smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Jaimie Vernon" <bullseyecanada@hotmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: a record was constantly loud |
| Date | Sun, 26 Dec 2004 23:55:06 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain (3.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
At Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 13:21:35 Mark wrote:
>[reference to Klaatu] -- this is the closest this material has sounded
>since the day we laid down the >tracks in the studio.
>I don't mind if the mixing process just involves increasing the volume of
>certain instruments that weren't loud enough in the original mix. However,
>when you simply compression to make music louder, that is likely to change
>the way the instruments actually sounds. Sometimes it's subtle, otherwise
>not. It's especially less subtle when listening to the music with
>headphones, which most people seem to be listening to music these days, via
>their IPODs, or whatever.
>
>Compression can especially ruin the sound of drums, because that they are
>usually the loudest sound to begin with, so they'll be most affected. And
>if people are used to listening to the way the original mix sounded, they
>are more likely to notice such subtle changes. Plus, some of the
>instruments that weren't loud to begin with, may not be too pleasant to
>listen when louder. I.e., I have one record where the original guitar
>sound had a lot of distortion, perhaps to make up for the fact that it
>wasn't too loud. The CD version made the guitars much louder, but now the
>guitar sound is very annoying, because of that distortion.
>
>That's why I have to laugh when someone claims that their need remix is
>louder, as if it's a good thing (you're just one of many people who do
>that, so it's not your fault). Louder doesn't necessarily mean that the
>music is better to listen to it, because you end up changing the dynamics
>of the music, and sometimes that's for the worse.
You're calling these "remixes"....but that's NOT what we're talking about
here. The example I gave involved the original 2 track stereo mastertape was
REMASTERED whereby the overall volume of the album was increased nearly 10
db in places. Edits, fade-outs and cross-fades were re-engineered to
preserve the initial intent of the album as the band had wanted it, but
technology of the day was inadequate to achieve what they had tried to do.
Nothing was remixed or re-recorded. We only worked with what was actually on
the final stereo mix -- from a NON-EQ'd tape (as opposed to the pre-EQ'd
tapes that were used in previous CD re-issues).
>I know it's too late now, but it would be nice if fans of a particular
>music, were asked about what their preference was of how the music should
>sound like, rather than letting that decision be left to aging (and likely
>hearing impaired) band members.
In THIS case, the fans WERE asked. The consensus was that all previous
attempts at digitally remastering these albums sucked because the lower
volume was lower than the original vinyl....and subtle items were lost in
the '90s re-issues.
And with the volume boost on OUR remasters, fans have commented about
hearing things in the songs they didn't know were there -- like backing
vocals, and instrumental passages and subtle quiet breaks in songs that
weren't even apparent on the vinyl. These sounds were recorded deliberately
by the band in the first place to be heard......the techology at the time
(1976) failed to replicate those subtleties....and technology in the digital
age nearly wiped them out.
Maybe "remaster" isn't the right term for what we did. I think "restoration"
is more appropriate.
Jaimie Vernon,
President, Bullseye Records
"Not Suing Our Customers Since 1985!!"
http://www.bullseyecanada.com
Author, Canadian Pop Music Encyclopedia
http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicPopEncycloPages
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.