independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 18th Nov 2019 2:46am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Re-Mastered Albums?....
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 11/10/07 4:33pm

Pink4eva

Re-Mastered Albums?....

Has any of Prince's albums been re-released in a Re-Mastered format?!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 11/10/07 4:55pm

PDogz

avatar


All the cuts on Prince - "Ultimate" have been remastered.




Edited to replace actual CD Cover with "Dove" picture (just in case).
[Edited 11/10/07 17:15pm]
"There's Nothing That The Proper Attitude Won't Render Funkable!"

star
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 11/10/07 5:47pm

Se7en

avatar

Ultimate has not been remastered ... it's a common mistake. It's been remixed louder, but not remastered.

Still sounds lightyears better than the originals though!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 11/10/07 7:47pm

PDogz

avatar

Se7en said:

Ultimate has not been remastered ... it's a common mistake. It's been remixed louder, but not remastered.

No, it's Remastered.
"There's Nothing That The Proper Attitude Won't Render Funkable!"

star
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 11/10/07 7:54pm

toejam

avatar

My understanding of Ultimate, is that they only 'remastered' the 2 track stereo master, as this is what Warner Bros. 'owns' the rights to - the 'master recording'. A true 'remaster' usually implies going back to the original tracks and remastering/relevelling/re-EQing every single instrument used in the recording.
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 11/10/07 7:55pm

PDogz

avatar

"There's Nothing That The Proper Attitude Won't Render Funkable!"

star
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 11/10/07 8:04pm

toejam

avatar

^OK, seems like we're just arguing over the definition of 'remaster'.

The sound on Ultimate has definately been improved, no doubt. But my point is that it hasn't gone through the entire remastering process that other classic albums have gone through - eg. Stevie Wonder's Songs In The Key Of Life, Miles Davis's Kind Of Blue and many others. Ultimate has been 'remastered' from an already 'mastered' recording, whereas traditionally 'remastering' implies that you go back to the original analog tapes and master it from scratch using the most up-to-date technology. They never did this with Ultimate as (presumably), Prince didn't want to give it to them knowing his history with WB.
[Edited 11/10/07 20:09pm]
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 11/10/07 8:06pm

PDogz

avatar

According to Wikipedia's definition, we're all right.
"There's Nothing That The Proper Attitude Won't Render Funkable!"

star
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 11/10/07 8:08pm

PDogz

avatar

toejam said:

^OK, seems like we're just arguing over the definition of 'remaster'.

nod
"There's Nothing That The Proper Attitude Won't Render Funkable!"

star
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 11/10/07 8:21pm

PDogz

avatar

Se7en said:

Still sounds lightyears better than the originals though!

nod
"There's Nothing That The Proper Attitude Won't Render Funkable!"

star
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 11/10/07 8:25pm

PDogz

avatar

toejam said:

Ultimate has been 'remastered' from an already 'mastered' recording,

I did not know that. That makes a huge difference to me.
"There's Nothing That The Proper Attitude Won't Render Funkable!"

star
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 11/11/07 1:00am

nd33

toejam said:

A true 'remaster' usually implies going back to the original tracks and remastering/relevelling/re-EQing every single instrument used in the recording.


What you have described above is "remixing".

When you're mixing, you're dealing with the multi tracks ie. all the instruments in the recording can be processed individually (if they were recorded on seperate tracks).

When mastering, you're working with the "2 track" or "stereo" mixdown (created by "mixing").

Recording > Mixing > Mastering

Mastering is the sprinkles on the icing. If the mix is great, then the mastering job is almost insignificant.



The term "remix" can be confusing because people assume it means a completely different version of the song with different instruments and rhythms, but, the original meaning of remix was readjusting levels of instruments etc.

A remix can sound almost indistinguishable from an original mix, as can a remaster.

_
[Edited 11/11/07 1:10am]
Music, sweet music, I wish I could caress and...kiss, kiss...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 11/11/07 8:37am

fcukthepolice

Se7en said:

Ultimate has not been remastered ... it's a common mistake. It's been remixed louder, but not remastered.

Still sounds lightyears better than the originals though!



IT IS NOT REMIXED

IT IS REMASTERED using tape COPIES; NOT the original master tapes

The remasters from Ultimate are far loder and the distortion on 1999 and LRC is cleaned up
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 11/11/07 8:39am

fcukthepolice

toejam said:

^OK, seems like we're just arguing over the definition of 'remaster'.

The sound on Ultimate has definately been improved, no doubt. But my point is that it hasn't gone through the entire remastering process that other classic albums have gone through - eg. Stevie Wonder's Songs In The Key Of Life, Miles Davis's Kind Of Blue and many others. Ultimate has been 'remastered' from an already 'mastered' recording, whereas traditionally 'remastering' implies that you go back to the original analog tapes and master it from scratch using the most up-to-date technology. They never did this with Ultimate as (presumably), Prince didn't want to give it to them knowing his history with WB.
[Edited 11/10/07 20:09pm]


EXACTLY my friend

BTW stevie's remasters are shit; stick to the original cds or lps.

Prince has all his master tapes but does not own them. WB have copies as far as i know
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 11/11/07 8:43am

txladykat

avatar

nd33 said:

toejam said:

A true 'remaster' usually implies going back to the original tracks and remastering/relevelling/re-EQing every single instrument used in the recording.


What you have described above is "remixing".

When you're mixing, you're dealing with the multi tracks ie. all the instruments in the recording can be processed individually (if they were recorded on seperate tracks).

When mastering, you're working with the "2 track" or "stereo" mixdown (created by "mixing").

Recording > Mixing > Mastering

Mastering is the sprinkles on the icing. If the mix is great, then the mastering job is almost insignificant.



The term "remix" can be confusing because people assume it means a completely different version of the song with different instruments and rhythms, but, the original meaning of remix was readjusting levels of instruments etc.

A remix can sound almost indistinguishable from an original mix, as can a remaster.

_
[Edited 11/11/07 1:10am]


exactly! thank you. nicely put so people can understand. i think alot didnt understand the process of mixing THEN mastering.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 11/11/07 8:56am

ufoclub

avatar

Ultimate was remastered:

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 11/11/07 9:44am

fcukthepolice

ufoclub said:

Ultimate was remastered:



yessir

do you have the wavs fo 3121? I bet they look like a long block; no dynamics?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 11/11/07 10:04am

komputerbleu

avatar

Sign 'o' The Times needs to get remastered!!!!!
Kick the old school joint 4 the true funk soldiers.

1. Sign 'o' the Times
2. 1999
3. Dirty Mind
4. Parade
5. Purple Rain
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 11/11/07 10:31am

fcukthepolice

komputerbleu said:

Sign 'o' The Times needs to get remastered!!!!!



yes i couldn;t agree more

the drums sound so weak and so do the guitars
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 11/11/07 4:03pm

boozoo2

avatar

Cleaning up the sound using seperate tracks has got nothing to do with remixing.

It becomes a remix as soon as you add or remove some instruments or rhythm tracks, or moving about with the volumes on each track not intended in the first place by the recording artist.

Remastering can be done by using the final 2 track master tape, but for instance removing his can only be done on all instruments at the same time.

By using the seperate tracks you can for instance remove hiss from the bassguitar part only. Same goes for EQ-ing etc.

No need to say last option makes a far better and more accurate remaster.

Just by listening to 'ultimate' i'd say they used the final master tape. I'm positive it can be done much better when someone would use the seperate tracks, especially on the 1999/dirty mind/controversy era; still not convinced on those tracks as released on 'ultimate.

They did a pretty good job on the 'sign 'o' the times' era tracks though, almost makes me wonder if they did use seperate tracks there, although probably not...

Saying Stevie's remasters are sh*t is definitely a matter of taste, although i agree on the 'songs in the key of life' part (they obviously forgot to use the deesser on the vocal parts). The rest i think are much better remastered.
[Edited 11/11/07 16:11pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 11/11/07 4:47pm

ufoclub

avatar

boozoo2 said:

Cleaning up the sound using seperate tracks has got nothing to do with remixing.

It becomes a remix as soon as you add or remove some instruments or rhythm tracks, or moving about with the volumes on each track not intended in the first place by the recording artist.

Remastering can be done by using the final 2 track master tape, but for instance removing his can only be done on all instruments at the same time.

By using the seperate tracks you can for instance remove hiss from the bassguitar part only. Same goes for EQ-ing etc.

No need to say last option makes a far better and more accurate remaster.

Just by listening to 'ultimate' i'd say they used the final master tape. I'm positive it can be done much better when someone would use the seperate tracks, especially on the 1999/dirty mind/controversy era; still not convinced on those tracks as released on 'ultimate.

They did a pretty good job on the 'sign 'o' the times' era tracks though, almost makes me wonder if they did use seperate tracks there, although probably not...

Saying Stevie's remasters are sh*t is definitely a matter of taste, although i agree on the 'songs in the key of life' part (they obviously forgot to use the deesser on the vocal parts). The rest i think are much better remastered.
[Edited 11/11/07 16:11pm]


Anytime you go back to the separate tracks you are re-mixing the tracks (and then remastering), it does not have to be a dance remix or have an additional instrument added to be considered remixed. And often this will lead to higher quality sound. I agree with that. But normally the artist does the two track mixdown, and thats it. That's the intended album. Then the mastering company takes this and masters it for final distribution and various mediums.

removing hiss and de-essing????? NO! I want a remaster to bring out every detail and nuance, if someone coughed, I wanna hear it. If a mic had a certain hum, I want to hear it.

Truly, remastering should be about getting EVERY noise to be accurately and clearly presented in the optimal intended balance, if you are trying to make it sound authentic.

If, oon the other hand, you are trying to make it sound modern, then you could go ahead and fix all the "flaws" and make it all ridiculously punchy, and that can be fun too.

But I personally love to hear tape hiss and different textures from the layers/instruments/mics come in and out of the mix. It sounds complex and moody. It's the soul of the sound.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 11/11/07 5:01pm

Raze

avatar

I prefer what they did with Ultimate to anyone going back and fiddling with the original recordings. Because if you go back and "fix" things, you're changing them, recreating them. Just turn the shit up and make a new digital transfer from the original, final master tape. PLEASE! Enough with re-creating the past.
"Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may reach you." - Kahlil Gibran
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 11/12/07 3:34am

fcukthepolice

boozoo2 said:

Cleaning up the sound using seperate tracks has got nothing to do with remixing.

It becomes a remix as soon as you add or remove some instruments or rhythm tracks, or moving about with the volumes on each track not intended in the first place by the recording artist.

Remastering can be done by using the final 2 track master tape, but for instance removing his can only be done on all instruments at the same time.

By using the seperate tracks you can for instance remove hiss from the bassguitar part only. Same goes for EQ-ing etc.

No need to say last option makes a far better and more accurate remaster.

Just by listening to 'ultimate' i'd say they used the final master tape. I'm positive it can be done much better when someone would use the seperate tracks, especially on the 1999/dirty mind/controversy era; still not convinced on those tracks as released on 'ultimate.

They did a pretty good job on the 'sign 'o' the times' era tracks though, almost makes me wonder if they did use seperate tracks there, although probably not...

Saying Stevie's remasters are sh*t is definitely a matter of taste, although i agree on the 'songs in the key of life' part (they obviously forgot to use the deesser on the vocal parts). The rest i think are much better remastered.
[Edited 11/11/07 16:11pm]


ACtually they are shit.This is the common consensus among audiophiles. Just ask steve hoffman who is known as the best mastering engineer in the business.

They DID NOT use the original master tapes. Just copies and the 1999 tracks are miles better than the originals
  - 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 > Re-Mastered Albums?....