Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 351

Thread: Genesis "new stereo mixes"

  1. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Isle of Bute
    Posts
    86
    I too took advantage of the SNAFU at Amazon but once I'd copied the mini-docs I couldn't get that thing out of my house fast enough. I listened to the stereo remix of NC on headphones and my ears were aching before the end of Musical Box. How those mixes could be considered acceptable by anyone beggars belief......

  2. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,294
    ^Ha, you thought the Gabriel box was bad? You want to hear the early Collins albums!

  3. #53
    Progdog ThomasKDye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Vallejo, CA
    Posts
    517
    Quote Originally Posted by Yodelgoat View Post
    I bought Nursery Crymes and listened with an open mind about 3 years ago....

    People call it music, but all I heard was a joke. How in the hell did they convince a label to release that stuff? I'm a prog fan from Circa 1972. But Nursery Crymes is gawd awful. No wonder Rolling stone was so anti-prog. With stuff like this coming out, why would anyone say otherwise?
    Wow, it took me three reads to realize you were serious. What's next, "Why the hell does anyone like the Beatles?"

    Once in a while, I'm reminded of just how much variety there is in people's opinions.
    "Arf." -- Frank Zappa, "Beauty Knows No Pain" (live version)

  4. #54
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Yodelgoat View Post
    I bought Nursery Crymes and listened with an open mind about 3 years ago....

    People call it music, but all I heard was a joke. How in the hell did they convince a label to release that stuff? I'm a prog fan from Circa 1972. But Nursery Crymes is gawd awful. No wonder Rolling stone was so anti-prog. With stuff like this coming out, why would anyone say otherwise?
    That's what I thought when I listened to the vinyl in the 70s. I went backwards from Trick of the Tail, to older Gspot later in the 70s. In the 2000's, after hearing NC on CD and then SACD 5.1 I got past the production and appreciated the music. To each his or her own.
    [They] agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper2112 View Post
    I've read through all the posts on this thread. I recently decided to give the 2007 remixes another go downloaded/ripped lossless versions of all Phil era, lamb and foxtrot. Also from the 2009 live box set the way we walk, three sides live and seconds out. I found the live versions clear and crisp. The DR ratios are slightly lower than the 94/original versions. However, the recapture of live sound through improved mastering outweighs the small loss in DR. Many agree with this view, some suggest Nick Davis learned from the mastering/EQ errors from the 2007 remixes, as the live box came out in 2009.

    The Phil era and Gabriel era 2007 simply put are horribly mastered. DR's of 9 across the board, they are the definition of brick walled. After listening for more than 3 minutes at a moderate volume my ears start to hurt! And it's too bad, as the new remixes have many positive merits. First of all, they are much clearer and more precise. You hear sounds through out that are difficult to pick out on the 94 DE's. The bass is up in the mix, clear and punchy. And that's about it for the positive. The compression is so high, the recordings sound muffled/monotone. Simplistically said, they don't sound like the great sweet sounding versions of previous Genesis releases. So...

    I decided to re-rip (ALAC) all of my 94 DE's - and am extremely happy that I did so. The difference between a 13DR and a highly compressed 9DR is night and day. You can crank the 94DE's and there is no pain in the your ear. The music sounds crisp and sweet due to the additional dynamic range. Even if the mixes are a bit muddier, it doesn't matter. I've replace all the 2007's except for the Lamb, which somehow I sold. So I've re-purchased the 94DE Lamb on Amazon (lol $7, of which $4 was shipping) used on Amazon. Also, Genesis (83), Invisible Touch (86) and We Can't Dance (91) can be very dynamically listened to by sticking with the original year CD. All have 12+ DR's and sound great.

    So the interim answer is to switch back to the 94DE for the studio releases. The long term answer is to get Steve Wilson to remix the whole catalog. His work with the Yes releases has been outstanding! Wilson remix/remastering's are my Genesis catalog holy grail.
    IMO, it is a mistake to use the 94 DEs as any kind of measuring stick except maybe to compare dynamic range. Those have their own issues. Mainly, they are treated with moderate to heavy use of digital noise reduction (done by Nick Davis who I believe regrets how it was applied on some albums and no longer uses that technique), which just strips them of analog life.

    "No thanks" on Steven Wilson. At least Nick Davis does mixes on an actual console. Wilson's digital remixing on PC is a recent appeal to some which I find utterly baffling. His stuff sounds clear, but overall lifeless and sterile to me.

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    I surprised Jeff you pointed to the Tony Cousins mastering of the CD which is completely different than a SACD. Mastering has been the greatest evil to audio.
    I might agree with your point if it was a general one.

    If you think the SACDs sound better than the CDs, I don't know what to tell you. As far as the stereo remixes, they are equally awful, equally lacking in dynamics. It was also my understanding that Tony Cousins mastering was applied to the SACD in the exact same fashion as the CD.

    Heck, I've seen it said that the SACDs sound EVER WORSE than the CDs. Personally, I found them to be about the same. I guess there is the idea that the added resolution brought out even more how bad those mixes were.

    Look, I actually think Nick Davis is a very talented guy. I just believe that he and Genesis sort of started to believe that their old mixes would have been so much better if they sounded more like the 80s and 90s mixes. And that's the sound they collaborated on and arguably attained. Many people probably listen to older Genesis in that manner now, and that's fine. But your continued insistence on suggesting that anyone who doesn't like those remixes must be because they don't have the right versions, or the right equipment, or because of the little 3db compression added by Tony Cousins in mastering ruined them is, IMO, a bit offensive.

    Incidentally, I've heard the Davis remixes on vinyl, and even though they are slightly more dynamic (no mastering compression I guess), well ... guess what? They still suck.

  7. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Isle of Bute
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ88 View Post
    ^Ha, you thought the Gabriel box was bad? You want to hear the early Collins albums!
    My interest in Genesis ends at W&W (with Afterglow and YOSW excised) so be assured any Collins album will be cruel and unusual punishment to me regardless of the mastering.

  8. #58
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,010
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffCarney View Post
    I might agree with your point if it was a general one.

    If you think the SACDs sound better than the CDs, I don't know what to tell you. As far as the stereo remixes, they are equally awful, equally lacking in dynamics. It was also my understanding that Tony Cousins mastering was applied to the SACD in the exact same fashion as the CD.

    Heck, I've seen it said that the SACDs sound EVER WORSE than the CDs. Personally, I found them to be about the same. I guess there is the idea that the added resolution brought out even more how bad those mixes were.

    Look, I actually think Nick Davis is a very talented guy. I just believe that he and Genesis sort of started to believe that their old mixes would have been so much better if they sounded more like the 80s and 90s mixes. And that's the sound they collaborated on and arguably attained. Many people probably listen to older Genesis in that manner now, and that's fine. But your continued insistence on suggesting that anyone who doesn't like those remixes must be because they don't have the right versions, or the right equipment, or because of the little 3db compression added by Tony Cousins in mastering ruined them is, IMO, a bit offensive.

    Incidentally, I've heard the Davis remixes on vinyl, and even though they are slightly more dynamic (no mastering compression I guess), well ... guess what? They still suck.
    Can't handle a different opinion huh. All I know is the 5.1 remixes sound great. I posted other opinions about the SACD stereo remixes and Tony Cousins' work. I'm sort of sick of the hatred which get levied in words against the remixes in general. Many people have commented that the Gabriel years stereo remixes were much better than the Collins's years.
    [They] agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.

  9. #59
    Highly Evolved Orangutan JKL2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    9,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    That's what I thought when I listened to the vinyl in the 70s. I went backwards from Trick of the Tail, to older Gspot later in the 70s. In the 2000's, after hearing NC on CD and then SACD 5.1 I got past the production and appreciated the music. To each his or her own.
    I hope Gspot was a typo or something your iPhone did, and you don't just call Genesis Gspot!

  10. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    Can't handle a different opinion huh.
    Are you referring to yourself here? If you actually read my posts, where I allow for the obvious truth that some people like these remixes, I figure you cannot possibly be referring to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post

    All I know is the 5.1 remixes sound great. I posted other opinions about the SACD stereo remixes and Tony Cousins' work. I'm sort of sick of the hatred which get levied in words against the remixes in general. Many people have commented that the Gabriel years stereo remixes were much better than the Collins's years.
    Yes, some have said the Gabriel-era wasn't as bad. I can't really agree. And again, take Tony Cousins off the table because anybody who is "blaming" what he did (or was asked to do?) at the final stage is passing the buck and frankly, delusional. If you really don't get this, then listen to the remixes on vinyl, which he didn't master and have that 3db additional dynamic range. You either like the stereo remixes or don't. Hearing them without that small amount of mastering compression is unlikely to change that.

  11. #61
    According to Nick Davis on the old Genesis forum, the digital mastering of the stereo on the SACDs is the same as the mastering of the CDs.

  12. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper2112 View Post
    So the interim answer is to switch back to the 94DE for the studio releases.
    No, no, no. I suggest NOT getting the 1994 DE remasters. Many of them are just terrible (Trespass, Foxtrot, Trick, Duke, etc.) as they have noise-reduction applied. Get the 1980's original cd releases. That way, you get dynamics and music that isn't deadened with no-noise.
    Last edited by yesstiles; 05-01-2016 at 05:38 PM.

  13. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by yesstiles View Post
    No, no, no. I suggest NOT getting the 1994 DE remasters. Many of them are just terrible (Trespass, Foxtrot, Trick, Duke, etc.) as they have noise-reduction applied. Get the 1980's original cd releases. That way, you get dynamics and music that isn't deadened with no-noise.
    For CD, I agree that those are the best.

    But Genesis on vinyl is simply the best way to hear most of the "classic" albums, IMO. Even the early CDs are no comparison. Not even necessary to pay big bucks for the earliest pressings. Plenty of great repressings since the albums sold so well and were pressed up a lot in the UK and elsewhere.

  14. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffCarney View Post
    But Genesis on vinyl is simply the best way to hear most of the "classic" albums, IMO. Even the early CDs are no comparison. Not even necessary to pay big bucks for the earliest pressings. Plenty of great repressings since the albums sold so well and were pressed up a lot in the UK and elsewhere.
    Yes. I have a UK Large Mad Hatter "Foxtrot" LP that sounds fantastic.

  15. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,294
    Part of me thinks it would be good even if they whacked out one of those budget priced 'original/classic album' boxes that use old masterings-as noted, some of them are fine. Anything is better than the current situation.

  16. #66
    I don't really have an issue with the Gabriel era box CD's (never heard the 80's and 90's era set.......I have the 94 remasters of Trick and W&W which seem fine to me). I'm willing to accept that my ears may have been ruined by years of CD only listening. I still say that ATCO CD I have of the Lamb sounds pretty terrible to me, only partly because of hum (Hackett being almost completely buried in the Mix for a lot of it doesn't help). I will say though, that the Lamb on the box set doesn't sound very good either, even though you can hear Hackett and the hum is gone.

    When I started really listening to music, it was all vinyl (and vinyl ripped to cassettes). Ever since CD's came out, I've preferred those. I will say though, that since the 90's, brick walling has been an issue, even for me. Some CD's I do find completely un-listenable due to ear fatigue. The Gabriel ear box that is not the case for me, though I do find I miss having actual dynamics in the music, like on the vinyl.

    I do find it interesting that the members of Genesis signed off on both box sets and were happy with the results. I do wonder what members here think was their reasoning for that? The originals, to me, have a lot of issues and I always thought Foxtrot sounded terrible in it's original mix (like I said before, I prefer live versions of the good stuff on that album). Nursery Cryme is not bad though and I Selling England sounds great on vinyl (from what I remember). Personally, I'll take the Trespass remix over any other version I've heard, just for the clarity of the instruments (still wish it had the dynamics of the original CD release that I have though).

    So yeah, as Jeff says, some people like them, some don't. I happen to like them well enough that on the rare occasions I actually want to hear those albums those versions are fine. The fact is I almost never listen to them anyway, and it's the live stuff that I pull out once or twice a year anyway (and I like having the interviews).

  17. #67
    Insect Overlord Progatron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    southern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,071
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ88 View Post
    Part of me thinks it would be good even if they whacked out one of those budget priced 'original/classic album' boxes that use old masterings-as noted, some of them are fine. Anything is better than the current situation.
    This would be a good idea, actually. I've picked up a few of those sets and they are great, if 'no frills'. In the meantime, I'd recommend Discogs as a good source for the original mixes, you can get just about any edition of these titles.
    Two boys have been found rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.

  18. #68
    Insect Overlord Progatron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    southern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,071
    Banks was there for every single track on every album, including all the B-sides. The others had far less input (or desire), but did make occasional notes during the remix process. I agree that the Gabriel box has some major improvements in some areas, most noticeably on the earliest albums (Trespass, NC, Foxtrot). The surround mixes sound pretty cool too, particularly on things like "Cinema Show" and the Live At The Rainbow 1973 disc. I just wish they had also included the original mixes.

    The stereo mixes on the CDs I have little use for. I did rip them all as they were released, for use on my iPod at work, where the playback equipment is low quality and there's a lot of background noise anyway. But the novelty of the different mixes wears off after a while and I long for the originals.
    Two boys have been found rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.

  19. #69
    Everybody hears things differently, but Nick Davis' production of Phil's hi-hat on a large portion of the remixes is like somebody hammering an ice pick into my forehead. The treble knob on my surround sound system doesn't go low enough to mitigate the effect. This characteristic is far worse on the 1976-1981 set, but still present on the Gabriel box.

  20. #70
    Weirdly, I've never had a problem with the remixes. I rather enjoyed them.

  21. #71
    I enjoyed listening to the 5.1s when they came out, and like many here found that I noticed things that had previously been not so apparent. However I recently started listening to the Lamb very VERY closely (as I was learning the bass parts). Initially I worked solely from the new stereo remix (as it was convenient). After many weeks I turned to the original mix (first the DE version and then the original UK CD version) and, guess what? I noticed lots of things I'd not spotted listening to the remix.

    Generally I'd say that whenever you hear a different mix, different instruments and parts become more apparent and to some, this is a refreshing change (to others it irritates). Having listened closely now to several different versions, I'd say it's impossible to beat the original CD... but I haven't listened closely to the vinyl... yet.

    One final comment - and I think I've said this before somewhere else: try sitting in different parts of your listening room... you will also probably find that different parts become more apparent...

  22. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffCarney View Post
    I might agree with your point if it was a general one.

    If you think the SACDs sound better than the CDs, I don't know what to tell you. As far as the stereo remixes, they are equally awful, equally lacking in dynamics. It was also my understanding that Tony Cousins mastering was applied to the SACD in the exact same fashion as the CD..
    I have to jump in with Jeff here. The bottom line I've come to believe is that the medium doesn't matter...if it's a bad mix and/or a bad mastering job, it's gonna suck whether it's vinyl, CD,SACD, Pure Blu Ray Audio or any other higher res format.

    OTOH, SACDs can sound great, IMO, if the mastering and/or mixing has been properly done. I've personally found a lot of good titles on Mobile Fidelity and Audio Fidelity, while I've learned, the hard way, that many Japanese SACDs or SHM-SACD (SHM being another money-grabbing scam, IMO) are a dicey proposition; some are very good, others are truly awful.

    My recommendation is to try and find out who did the mastering and if they've got a track record of doing bad things, you can pretty much count on them to continue, even if they move into higher resolutions.

    That said, the good ones are very, very good..but oh yeah, another thing: don't get panties in a twist if it is "only" 24/44.1 or 24/48 instead of 24/96 or 24/192 when it comes to PBRA or downloadable high res; 24/192 is NOT twice as good as 24/96, for one thing...the differences are pretty subtle (I've had a chance to compare same masters at different sampling rates). If anything, it's the move from 16 to 24-bit that seems, to my ears, to make the biggest difference...assuming, of course, that the mastering is good.

    But folks selling high res downloads are a bit between a rock and a hard place..feeling the need to use the highest sampling rate possible because there are consumers who think that 24/192 sounds twice as good as 24/96...seriously...I've heard it said.

    So the bottom line is: mixing and mastering (if done;Wilson's mixes are often flat-transferred without any additional mastering tweaks) are what matter. Then, if the job is done well, they might do well at higher resolutions. Might, being the operative word.

    Jeff: yes?
    John Kelman
    Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
    Freelance writer/photographer

  23. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by jkelman View Post
    I have to jump in with Jeff here. The bottom line I've come to believe is that the medium doesn't matter...if it's a bad mix and/or a bad mastering job, it's gonna suck whether it's vinyl, CD,SACD, Pure Blu Ray Audio or any other higher res format.

    OTOH, SACDs can sound great, IMO, if the mastering and/or mixing has been properly done. I've personally found a lot of good titles on Mobile Fidelity and Audio Fidelity, while I've learned, the hard way, that many Japanese SACDs or SHM-SACD (SHM being another money-grabbing scam, IMO) are a dicey proposition; some are very good, others are truly awful.

    My recommendation is to try and find out who did the mastering and if they've got a track record of doing bad things, you can pretty much count on them to continue, even if they move into higher resolutions.

    That said, the good ones are very, very good..but oh yeah, another thing: don't get panties in a twist if it is "only" 24/44.1 or 24/48 instead of 24/96 or 24/192 when it comes to PBRA or downloadable high res; 24/192 is NOT twice as good as 24/96, for one thing...the differences are pretty subtle (I've had a chance to compare same masters at different sampling rates). If anything, it's the move from 16 to 24-bit that seems, to my ears, to make the biggest difference...assuming, of course, that the mastering is good.

    But folks selling high res downloads are a bit between a rock and a hard place..feeling the need to use the highest sampling rate possible because there are consumers who think that 24/192 sounds twice as good as 24/96...seriously...I've heard it said.

    So the bottom line is: mixing and mastering (if done;Wilson's mixes are often flat-transferred without any additional mastering tweaks) are what matter. Then, if the job is done well, they might do well at higher resolutions. Might, being the operative word.

    Jeff: yes?
    I agree with pretty much everything you've said.

    I would only point out that the comment you've quoted wasn't really meant to compare SACD to CD in terms of a digital medium. Instead I was pointing out that the Genesis remixes on SACD are the same as the CD versions. so the notion that SACD buyers got something different is misinformation. IOW, if one doesn't like how the mixes sound on CD, buying them on SACD will solve nothing. The mastering is the exact same.

    I've long felt that people trying to blame Tony Cousins putting 3db of compression on these (as I believe he was asked to do) as regards what makes these mixes sound less than optimal is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've come across in the land of reissues. I highly suspect this was an "excuse" developed after the fact by those friendly with Nick Davis, but that's only a guess.

    As is probably all too well known by now, I don't like mastering compression; especially when it reduces the dynamics as to what is available on an original mix as previously issued. But even so, thinking 3db of compression in mastering is why these remixes sounded the way they did is just not logical reasoning, IMO.

    Incidentally and FWIW; I've even seen people argue strongly that as far as the Genesis remixes, the SACDs sound even worse than the redbook CDs due to the extended frequency range bringing out a bit more of how bad the mixes are. I don't know ... but I guess my point is that let's get real; these mixes aren't about medium and they aren't about one's system (as Tony Banks apparently theorized). They are about taste; FIRST. Everything else is a distant second and by that I mean other factors haven't even left the starting gate while personal "taste" has crossed the finish line.

    Funny how long it's been since I've thought about Genesis on CD. Getting back into vinyl made me realize I was really only ever choosing between different levels of bad.

  24. #74
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    A Swedish Prog-Elk
    Posts
    106
    I did get all of these, but after a few spins, they're already collecting dust in the archives sadly.. Replaced them all with my old cd copies.

  25. #75
    Member yesman1955's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Texas USA
    Posts
    95
    Decided to resurrect this thread rather than start another new one. Discovered a new (to me) record store in Dallas called Josey Records. Found the individual 2007 remixes for Trick, W&W & ATTWT for $11 each. That's half of the 1976-1982 box set for $33! I was astounded by the sheer luck of finding all three on the same day. I was not prepared to pay the original price for the boxset 10 years ago or the inflated prices you see now on Amazon. I am now ripping/listening/comparing these to my old 80's CDs and will report my opinions soon.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •