You can have your PR's, SOTT's. They are okay for now until they get to them in the near future. For You needs to be remastered first. The material is that great (albeit conventional) but the murkiness underminds the songs. SOTT still sounds at least decent unmastered. For You, not so much.

.

[Edited 11/7/16 18:27pm]

Im all for going as far back as possible!

Iamtheorg said:

You can have your PR's, SOTT's. They are okay for now until they get to them in the near future. For You needs to be remaster first. The material is that gret but the murkiness underminds the songs. SOTT still sounds at least decent unmastered. For You, not so much.

They are remastered! I have For You and Prince on vinyl, and they sound great. (I do think Dirty Mind gained the most from remastering though.)

Whether or not they're remastered makes zolcho difference to me and I reckon it meant zilcho to Prince as well.
For one, when people talk of remastering, many seem to think they're getting something radically remixed when, in essence, it's like opening up the existing tracks in iTunes and then turning on the equaliser. THAT'S IT.

The master was the mixdown and since he was cutting vinyl at the time, there's little way round the fact that to return to the master and rebalance it for another vinyl cut is POINTLESSNESS INCARNATE.

The 'remastering' fad is just completist and audiophile sheepery. The collectors used to buy everything that came out four or five times for all the formats and via forums like Steve Hoffman now have their own little society of UTTER TWADDLE where, combined with the forces of audiophilia, they reckon that the same stream of digital data landing on a different type of plastic (SHM-CD) results in a 'superior listen' well worth paying 2 to 3 times the price for.

It's cack and chips people. Do you really think that the record companies cut a new royalties deal with artists and producers on those SHM-CDs? No. They put them out through Japan knowing that it's a way to increase their margins by orders of hundreds of percent without the slightest additional outlay other than, perhaps, adding packaging (an OBI strip) that might slightly justify (I did say slightly) their traditional 'packaging deduction' from royalties that was to cover double gatefold and inserts on vinyl in the 70's!!
But put out a few 'influencers' into social media and suddenly you've got audiophile sheep abandoning logic to verify that the same stream of digital data coming from a different type of plastic via the same laser on their player is 'vastly superior'.
It's gaspingly ludicrous to put it mildly but sure, go ahead, PAY FOR THAT EXEC'S YACHT.

If Prince HAD gone back to his (multitrack) masters and output a different result, y'all would be complaining he'd messed with perfection as originally released.

There are some things he's put out that had idiosyncratic balances but THEY'RE PART OF THE UNIQUENESS THAT WAS HIS SHIT, for f's sake.

'Remastering' is generally nothing but 'reissuing' and y'all would wise to get hip to the fact it's the latest way to 'sell what's already been sold'.

All that glitters ain't gold.

[Edited 11/7/16 23:41pm]

TrivialPursuit said:

They are remastered! I have For You and Prince on vinyl, and they sound great. (I do think Dirty Mind gained the most from remastering though.)

.

Bully for you - BUT for those of us who are into vinyl... Know what I mean??

XSX said:

Whether or not they're remastered makes zolcho difference to me and I reckon it meant zilcho to Prince as well.
For one, when people talk of remastering, many seem to think they're getting something radically remixed when, in essence, it's like opening up the existing tracks in iTunes and then turning on the equaliser. THAT'S IT.

The master was the mixdown and since he was cutting vinyl at the time, there's little way round the fact that to return to the master and rebalance it for another vinyl cut is POINTLESSNESS INCARNATE.

The 'remastering' fad is just completist and audiophile sheepery. The collectors used to buy everything that came out four or five times for all the formats and via forums like Steve Hoffman now have their own little society of UTTER TWADDLE where, combined with the forces of audiophilia, they reckon that the same stream of digital data landing on a different type of plastic (SHM-CD) results in a 'superior listen' well worth paying 2 to 3 times the price for.

It's cack and chips people. Do you really think that the record companies cut a new royalties deal with artists and producers on those SHM-CDs? No. They put them out through Japan knowing that it's a way to increase their margins by orders of hundreds of percent without the slightest additional outlay other than, perhaps, adding packaging (an OBI strip) that might slightly justify (I did say slightly) their traditional 'packaging deduction' from royalties that was to cover double gatefold and inserts on vinyl in the 70's!!
But put out a few 'influencers' into social media and suddenly you've got audiophile sheep abandoning logic to verify that the same stream of digital data coming from a different type of plastic via the same laser on their player is 'vastly superior'.
It's gaspingly ludicrous to put it mildly but sure, go ahead, PAY FOR THAT EXEC'S YACHT.

If Prince HAD gone back to his (multitrack) masters and output a different result, y'all would be complaining he'd messed with perfection as originally released.

There are some things he's put out that had idiosyncratic balances but THEY'RE PART OF THE UNIQUENESS THAT WAS HIS SHIT, for f's sake.

'Remastering' is generally nothing but 'reissuing' and y'all would wise to get hip to the fact it's the latest way to 'sell what's already been sold'.

All that glitters ain't gold.

[Edited 11/7/16 23:41pm]

fms said:

XSX said:

Whether or not they're remastered makes zolcho difference to me and I reckon it meant zilcho to Prince as well.
For one, when people talk of remastering, many seem to think they're getting something radically remixed when, in essence, it's like opening up the existing tracks in iTunes and then turning on the equaliser. THAT'S IT.

The master was the mixdown and since he was cutting vinyl at the time, there's little way round the fact that to return to the master and rebalance it for another vinyl cut is POINTLESSNESS INCARNATE.

The 'remastering' fad is just completist and audiophile sheepery. The collectors used to buy everything that came out four or five times for all the formats and via forums like Steve Hoffman now have their own little society of UTTER TWADDLE where, combined with the forces of audiophilia, they reckon that the same stream of digital data landing on a different type of plastic (SHM-CD) results in a 'superior listen' well worth paying 2 to 3 times the price for.

It's cack and chips people. Do you really think that the record companies cut a new royalties deal with artists and producers on those SHM-CDs? No. They put them out through Japan knowing that it's a way to increase their margins by orders of hundreds of percent without the slightest additional outlay other than, perhaps, adding packaging (an OBI strip) that might slightly justify (I did say slightly) their traditional 'packaging deduction' from royalties that was to cover double gatefold and inserts on vinyl in the 70's!!
But put out a few 'influencers' into social media and suddenly you've got audiophile sheep abandoning logic to verify that the same stream of digital data coming from a different type of plastic via the same laser on their player is 'vastly superior'.
It's gaspingly ludicrous to put it mildly but sure, go ahead, PAY FOR THAT EXEC'S YACHT.

If Prince HAD gone back to his (multitrack) masters and output a different result, y'all would be complaining he'd messed with perfection as originally released.

There are some things he's put out that had idiosyncratic balances but THEY'RE PART OF THE UNIQUENESS THAT WAS HIS SHIT, for f's sake.

'Remastering' is generally nothing but 'reissuing' and y'all would wise to get hip to the fact it's the latest way to 'sell what's already been sold'.

All that glitters ain't gold.

[Edited 11/7/16 23:41pm]

.

There is good remastering and bad remastering.

.

And also great... and also horrible...

.

The right mastering engineer can make a positive impact on a thirty year old recording.

.

If it was as simple as turning on the iTunes equalizer, then "mastering engineer" wouldn't be a job title.

[Edited 11/8/16 8:27am]

YES

YES!getwild180 said:

The self titled Prince album needs remastering with the long version of Sexy Dancer included.

True!

XSX said:

Whether or not they're remastered makes zolcho difference to me and I reckon it meant zilcho to Prince as well.
For one, when people talk of remastering, many seem to think they're getting something radically remixed when, in essence, it's like opening up the existing tracks in iTunes and then turning on the equaliser. THAT'S IT.

The master was the mixdown and since he was cutting vinyl at the time, there's little way round the fact that to return to the master and rebalance it for another vinyl cut is POINTLESSNESS INCARNATE.

The 'remastering' fad is just completist and audiophile sheepery. The collectors used to buy everything that came out four or five times for all the formats and via forums like Steve Hoffman now have their own little society of UTTER TWADDLE where, combined with the forces of audiophilia, they reckon that the same stream of digital data landing on a different type of plastic (SHM-CD) results in a 'superior listen' well worth paying 2 to 3 times the price for.

It's cack and chips people. Do you really think that the record companies cut a new royalties deal with artists and producers on those SHM-CDs? No. They put them out through Japan knowing that it's a way to increase their margins by orders of hundreds of percent without the slightest additional outlay other than, perhaps, adding packaging (an OBI strip) that might slightly justify (I did say slightly) their traditional 'packaging deduction' from royalties that was to cover double gatefold and inserts on vinyl in the 70's!!
But put out a few 'influencers' into social media and suddenly you've got audiophile sheep abandoning logic to verify that the same stream of digital data coming from a different type of plastic via the same laser on their player is 'vastly superior'.
It's gaspingly ludicrous to put it mildly but sure, go ahead, PAY FOR THAT EXEC'S YACHT.

If Prince HAD gone back to his (multitrack) masters and output a different result, y'all would be complaining he'd messed with perfection as originally released.

There are some things he's put out that had idiosyncratic balances but THEY'RE PART OF THE UNIQUENESS THAT WAS HIS SHIT, for f's sake.

'Remastering' is generally nothing but 'reissuing' and y'all would wise to get hip to the fact it's the latest way to 'sell what's already been sold'.

All that glitters ain't gold.

[Edited 11/7/16 23:41pm]

What was wrong with the original mastering? I still have all my original vinyl (For You through Batman) and it sounds great.

I mean...I agree that the transfer from analog to digital wasn't great (SOTT sounds especially bad). But is there a point to re-buying the vinyl?

XSX said:

Whether or not they're remastered makes zolcho difference to me and I reckon it meant zilcho to Prince as well.
For one, when people talk of remastering, many seem to think they're getting something radically remixed when, in essence, it's like opening up the existing tracks in iTunes and then turning on the equaliser. THAT'S IT.

The master was the mixdown and since he was cutting vinyl at the time, there's little way round the fact that to return to the master and rebalance it for another vinyl cut is POINTLESSNESS INCARNATE.

The 'remastering' fad is just completist and audiophile sheepery. The collectors used to buy everything that came out four or five times for all the formats and via forums like Steve Hoffman now have their own little society of UTTER TWADDLE where, combined with the forces of audiophilia, they reckon that the same stream of digital data landing on a different type of plastic (SHM-CD) results in a 'superior listen' well worth paying 2 to 3 times the price for.

It's cack and chips people. Do you really think that the record companies cut a new royalties deal with artists and producers on those SHM-CDs? No. They put them out through Japan knowing that it's a way to increase their margins by orders of hundreds of percent without the slightest additional outlay other than, perhaps, adding packaging (an OBI strip) that might slightly justify (I did say slightly) their traditional 'packaging deduction' from royalties that was to cover double gatefold and inserts on vinyl in the 70's!!
But put out a few 'influencers' into social media and suddenly you've got audiophile sheep abandoning logic to verify that the same stream of digital data coming from a different type of plastic via the same laser on their player is 'vastly superior'.
It's gaspingly ludicrous to put it mildly but sure, go ahead, PAY FOR THAT EXEC'S YACHT.

If Prince HAD gone back to his (multitrack) masters and output a different result, y'all would be complaining he'd messed with perfection as originally released.

There are some things he's put out that had idiosyncratic balances but THEY'RE PART OF THE UNIQUENESS THAT WAS HIS SHIT, for f's sake.

'Remastering' is generally nothing but 'reissuing' and y'all would wise to get hip to the fact it's the latest way to 'sell what's already been sold'.

All that glitters ain't gold.

[Edited 11/7/16 23:41pm]

You're completely wrong, of course. The original mix down tapes are what were sent to be mastered. For You was undoubtedly mastered primarily for vinyl. The master tape is the mastered version of the mix downs. The mix downs sound great in the studio. REmastering is taking the original mixes (not the oringial masters), and starting over with a completely new mastering session. It is NOTHING like opening the equalizer in iTunes. As a studio person I've been part of mastering sessions and it is sooo much more than you realize.

[Edited 11/8/16 14:10pm]

Genesia said:

What was wrong with the original mastering? I still have all my original vinyl (For You through Batman) and it sounds great.

I mean...I agree that the transfer from analog to digital wasn't great (SOTT sounds especially bad). But is there a point to re-buying the vinyl?

I think most consumers aren't interested in vinyl and as the analog to digital tranfers were particularly awful and the mastering for the early records focused on vinyl a remaster is needed. Rebuying the vinyl might not be necessary, but digital is the medium of choice these days. The Beatles suffered a similar plague in the analog to digital conversion and the Beatles remasters sounds incredible. If you A/B a Beatles CD from the 1980s with one of the new remasters the results are jaw-dropping. I'm not sure there's quite as much room for improvement with Prince, but there is defintely improvement to be had. I'm not talking about volume war stuff at all, just overall quality.

Ok, so nobody wants remasters. Got it

Iamtheorg said:

getwild180 said:

The self titled Prince album needs remastering with the long version of Sexy Dancer included.

As a bonus track, sure - but replacing the album version in sequence is not the way to go.

steakfinger said:

XSX said:

Whether or not they're remastered makes zolcho difference to me and I reckon it meant zilcho to Prince as well.
For one, when people talk of remastering, many seem to think they're getting something radically remixed when, in essence, it's like opening up the existing tracks in iTunes and then turning on the equaliser. THAT'S IT.

The master was the mixdown and since he was cutting vinyl at the time, there's little way round the fact that to return to the master and rebalance it for another vinyl cut is POINTLESSNESS INCARNATE.

The 'remastering' fad is just completist and audiophile sheepery. The collectors used to buy everything that came out four or five times for all the formats and via forums like Steve Hoffman now have their own little society of UTTER TWADDLE where, combined with the forces of audiophilia, they reckon that the same stream of digital data landing on a different type of plastic (SHM-CD) results in a 'superior listen' well worth paying 2 to 3 times the price for.

It's cack and chips people. Do you really think that the record companies cut a new royalties deal with artists and producers on those SHM-CDs? No. They put them out through Japan knowing that it's a way to increase their margins by orders of hundreds of percent without the slightest additional outlay other than, perhaps, adding packaging (an OBI strip) that might slightly justify (I did say slightly) their traditional 'packaging deduction' from royalties that was to cover double gatefold and inserts on vinyl in the 70's!!
But put out a few 'influencers' into social media and suddenly you've got audiophile sheep abandoning logic to verify that the same stream of digital data coming from a different type of plastic via the same laser on their player is 'vastly superior'.
It's gaspingly ludicrous to put it mildly but sure, go ahead, PAY FOR THAT EXEC'S YACHT.

If Prince HAD gone back to his (multitrack) masters and output a different result, y'all would be complaining he'd messed with perfection as originally released.

There are some things he's put out that had idiosyncratic balances but THEY'RE PART OF THE UNIQUENESS THAT WAS HIS SHIT, for f's sake.

'Remastering' is generally nothing but 'reissuing' and y'all would wise to get hip to the fact it's the latest way to 'sell what's already been sold'.

All that glitters ain't gold.

[Edited 11/7/16 23:41pm]

You're completely wrong, of course. The original mix down tapes are what were sent to be mastered. For You was undoubtedly mastered primarily for vinyl. The master tape is the mastered version of the mix downs. The mix downs sound great in the studio. REmastering is taking the original mixes (not the oringial masters), and starting over with a completely new mastering session. It is NOTHING like opening the equalizer in iTunes. As a studio person I've been part of mastering sessions and it is sooo much more than you realize.

[Edited 11/8/16 14:10pm]

From Steve Hoffman (a good, simple explanation.)

steakfinger said:

XSX said:

Whether or not they're remastered makes zolcho difference to me and I reckon it meant zilcho to Prince as well.
For one, when people talk of remastering, many seem to think they're getting something radically remixed when, in essence, it's like opening up the existing tracks in iTunes and then turning on the equaliser. THAT'S IT.

The master was the mixdown and since he was cutting vinyl at the time, there's little way round the fact that to return to the master and rebalance it for another vinyl cut is POINTLESSNESS INCARNATE.

The 'remastering' fad is just completist and audiophile sheepery. The collectors used to buy everything that came out four or five times for all the formats and via forums like Steve Hoffman now have their own little society of UTTER TWADDLE where, combined with the forces of audiophilia, they reckon that the same stream of digital data landing on a different type of plastic (SHM-CD) results in a 'superior listen' well worth paying 2 to 3 times the price for.

It's cack and chips people. Do you really think that the record companies cut a new royalties deal with artists and producers on those SHM-CDs? No. They put them out through Japan knowing that it's a way to increase their margins by orders of hundreds of percent without the slightest additional outlay other than, perhaps, adding packaging (an OBI strip) that might slightly justify (I did say slightly) their traditional 'packaging deduction' from royalties that was to cover double gatefold and inserts on vinyl in the 70's!!
But put out a few 'influencers' into social media and suddenly you've got audiophile sheep abandoning logic to verify that the same stream of digital data coming from a different type of plastic via the same laser on their player is 'vastly superior'.
It's gaspingly ludicrous to put it mildly but sure, go ahead, PAY FOR THAT EXEC'S YACHT.

If Prince HAD gone back to his (multitrack) masters and output a different result, y'all would be complaining he'd messed with perfection as originally released.

There are some things he's put out that had idiosyncratic balances but THEY'RE PART OF THE UNIQUENESS THAT WAS HIS SHIT, for f's sake.

'Remastering' is generally nothing but 'reissuing' and y'all would wise to get hip to the fact it's the latest way to 'sell what's already been sold'.

All that glitters ain't gold.

[Edited 11/7/16 23:41pm]

You're completely wrong, of course. The original mix down tapes are what were sent to be mastered. For You was undoubtedly mastered primarily for vinyl. The master tape is the mastered version of the mix downs. The mix downs sound great in the studio. REmastering is taking the original mixes (not the oringial masters), and starting over with a completely new mastering session. It is NOTHING like opening the equalizer in iTunes. As a studio person I've been part of mastering sessions and it is sooo much more than you realize.

[Edited 11/8/16 14:10pm]

Okay, but if you re-read me, I did understand that part. I mention the multitrack masters because around and about you will find an enthusiasm for 'remasters' that seems to assume a remix has been performed.

I may be ever-so-slightly facetious in saying about mastering 'it's like opening the equaliser in iTunes' but I'm not wrong, technically, because mastering IS opening a fixed mixdown of a finished balanced track and then EQing it for a medium (vinyl and CD for example having their own needs).

The greater point was that although I would agree that some of the 80's releases were sonically questionable in some aspects and on some tracks, this was a view, expressed hundreds of times over the years by fans, that was to do with MIXING choices not MASTERING choices.

Grundman cut perfectly cool vinyl masters and what I don't understand is why we'd need another cut for the same medium.
The real reason, as I see it, is because a reissue that doesn't state 'remastered' on the sticker is going to be flamed because of a fad for remastering, needed or not.
I don't think Prince's work needs remastered.

I could see a case for going back to the multitracks to pull up some balances but until the fad changes (back) to 'Remix your own version' (Bowie, Prince, McCartney, Gabriel et al at various points since the 90's and Dhani Harrison/The Beatles very slyly via 'Rock Band'), then the only reason I'd want a new vinyl copy of a Prince album would be because I dropped something on it one time that made for a clunk of a scratch.

The original vinyl mastering made me want to buy Prince. I bought it. I'd like to buy some new Prince now, please.

But to go on a bit more about the remastering fad, this reached mainstream saturation after The Beatles remasters started coming out on CD and then vinyl in stereo and then mono from 2009 onwards. Reviews were ecstatic, promoting the value of remastering etc etc.

What wasn't mentioned too much was that the original vinyl cuts were fine, as many vinyl people are now discovering by buying them up as their prices drop.
The reviewers and listeners of 2009+ had never heard these vinyl cuts. Indeed the people who had heard them back on release heard them on much more primitive setups because 'audiophile' setups didn't exist.

While I've no doubt that there were improvements made with these Beatle vinyls (there was a lot of correction of tape faults etc going on at Abbey Road before they recut), most remastering IS a case of re-equalisation of a finished product for a target medium.
With Prince, given the 'auteur' nature of his craft where he follows the track through almost INTO the mastering session, I think a repress/reissue is more appropriate.

To put it another way, I don't want Picasso's shades of green 'remastered' because there's a fad for remastering shades of green.

Remastering be damned!

[Edited 11/10/16 11:52am]