For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
ironbellyAre you talking aboutQuote
71Tele
Re: The master tapes: I remember an interview with whomever did the original CD mastering (name escapes me, sorry) and he said what were marked as the master tapes sounded terrible. Then they found a copy of the master with various eq indications. That is what was actually used on the original vinyl and that tape is what they used to make the first CD. Maybe this "second" master was not available for the Universal version.
Musician - April 1987 # 102
Rolling Stones on CD: You Can Get What You Need. By Scott Isler
???
Here is a link to that article
[forums.stevehoffman.tv]
Kind of fun to read those 30 years old approaches.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
NaturalustQuote
treaclefingers
OK, thx for the detail, but to paraphrase it succinctly, are you saying there is no cropping at the higher and lower levels, and that it's just being squashed? That doesn't jive with how I've seen the explanation described previously.
Sorry to continue however to me at least, there seems to be different explanations on what is going on here, with the compression.
Dynamic range (DR) compression doesn't crop musical content, it's still there. For instance if an original song went from 2 to 9 on a 1 to 10 volume scale, after DR compression in might go from 3 to 7. Then some engineers turn the whole song up to say 6 to 10 in order to get it to sound louder. ie) the loudness wars.
Data compression is a whole other thing. Algorithms that convert songs to mp3 do indeed crop musical content in order to make the file smaller. High frequencies are often eliminated in the process, cropped out so to speak.
When people talk about "compression" these days it either data compression or dynamic range compression but they are two very different techniques. Probably the source for a lot of confusion. Both techniques have their advantages but have been over used to the point of negatively effecting the listening experience.
peace
OK thank you very much Naturalust for that explanation, I appreciate it and that finally makes sense.
Quote
GasLightStreet
Another article that talks about the loudness of UMe's EOMS vs VR's EOMS. There's a hilarious error about EOMS in this one as well.
[www.soundstageaccess.com]
Quote
GasLightStreet
One of the things lost in translation over the years has been the sense of space in these albums. As Was points out, one of the most important factors in determining how we hear a band in any recording is the sound stage -- the sense of depth and focus that not only allows us to pick out the individual instruments, but also lends them a sense of spatial reality.
"The space is really important," he says. "It's like a Sonny Rollins record, where the spaces that he leaves are as important as the notes he plays. It's the same with the interrelationships in [the Stones]. And with these reissues, I think they have been extremely conscientious about getting as close as they could to their original intentions."
Perhaps the toughest thing was finding the right place to start. "In the end, we went back to the first vinyl pressings of the album, which were the only things where the original eqs were probably employed," says Was.
[articles.baltimoresun.com]
I can't locate it and for all I know it was only in a magazine but I recall reading that Jagger and Ludwig listened to several remasters that Ludwig had done of SF and EOMS and kept being mystified about how they didn't sound like the original albums. It was something about the horns not sounding like the vinyl editions. Ludwig figured it out and that was one of a few standards employed for the entire project in terms of making the remasters sound as close to the original vinyl issues as possible.
Without the ear drum crushing volume.
Quote
Spud
There's no air or space around the voices and instruments . No delicacy in the sound where you know it was there originally, no wood or flesh, just electricity and digits.
Quote
GasLightStreet
there's no way Mick listened to his remasters and thought they sounded better
Quote
marquess
I am listening right now to the 2009 Remastered Edition of "Goats Head Soup".
It is very bad!
Extremely LOUD. Just to bang the ears...?
It is very tiring after a while.
Quote
SKILLS
Well why don't they do that, release the Master Tape data full frequency range and i'd pay a pretty penny for it, then upgrade to studio level monitors for playback
Quote
liddasQuote
treaclefingers
What 'additional things' are you hearing Liddas, by virtue of the remaster? We know that there is cropping of the dynamic range, so we are definitely hearing less music than should be there.
Is there something additional that comes to the surface as a result of the volume being louder? Can't we just 'TURN IT LOUD' on our own and keep the range?
Am I overly simplifying this?
Should have written "noticing" instead of "hearing"!
For example, I had never noticed before the interaction between Nicky's piano and Keith's slide part on ventilator (with something not exactly in sync in the first couple of verses ...), Taylor's pull-off work on the instrumental breaks of Turd on the Run, these kind of details.
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
GasLightStreet
there's no way Mick listened to his remasters and thought they sounded better
It is possible. If Mick was out in noisy surroundings with lousy headphones for instance
Quote
24FPS
My ears prefer the Virgin versions. And the 2002 ABKCO remasters. And a Polygram manufacture first album from Hanover, West Germany. I would love to hear the 1971 on catalogue released in Blu Ray Audio. My favorite 'Exile' is on Blu Ray. Grrrr is on Blu Ray but is prohibitively expensive on Ebay. I don't understand why Blu Ray had to go under completely. Warner Brothers has print on demand. You want an old movie? They'll press a DVD for you. No problem.