smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Marty Rudnick <mrudnick@marturo.com> |
| Subject | Re: OT Re: I love Elvis, but enough... |
| Date | Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:38:17 -0700 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (1.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
If you axe me, the answer to the great remastering debate is "it
depends". Depends on who's remastering it, depends what the budget
is. I think the worst case examples were companies that simply used
straight transfers from old LP masters, which were originally mastered
with the RIAA curve in mind. No EQ, no NR. Quite often the sound was
bland, and led to very credible arguments from the so-called analog purists.
I think the best case examples were the 5.1 mixes done for the Beatles
DVD Anthology. My guess is that they had some hard core engineers at
Abbey Road slaving over old 2, 3, and 4-track tapes, and really milking
a convincing, great sounding surround-sound mix. The beauty of which is
that I heard nuances in the mixes that had been previously masked.
Marty
floatingunder wrote:
>--- In audities@yahoogroups.com, "Ford Prefect" <poatway@...> wrote:
>
>
>>I think we're all missing the point. These albums get better every
>>
>>
> <>time they're re-issued/re-mastered/re-mixed/re-released/re-etc.
>
>Sounds kinda like reincarnation. :)
>
> Not sure if your joking or not. Maybe (I have not seen the new Kong)
>special effects improve such a film per the importance it plays
>visually. But, it seems to me that more often then not remakes fail
>to recapture that what made the original great.
>
>Best,
>Steve D
>
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.