This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.
New topic 
Printable princepissyfuckers.org | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
If Eye Was the Man in Ur Life is the last track on side 3 of Musicology, and On the Couch starts side 4. That's going to sound awful unless they've gone back to the multi tracks and created a new mix. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Yeah, I thought that.
They've probably just faded out If Eye Was... in the jazzy part at the end. And cut On The Couch start neatly on its opening downbeat....
Fingers crossed! |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
. Friends don't let friends clap on 1 and 3.
The Paisley Park Vault spreadsheet: https://goo.gl/zzWHrU |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
How is the sound on them?
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Rave In2 is also getting a vinyl release in April. I guess Un2 will also. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I ordered mine for 3121, they definetley have to make Emancipation and Crystal Ball reissues next "Wish eye had a dollar 4 everytime U say, don't U miss the feeling Music gave u, back in the day"
- Prince (2004) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Next is Rave Un2 and Rave In2 vinyls... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'm excited by these reissues. I hope we get see The Rainbow Children and The Truth on Vinyl soon also. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Yeah, so he can listen to the B-FACES A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...scography/ |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
no one's answered the question...R THESE remastered??? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
No. If they were it would have been emphasised in the maketing campaign (it's a strong argument for additional sales). However Susan once explained that in her days, different masters were made for LP's and CD's (she didn't say about cassettes), so technically there are at least 2 masters for each album that was released on both formats, and those may have been slightly remastered for the LP format, but given that it would have involved extra costs, it's likely that they weren't and what we have is the CD masters on LP. On a sidenote, I'm a bit puzzled by those artists remastering album published after 1995 or so. Like Kate Bush remastering her two 2011 albums in the recent box-set, for example: remasters are supposed to benefit from the progress in technology, but how could a 2011 record possibly benefit from any improvement in 2018? A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...scography/ |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
My question goes for those 3 Prince albums as well: what need could we possibly have for remasters?databank said:
No. If they were it would have been emphasised in the maketing campaign (it's a strong argument for additional sales). However Susan once explained that in her days, different masters were made for LP's and CD's (she didn't say about cassettes), so technically there are at least 2 masters for each album that was released on both formats, and those may have been slightly remastered for the LP format, but given that it would have involved extra costs, it's likely that they weren't and what we have is the CD masters on LP. On a sidenote, I'm a bit puzzled by those artists remastering album published after 1995 or so. Like Kate Bush remastering her two 2011 albums in the recent box-set, for example: remasters are supposed to benefit from the progress in technology, but how could a 2011 record possibly benefit from any improvement in 2018? Remasters aren’t necessarily about technological progress. It can also be that the masters simply were not “good” or that they could be “better” (subjectively speaking). | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
I guess it makes sense, yes. But what could Kate possibly make "better" now that she couldn't 7 years ago? It's not like she was a rookie in 2011. And it's not the same time I see albums remastered a mere few years after being released... A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...scography/ |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Have you heard the remaster of OK Computer? It sounds phenomenal, especially on vinyl. Check out The Collector's Guide to Prince on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/p...4ldzxwlEuy | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
embmmusic said:
Have you heard the remaster of OK Computer? It sounds phenomenal, especially on vinyl. I don't really trip on Radiohead but OK, that's interesting. A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...scography/ |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
. Production masters (that are used for duplication) require different EQ-curves for different formats and there are differences in the maximum dynamic range they can handle and of course an LP required two separate reels of production master tapes (one for each side) while a cassette required one 4-track production master with the B-side running backwards so that the whole tape could be duplicated in one go, etc etc. There are many differences. Creating these different production masters for different formats is not the same process as what the general public usually means on 'remastering'. . And there's no such thing as "a CD master on LP". If you play back an LP production master tape, it will actually sound worse than the LP that was produced from it. It is because its EQ curve is designed to sound good on the finished product, not directly on the master. .
Friends don't let friends clap on 1 and 3.
The Paisley Park Vault spreadsheet: https://goo.gl/zzWHrU |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Thx for those explainations. . I am, however, confused: the old CDs we have (FY to Lovesexy), that everyone complains sound awful, are not straight from the original LP masters? What about the better sounding versions on HD tracks? New masters were created for each? . Also, what else is involved in remastering except EQ-curves and dynamic levels? I thought remastering was all about those? . Thanks for your help A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...scography/ |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
As someone non-technical I do know that there is quite a difference in sound waves possible on vinyl vs CD. This might not be right terminology but vinyl can "hold" a wider waveform than CD which is therefore "compressed". Similarly MP3 compress even further. That is why music sounds "warmer" on vinyl and (many argue) better.
That is why, I assume, back in the 80s there needed to be separate masters for the different end products (apart from actual production requirements mentioned above it also needed to reflect sound wavelength for each technology). It is easy the find info on the internet about this but this site gives a good explanation (I will paste an extract below)... https://electronics.howst...r-dvds.htm "...by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate. In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to your amplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker. A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion. This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard as noise or static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise." So albums recorded in analogue studio equipment (80s and before) rather than digital require remastering to counteract the drop in sound waves that results from transferring from analogue masters to CDs. They "clean it up" and play with the balance etc (wrong words again I know) so any loss (that would not have happened on Vinyl) is addressed for CD in a new master. That of course doesn't address the point on Kate Bush 2011 albums BUT personally I think that is just a marketing gimmick and labelling for consumers (clearly her 70s and 80s albums have been remastered). Also read this... https://musicfans.stackex...ered/12#12 And this... https://www.popularmechan...ld-albums/ "The process is also an act of preservation. For many albums, the original master tapes were so valuable that engineers made what's called a production master—a second version that could be played constantly for duplication. Overuse often degraded production masters, which is why many compact discs from the 1990s, which used them as a template, have compromised bass and tinny sounds at certain frequencies. So remastering engineers go back to the original tapes. "We used first-generation masters, the sounds the band themselves heard in the studio, for everything on the In Utero reissue," says engineer Steve Albini, who worked on the remaster of Nirvana's final album. "The result is a definitive vinyl mold of a cultural artifact." [Edited 1/29/19 0:21am] 'I loved him then, I love him now and will love him eternally. He's with our son now.' Mayte 21st April 2016 = the saddest quote I have ever read! RIP Prince and thanks for everything. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
New topic Printable This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.