very well presented product It's not very important to me that I understand the process as to how it came to be as such...

Have a good holiday season!

I still refuse to buy 'Prince: Ultimate' until someone truly clears up this "remastering" crap once and for all

Quick!
Someone who has it play their vinyl version of "Controversy" against this so-called "remastered" version.

Here's a beer while you listen->

nayroo2002 said:

Well, I don't see why you'd hold off AT ALL on purchasing Ultimate. Remastered or "simply cleaned up" it's still an excellent compilation. If I were you I'd get one.

Se7en said:

When this thing was first released and then pulled at the last second, I purchased the downloads of the songs I didn't already have on CD. Just the six extended versions that were only released on 12" in the 80's.
These were the songs that would have made me buy the whole collection, but I guess the thought of re-purchasing the rest is redundant.

How many times have you listened to the edit of "Sign 'O' The Times," "I Wanna Be Your Lover," or "When Doves Cry" since you bought it?

Probably the exact amount of times since 'The Hits/B-Sides' came out, eh?

My point is, even if the sound level is a little hightened, I can't STAND to hear a shortened version of a great song.

All or nothing.