ufoclub said:

paisleypark4 said:

I can care less to be honest....In all fairness...get the album on vinyl and convert it. It will sound better than a remaster cd anyway...I'd rather him just keep making new albums and new music...I heard it already so ... ..Just because something is remastered does not mean I am going to hear it anymore better than I did listening to on vinyl?

Really I dont buy remasters...unless they remaster the vinyl itself....on some gold edition..or a out of print

Actually yes, you do hear it better. The Beatles remasters proves this! The sound quality of a careful modern remastering is much better than the past vinyl mastering. And if you hear the DVD-audio versions of songs, it sounds like the difference between the music being in the speakers or having a presence as if it's in the room around you.

Nuances/textures of basslines are some of the most obvious changes throughout entire songs... and I'm sure the same could happen to Prince's stuff!

or the led zeppelin albums, there is a very noticeable difference between the original CDs releases and remastered sets from the 1990 and 1993 and then it is even better with the re-remaster set from 2007. The change in technology has improved.

*best Beatles joke ever was something like this (from the time of the first remastered CD release)

SNL news: Charles Mansion heard the Beatle "White Album" on Compact Disc today for the first time and after hearing the clarity of the songs he was qouted as saying: "Hey, I didn't hear them speaking just to me that time, I guess I must've had a blown speaker or something."

I am not 100% sure I want Prince handling this. I want to be nostalgic about certain time periods in my life, but with way better sound.

I fear and I mean FEAR that he would try to rewrite history [like clean up lyrics, exclude entire songs (Sister, Head, Etc.) IE: I don't want a re-recorded "The Christ", I want remastered "The Cross"].

I just don't think he is good at looking back, he only looks forward, which is something we love about him. But it will also have the effect of making any attempt at an Anthology ending up quite lackluster. More about what he wants to remembered for, and less about what we want to remember.

I do not want him doing it because he doesn't know how to do it. Now someone wants to say "how do you know?"

well i do not. but I he needs to hire a company that dose it and has the special equipment to do it correctly.

this talk of letting a computer do it makes me nervous. Each song needs to be done with care and precession.

RodeoSchro said:

Why would I want remasters?

Seriously, I don't understand. Because they sound better? I have all the early, "bad" stuff on vinyl and it sounds just fine.

Hilarious. You're comparing something to something that doesn't exist yet, and you're already saying the thing that doesn't exist is never gonna beat the thing that already exists?

Let's see: Dylan's albums were remastered for SACD release, and people mentioned how much betetr they were, how they revealed details previously unheard. Why? Because (when done right) remastering is using the latest technology and increased bitrates.

You mention vinyl? Guess what Blue Note are doing: http://www.musicmattersja...sound.html

Why 45 rpm?

by Kevin Gray, AcousTech Mastering

[...]

Advances in cutterheads (the device that etches the groove in the master lacquer disk) and cutting electronics reached a pinnacle in the early 80s. Digital computers arrived on the scene in their best role: Out of the audio chain, but doing machine-control to adjust the groove spacing on the record for maximum playing time and recorded volume. 180 gram virgin vinyl pressings were the next development, and last but not least, around the late 70s, 45 rpm 12” LPs started to appear.

Why 45, you ask? Because it sounds better! In record mastering, the higher the recorded level and frequency, the greater the groove curvature. Curvature isn’t usually a problem, per se, on the outside of a 12” 33 1/3 record, but as the groove moves toward the center, its relative speed slows down and curvature increases. Yes, it is still turning at 33 1/3 revolutions per minute, but consider: one revolution takes 1.8 seconds. That 1.8 seconds at a 12” diameter is covering a lot more territory than at the minimum 4.75” diameter. The result is actually a loss in high frequencies, and increase in distortion as the groove moves to the center. The problems start when the curvature of the groove equals or exceeds the diameter of the playback stylus. What can be done about it? Many things have been tried, but there is no “magic bullet”. Keep the recorded volume to a reasonable level (read: On scale on the meters) is the first thing. Play the record back with an elliptical or line-contact stylus that has a smaller tip radius. And, if possible, make the record short enough to keep the music away from the very end of the disk. This isn’t always possible, of course.

BUT, if we spin the disk at 45rpm we now have a 35% increase in groove velocity at any point on the disk. This is a huge advantage! Yes, the groove still slows down as it moves inward, but the effects are greatly reduced. The only problem is that the amount of recorded time is now also reduced by 35%. What do you do about that? (Hint: split up the LP into 4 sides on 2 records.) Now you’re cookin’ doc! Yep, twice the mastering cost, plating cost, pressing cost, label and jacket costs. It’s enough to make the bean-counters break down and cry. But the sound! Oooooh, yeah! This isn’t sales hype, it’s physics. Listen for yourself. You tell me if it’s worth it. A lot of music lovers think so…and they are right!

ufoclub said:

You all know that there is better than CD sound that many other artist's fans are enjoying... and the Beatles still haven't been put it out like this aside from the remixes on LOVE (and thank The Maker that A Day in The Life is on there intact!)

The Beatles are going to rake it in with audiophiles when they put out the 24 bit versions of the remasters!

I Want my Prince remasters served with all the packaging and added apropriate packaging per album just like The Beatles... but... I want the 24 bit 96 hz DVD-Audio remasters!

And if Prince wants to remix in 5.1... I really wouldn't complain...

so go ahead and make 5.1 DVD-Audio re-issues... and win some technical awards to add to the mantle...

I'm on lunchbreak, don't have time to look this up:

Does a 5.1 mix somehow 'convert' itself to a regular 2.0 mix when played on regular stereo equipment (i.e. will it sound proper when listened to in headphones, or will some elements be 'missing')?

As far as presentation goes, I'd like the remastered WB albums each with a 2nd/3rd disc of official 12" versions and b-sides, sold individually so the curious new fan won't be intimidated by a high price tag.

Alongside this, I want a big-ass boxed set called 'THE VAULT' with all the outtakes and demos us hardcore fans crave... they can charge me out the wazoo for that!

I say sell them like this:

1 big set sold with extras and a few cds.dvds of extra extras only available in the big set and packaged in mini safe that looks like the vault (with that face on it).

then sell the other CDs with extras individulelty

but then each CD has a card that can be collected to allow them to buy the Vault with the extra extras at a discount. but sell the vault safe on its own as well.

that way people can buy them all at once or album by album and the more they buy of the individual the cheaper the VAULT with extras extras would cost.

to me that will allow for the maximum sales.

OR sell the first few with the vault thing and then they can buy the others as they come out.

[Edited 11/6/10 10:41am]

but I do know FOR sure that I do not want ALL of them. And I do not want to wate until they are all turned back over to him.

oh and PLEASE swallow your pride and give the full and complete credits for ALL ALBUMS! Who elese played on For You who else wrote or co-wrote the songs?

same with Prince and Dirty Mind...

and just explain why the credits were fudged. why was C. Moon under credited? why was Morris not gove credit for Party Up?

why is there a violin on Baby?

[Edited 11/6/10 10:45am]

BartVanHemelen said:

RodeoSchro said:

Why would I want remasters?

Seriously, I don't understand. Because they sound better? I have all the early, "bad" stuff on vinyl and it sounds just fine.

Hilarious. You're comparing something to something that doesn't exist yet, and you're already saying the thing that doesn't exist is never gonna beat the thing that already exists?

Let's see: Dylan's albums were remastered for SACD release, and people mentioned how much betetr they were, how they revealed details previously unheard. Why? Because (when done right) remastering is using the latest technology and increased bitrates.

You mention vinyl? Guess what Blue Note are doing: http://www.musicmattersja...sound.html

Why 45 rpm?

by Kevin Gray, AcousTech Mastering

[...]

Advances in cutterheads (the device that etches the groove in the master lacquer disk) and cutting electronics reached a pinnacle in the early 80s. Digital computers arrived on the scene in their best role: Out of the audio chain, but doing machine-control to adjust the groove spacing on the record for maximum playing time and recorded volume. 180 gram virgin vinyl pressings were the next development, and last but not least, around the late 70s, 45 rpm 12” LPs started to appear.

Why 45, you ask? Because it sounds better! In record mastering, the higher the recorded level and frequency, the greater the groove curvature. Curvature isn’t usually a problem, per se, on the outside of a 12” 33 1/3 record, but as the groove moves toward the center, its relative speed slows down and curvature increases. Yes, it is still turning at 33 1/3 revolutions per minute, but consider: one revolution takes 1.8 seconds. That 1.8 seconds at a 12” diameter is covering a lot more territory than at the minimum 4.75” diameter. The result is actually a loss in high frequencies, and increase in distortion as the groove moves to the center. The problems start when the curvature of the groove equals or exceeds the diameter of the playback stylus. What can be done about it? Many things have been tried, but there is no “magic bullet”. Keep the recorded volume to a reasonable level (read: On scale on the meters) is the first thing. Play the record back with an elliptical or line-contact stylus that has a smaller tip radius. And, if possible, make the record short enough to keep the music away from the very end of the disk. This isn’t always possible, of course.

BUT, if we spin the disk at 45rpm we now have a 35% increase in groove velocity at any point on the disk. This is a huge advantage! Yes, the groove still slows down as it moves inward, but the effects are greatly reduced. The only problem is that the amount of recorded time is now also reduced by 35%. What do you do about that? (Hint: split up the LP into 4 sides on 2 records.) Now you’re cookin’ doc! Yep, twice the mastering cost, plating cost, pressing cost, label and jacket costs. It’s enough to make the bean-counters break down and cry. But the sound! Oooooh, yeah! This isn’t sales hype, it’s physics. Listen for yourself. You tell me if it’s worth it. A lot of music lovers think so…and they are right!

Johnny Rotten did it 30 years ago, and they even mention Prince:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Box

But when you hear Stones and Beatles remasters over the past couple of years on vinyl or CD, if you go to the discussion boards with the hardcore fans over there, they've picked it apart song by song and there are times when it blows away the original copy, and other times where they preferred the original they have.

The hoopla over "Exile on Main Street" is the muddy mix and audio that Jagger eventually wanted to fix years ago... some people liked it left alone, other people think it was a vast improvement.

And the hoopla over the Beatles and Dylan ties into the mono versions being released. This goes back to The Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" initial CD release in the late 80s being in mono, because the band thought the stereo versions were poorly mixed.Eventually, when the box set was released, true stereo versions were mixed, released, and are now commercially available, BUT "God Only Knows" is a different lead vocal.

The stereo versions of Dylan and Beatles were usually not overseen by either one, and was rushed by the record company. The mono versions had more involvement with the artists involved and as far as they're concerned, are THE definitive versions.Lennon had said back in 1980 that the mono version of "Pepper" is the definitive version of it.In 1969, most studios were using multitracks (Pepper I think used 4, maybe 8 max) and recording in true stereo.

SACD is only good for those who have a Sony CD player. If Prince wanted to release his remasters with Sony, the good thing about that would be is that every new format Sony puts out, he'd have his back catalog released through them. If he decided to be his own record company and distribute from within, then he has to maintain the tapes, the upkeep, and all the things people do to preserve their recordings. There's a facility called Iron Mountain that usually keeps film and master tapes miles underground in case there's a worst case situation (I asked a reliable source where a certain music video channel warehouses their videos and that's the name they told me)

was it even semi-confirmed that remasters were in the works?

luvsexy4all said:

was it even semi-confirmed that remasters were in the works?

other than prince telling the peach and black crew that they were?

well maybe: we know Prince had at least one meeting at WB which Prince mentioned to PandB.

now the problem is that Prince also said that he had gotten the masters back for his first 3 albums and had remastered the first 6. The problem is (as much as I tried in blind hope to make it 30) it is only at the 30 year mark that he will be able to get the copyright he 'sold' to WB for the master recordings *as opposed to the copyright of the words and music themselves which are 2 different things* meaning that unless WB gave them back 5 years early (or there is some other part of the law other than section 204 that says something different) then he will start to get them back in April 2013.

now interestingly enough this law went into effect jan 1 1978 so it has not really been tested or challenged so it could be that this law could be tossed out all together (which I doubt)

also, the masters need not belong to prince for them to do a remastering, they could have done that at anytime they both wanted to.

what is also not clear is if the remasters would be released by WB or by some other means.

I just bought the "new" Genesis remasters (from the last several years) and they sound amazing. I only ever had Abacab from the 90s, and the difference between old and new remasters is night-and-day. And I'm not talking DVD-Audio or SACD . . . talking normal Redbook standard CDs.

My point of all this: the bandmembers of Genesis were involved hands-on during the remastering process. I would like to see Prince involved, but not the actual person doing them.

Se7en said:

I just bought the "new" Genesis remasters (from the last several years) and they sound amazing. I only ever had Abacab from the 90s, and the difference between old and new remasters is night-and-day. And I'm not talking DVD-Audio or SACD . . . talking normal Redbook standard CDs.

My point of all this: the bandmembers of Genesis were involved hands-on during the remastering process. I would like to see Prince involved, but not the actual person doing them.

i agree 100% it would be 10000000% but one of my fans would come in and say "that is imposable"

Boxset One would include 1978 to 1988

Boxset Two would include 1989-1996 (1999 if you include The Vault: Old Friends 4 Sale)

bboy87 said:

Boxset One would include 1978 to 1988

Boxset Two would include 1989-1996 (1999 if you include The Vault: Old Friends 4 Sale)

well that would save me some money for sure as I would only wany vol 1

Another thing that should be a "benefit" to the remasters of Prince's early work is that those albums (For You through Purple Rain) are short albums, each one hovering around 45 minutes.

On an 80-minute CD, there is plenty of room for enhancing volume levels and EQ without compression, clipping/brickwalling, etc. There will simply be more room on the disc to accommodate the larger files such remastering creates.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

bboy87 said:

Boxset One would include 1978 to 1988

Boxset Two would include 1989-1996 (1999 if you include The Vault: Old Friends 4 Sale)

well that would save me some money for sure as I would only wany vol 1

I even made mock covers if they ever do make boxsets

[img:$uid]http://i54.tinypic.com/2nrhmo3.jpg[/img:$uid]

[img:$uid]http://i55.tinypic.com/254wmbp.jpg[/img:$uid]

If there is a Prince reissue project, it prob. won't mention WB anywhere on it.

The only release I can see him having a problem with is "Batman", because WB has control over that one.I have no idea what they could even do with music to a movie franchise they want to disown with the Nolan/Bale "reboot".

dalsh327 said:

If there is a Prince reissue project, it prob. won't mention WB anywhere on it.

The only release I can see him having a problem with is "Batman", because WB has control over that one.I have no idea what they could even do with music to a movie franchise they want to disown with the Nolan/Bale "reboot".

I am not sure what the full story is but DC also has some say. But unless it was doen as a work for hire then at somepoint the copyright (to the masters) will be revertable to the creators

eyewishuheaven said:

ufoclub said:

You all know that there is better than CD sound that many other artist's fans are enjoying... and the Beatles still haven't been put it out like this aside from the remixes on LOVE (and thank The Maker that A Day in The Life is on there intact!)

The Beatles are going to rake it in with audiophiles when they put out the 24 bit versions of the remasters!

I Want my Prince remasters served with all the packaging and added apropriate packaging per album just like The Beatles... but... I want the 24 bit 96 hz DVD-Audio remasters!

And if Prince wants to remix in 5.1... I really wouldn't complain...

so go ahead and make 5.1 DVD-Audio re-issues... and win some technical awards to add to the mantle...

I'm on lunchbreak, don't have time to look this up:

Does a 5.1 mix somehow 'convert' itself to a regular 2.0 mix when played on regular stereo equipment (i.e. will it sound proper when listened to in headphones, or will some elements be 'missing')?

As far as presentation goes, I'd like the remastered WB albums each with a 2nd/3rd disc of official 12" versions and b-sides, sold individually so the curious new fan won't be intimidated by a high price tag.

Alongside this, I want a big-ass boxed set called 'THE VAULT' with all the outtakes and demos us hardcore fans crave... they can charge me out the wazoo for that!

Your audio equipment can fake a 5.1 mix back to stereo, but it won't sound as good as a genuine stereo mix. The reverse is also true. Dual-Discs have a DVD side with multi-channel mixes and a CD side with the stereo mix. I have a few Talking Heads Dual-Discs, but prefer the stereo mixes and only gave the DVD sides a couple auditions. Studio recorded 5.1 music just doesn't "feel" right to me. 5.1(or higher) live audio, with the audience in the back channels is always cool, but works best while watching a video to get the proper feeling of being immersed in the performance. But that's just me.

Prince supposedly mixed Lovesexy for a 5.1 release at some point.

squirrelgrease said:

Prince supposedly mixed Lovesexy for a 5.1 release at some point.

???

I think properly mixed 5.1 can be the bomb. It doesn't have to be about a co0ncert setting. It can be mixed exactly like stereo (certain instruments panned around to certain spaces, with a vocal centered) but the beauty of it is that a vocal could be mixed to be in the middle of the space or a harmony vocal from speaker left rear... it opens up a so much creative space!

ufoclub said:

squirrelgrease said:

Prince supposedly mixed Lovesexy for a 5.1 release at some point.

???

I think properly mixed 5.1 can be the bomb. It doesn't have to be about a co0ncert setting. It can be mixed exactly like stereo (certain instruments panned around to certain spaces, with a vocal centered) but the beauty of it is that a vocal could be mixed to be in the middle of the space or a harmony vocal from speaker left rear... it opens up a so much creative space!

Prince mentioned the Lovesexy 5.1 himself I believe.

I totally understand why people would really dig surround albums, but they're not for me. I have enough DVD-As that I think I gave it the ol' college try, but I can take 'em or leave 'em.

I have the Pixies Surfer Rosa Mo-Fi SACD Hybrid stereo remaster and that is a killer audio experience for me. I need to get the rest of Mo-Fi's Pixies releases.

squirrelgrease said:

eyewishuheaven said:

I'm on lunchbreak, don't have time to look this up:

Does a 5.1 mix somehow 'convert' itself to a regular 2.0 mix when played on regular stereo equipment (i.e. will it sound proper when listened to in headphones, or will some elements be 'missing')?

As far as presentation goes, I'd like the remastered WB albums each with a 2nd/3rd disc of official 12" versions and b-sides, sold individually so the curious new fan won't be intimidated by a high price tag.

Alongside this, I want a big-ass boxed set called 'THE VAULT' with all the outtakes and demos us hardcore fans crave... they can charge me out the wazoo for that!

Your audio equipment can fake a 5.1 mix back to stereo, but it won't sound as good as a genuine stereo mix. The reverse is also true. Dual-Discs have a DVD side with multi-channel mixes and a CD side with the stereo mix. I have a few Talking Heads Dual-Discs, but prefer the stereo mixes and only gave the DVD sides a couple auditions. Studio recorded 5.1 music just doesn't "feel" right to me. 5.1(or higher) live audio, with the audience in the back channels is always cool, but works best while watching a video to get the proper feeling of being immersed in the performance. But that's just me.

Prince supposedly mixed Lovesexy for a 5.1 release at some point.

Isn't the audio on the DVD or Blu Ray of Purple Rain in 5.1?

bboy87 said:

squirrelgrease said:

Your audio equipment can fake a 5.1 mix back to stereo, but it won't sound as good as a genuine stereo mix. The reverse is also true. Dual-Discs have a DVD side with multi-channel mixes and a CD side with the stereo mix. I have a few Talking Heads Dual-Discs, but prefer the stereo mixes and only gave the DVD sides a couple auditions. Studio recorded 5.1 music just doesn't "feel" right to me. 5.1(or higher) live audio, with the audience in the back channels is always cool, but works best while watching a video to get the proper feeling of being immersed in the performance. But that's just me.

Prince supposedly mixed Lovesexy for a 5.1 release at some point.

Isn't the audio on the DVD or Blu Ray of Purple Rain in 5.1?

Yes.

squirrelgrease said:

bboy87 said:

Isn't the audio on the DVD or Blu Ray of Purple Rain in 5.1?

Yes.

That's a movie soundtrack mixed to enhance the environment you see on the screen. I'm pretty sure all the music is still the stereo mixes slightly altered.

A warning: DVD-audio which can only be heard if you have a DVD-A player or decoder and 5 discrete analog hookups to your receiver if you're disc player is the decoder (yes most people who think they are hearing their dvd-a tracks are actually only hearing their dolby 5.1 tracks, and there is a huge difference!) Most salesmen in a store like Best Buy don't even know this. i even met one audiophile rich guy who had his setup for a year and didn't know this. DVD-A cannot be transmitted through an HDMI or digital audio cable.

I would like to see Prince take a leaf out of Bruce Springsteen's book when it comes to remasters like the recent Darkness on the edge of town re-release. Re-mastered album, a 2 cd collection of unreleased tracks from that era, a documentary dvd, a live dvd from 1978 and a book. I would love 2 see that from every album. But I fear, what we will get is a lyrically edited re master with some extra pics in the booklet.

squirrelgrease, ufoclub, thank you for the detailed information!

Although my gut reaction is that creating new 5.1 remixes seems a little 'George Lucas' to me, I'm gonna have to check out some of those Talking Heads reissues... I know I like live 5.1 mixes (Elvis Costello's Spectacle sounds superb!). But that, as you say, is best for when you're sitting and watching. Does 5.1 work as well when you're dancing around all over the place?

As long as the original stereo mix is preserved, I'm cool either way.

ufoclub said:

I think properly mixed 5.1 can be the bomb. It doesn't have to be about a co0ncert setting. It can be mixed exactly like stereo (certain instruments panned around to certain spaces, with a vocal centered) but the beauty of it is that a vocal could be mixed to be in the middle of the space or a harmony vocal from speaker left rear... it opens up a so much creative space!

I remember being a little kid in the 70's, and wishing that my KISS records were mixed for four speakers, with one band member in each speaker. Can you imagine how crap that would have sounded?!?

dalsh327 said:

SACD is only good for those who have a Sony CD player.

Do I say anywhere that Prince should release on SACD?

But we should be on the third round of remasters by now, IMHO:

- first remaster: late 1990s: proper mastering of all albums, perhaps in some LP-like artwork (liek the Japan reissues from last year)

- second remaster: mid-2000s: remaster for high-end audio formats (SACD/DVD-A), maybe 5.1 mix for some albums; "Expaneded Editions" featuring B-sides, single mixes, outtakes,... Perferably including some decent liner notes.

- third remaster: remaster for Blu-ray audio; including more outtakes plus live recordings from the era; expanded liner notes plus pictures of archive material; alternate tracklists (available via branching); box sets including unreleased album projects; also remasters of associate artists' material including outtakes etc; unreleased videos...

So that's THREE opportunities where Prince manages to not earn money plus secure his legacy. (And before anyone babbles about Prince being forward-looking: the average age of the songs he's playing live these days is 25 years.)

ufoclub said:

squirrelgrease said:

Yes.

That's a movie soundtrack mixed to enhance the environment you see on the screen. I'm pretty sure all the music is still the stereo mixes slightly altered.

A warning: DVD-audio which can only be heard if you have a DVD-A player or decoder and 5 discrete analog hookups to your receiver if you're disc player is the decoder (yes most people who think they are hearing their dvd-a tracks are actually only hearing their dolby 5.1 tracks, and there is a huge difference!) Most salesmen in a store like Best Buy don't even know this. i even met one audiophile rich guy who had his setup for a year and didn't know this. DVD-A cannot be transmitted through an HDMI or digital audio cable.

I seriously don't get why you lot are still discussing DVD-A. It's dead. It was never that alive to begin with.

If you want superior audio, put it on Blu-ray.

http://www.soundadviceblo...explained/

http://www.bigpicturebigs...1652.shtml

The Beatles remaster box is a good model. Served in one shot (or each album sold separately).