as if he's gonna go out and get Pro Tools and I'm going to go through all the steps I've painstakingly learned in my 10+ years of digital remastering so he can try and do it himself
as if he's gonna go out and get Pro Tools and I'm going to go through all the steps I've painstakingly learned in my 10+ years of digital remastering so he can try and do it himself
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
No. I hire real mastering engineers. Not some guy with an inexpensive home rig who is going to work from a vinyl or CD source - never a master. Have you ever held a real master tape in your hands? I don't mean cassettes.
Its hysterical that after all these years you always brag about your incredible "remasters" when all you are doing is some home made EQ job to something that has already been mastered. So all dozen of your clients have been happy. You are too funny.
Wait, what breed of bull do you use?Originally Posted by MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER
Ok, back to Death's Crown. So I had my first listen to Better Late yesterday and thought the audio quality was actually not bad. If it and DC were both recorded in the same basement studio, how come DC sounds quite a bit less good? Is it because DC was truly demos, and not as much care went into recording it?
Death's Crown contains, as the cover says, recordings from rehearsals under primitive conditions, while Better Late were recordings (recorded about 5 years later) meant for labels.
poorly... and that's why they call it a remaster
and a top quality remaster involves WAY more than mere "EQing"
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
If you are not going back to the original source you are jusy dicking around and fooling yourself. Get real. Your comments in this thread are an insult to true professional mastering engineers.
stereo master tapes are only needed for the initial transfer to lossless digital archive. Every remaster is made digitally from a lossless digital source. What part of the term lossless are you vapid about?
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Forgetting your "equipment" for a second.
If you take a commercially released CD or LP, that is something that has already been mastered. Unless you have the engineer's notes as to what moves were made, you have no idea how to undo what was done before you start your project. And even if you had those notes, you'd need to undo EQ moves with the same rig to get it close to how it started. And some moves, such as no-noising or compression, cannot be undone. So there is likely no way to ever have a solid base that is within a thousand miles of a master tape. If you are simply making some of your own EQ moves on top of whatever was presented to the public and which you and some friends find enjoyable, this isn't anything but dicking around.
Nothing wrong with dicking around, but it isn't "remastering."
which nobody who ever remasters an album ever gets...
I'm certain, in a world where most artists who recorded albums in the 70s can not even locate the master tapes to their albums, that a fantasy world where they can obtain such notes does not exist.
What I am talking about is sound... pure sound. If an album's mastering sounds like crap, it can be improved. It can be improved with an "EQ job" that even Ken could do. But it could be vastly improved with skillful experience and knowledge of all the aspects of stereo recording. No, not one of Ken's "EQ jobs" that anyone can do. I'm talking about a complete overhaul of the sound, no matter *what* source one is presented with. If an artist can not find the stereo masters of their album, then one must use clean vinyl as the "master" to be remastered.
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
while a bad no-noise job can not be undone, there are intricate ways to somewhat restore compressed sound. I say somewhat because the act of compressing a sound field does indeed do some damage to that field.
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
The difference should be obvious. If an engineer has a master tape with which to work, he has a "blank canvas," so to speak. He has the album in its pre-mastered state. The tapes may even have notes on settings, Dolby application, tones, etc.
The difference in this and buying the CD which is remastered from those tapes is another matter.
Many mastering engineers are often forced to work with CDs or LPs as sources. Ken and Steve go beyond this; doing everything they can to secure masters, and thus the engineers with which they do business must be familiar with how to work with tapes. Proper alignment, tones, Dolby decoding, etc. I haven't followed this whole discussion but I think this is what's being pointed out to you.
...which I already knew. I am fully aware of the various processes when 1. the original multi-track masters exist 2. when only the stereo master exists 3. when neither exist
Golden is judging my skills ignorantly. He has no clue of my background or knowledge. Even worse, for the epitome of ignorance, he has not even heard my work. He should stick to updating his website and stuffing envelopes with CDs. Judging people ignorantly is not working for him.
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
back to the original topic before Mr. Ignorant hijacked it (he can have the last word cause I'm done with his pettiness... go on Golden, you know your ego MUST have the last word... tell everyone more about my work which you have absolutely no knowledge of)
onward...
the piece I love most on Death's Crown is Merlin. I cant understand why HTM dropped this piece, but I sure am glad that it was included on this CD!
The vocal version of NY Dream Suite is a nice curio, but it doesn't hold a candle to any other version IMO
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
You stated that you "had to go back and see what could be done with this sonically."
A comment such as that shouldn't imply that one will load the CD into his computer and tweak some EQ settings.
As an outside observer, that's where things went south in this thread.
For me and my friends personal enjoyment. I have the knowledge and equipment to do so, especially given that the source material for this recording is a 4-track TEAC (or do we need to define what "sonically" means? I do not have a label to re-release stuff, this is to improve the *sound* which, with my knowledge and equipment involves *way* more than any "EQ job") Mr. Ignorant has not heard my work, nor does he know what training I have, nor what equipment I have, and it would be best for all reading this thread if he were to hold his breath until I divulge those facts to him. My work speaks for itself.
Last edited by MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER; 01-24-2015 at 03:33 AM.
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
Without the original, untreated, source material you can't undo what has already been done. Its a basic fact that isn't penetrating you. I don't care if you were Bob Ludwig's assistant. Unless your ancient Chinese secret is a time machine you are just blowing smoke up your own ass. Once the baby is thrown out with the bath water that's all she wrote. If you want to call what you do a "remaster" knock yourself out.
Best regards,
Mr. Ignorant
I loved the idea when Oblivion Sun recorded the 20 minutes-song "The High Places", which was based on the Merlin-track.
exactly what I do. If given a lossless digital copy of the original stereo mix then I would be doing masters (and remasters) exactly as the engineers who do it as a full time career. I have the same skill, equipment and training. If folks reading this thread are confused about what mastering is, here's an article detailing the process... although I (and I'm sure other mastering engineers) actually do quite a bit more than just what is mentioned in this article:
http://www.music-production-guide.co...ing-audio.html
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
Re-listened to this today while I had some windshield time.. Pretty much as I remember it.. some nice passages throughout.. Then on my return trip home plugged in Beginnings.. again.. some really nice stuff.. clearly the band took a huge step forward with the material written for their first official release..
I absolutely agree.
Steve F.
www.waysidemusic.com
www.cuneiformrecords.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
“Remember, if it doesn't say "Cuneiform," it's not prog!” - THE Jed Levin
Any time any one speaks to me about any musical project, the one absolute given is "it will not make big money". [tip of the hat to HK]
"Death to false 'support the scene' prog!"
please add 'imo' wherever you like, to avoid offending those easily offended.
definitely... though I am thankful to have the material on Beginnings and Death's Crown. Kudos to Steve for releasing it
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks