Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 151 to 171 of 171

Thread: Remix of A Momentary Lapse of Reason

  1. #151
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Sussex, England.
    Posts
    1,209
    ^^^^

    Yep, that's the way to really enjoy music

  2. #152
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    I’m so sick of complainers who don’t want any production which is different. If that’s how you feel then keep the old and move on love what you have. Why complain at us? We aren’t keeping you from being stagnant.
    But some on here even think those Davis Genesis remixes are the best thing since sliced bread. Don't they.

    New isn't always better and people have a right to state their opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerjo View Post
    I think they should have asked Giles Martin to update it. The bass on his Beatles remasters is stellar.
    I've liked what I've heard of his work from a mixing perspective. He's fairly reverent to the original source material but changes the stereo placement. So I'm not anti-remix per se.

    I guess they wanted a 'modern' sound for this AMLOR. I wouldn't have chosen 'One Slip' to demonstrate it as on a personal level, I don't like it! Would have been interesting to hear 'Learning To Fly' or 'Sorrow' which are also very '80s' but better songs. IMHO.

  3. #153
    FWIW I don't even remotely expect the new release to beat the original (since I am a big fan of the original). It isn't going to be a more "authentic" version of the album: it has altered contributions from one key member done nearly 2 decades later, and from a then-only-barely-reinstated member who is dead, so they used live tracks lifted from decades ago to simulate his actually being able to contribute to the album. It's zombie Floyd. Which, by the way, is also totally fine and I'm happy to hear it when it's released.

    What it will be IMHO is a fun thought experiment, maybe cool for revealing additional tracks and nuances buried in the original mix. It'll get a bit of attention right out the gate and then likely be something I revisit infrequently, but will still revisit from time to time. But if it nudges the original album back into more regular circulation at Chez Batts then all the better

    Oh, and FWIW they could've released it as David Gilmour's Pink Floyd Sails Away From Nasty Waters and I'd still love the hell out of it. It's a slice of nostalgia for me that helped in part shape my interest in how keyboards could be used in a rock band. But they didn't, they released it as Pink Floyd and that's totally peachy.
    Ephemeral Sun - because I gotta do something about these boxes of CDs in the basement: http://www.ephemeralsun.com

  4. #154
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ88 View Post
    But some on here even think those Davis Genesis remixes are the best thing since sliced bread. Don't they.

    New isn't always better and people have a right to state their opinion.



    I've liked what I've heard of his work from a mixing perspective. He's fairly reverent to the original source material but changes the stereo placement. So I'm not anti-remix per se.

    I guess they wanted a 'modern' sound for this AMLOR. I wouldn't have chosen 'One Slip' to demonstrate it as on a personal level, I don't like it! Would have been interesting to hear 'Learning To Fly' or 'Sorrow' which are also very '80s' but better songs. IMHO.

    What difference does it make if somebody think the Davis Genesis remixes are the best? Thatís their opinion, and why do you an opinion about them? Why isnít your personal opinion about the music enough?

    As far as those Davis mixes are concerned, I read far more people complaining than actually saying they are the best since sliced bread. IMO, the 5.1 SACDs are the best of the Davis remixes, but some of them are not an improvement in sonic quality. But the ones which are, are the best recordings of that music. The most common complaint was that Davis used compression and that they were loud. It was years before I put the CDs on my IPhone and listened on my car in shuffle mode mixed with other music. One thing is for sure, every other music is louder and more compressed than those. The problem with compression is not compression in itself, itís whether compression is analog or digital. Digital compression used in mastering which Davis himself admitted he didnít have control over (I think itís the stupidity of compartmentalized engineering that causes this, instead of having someone with ears involved in the whole process like the way records were produced). Davis used state of the art analog mixing equipment, but the mastering was digital which sucks. Cutting lathes for vinyl have a natural analog compression function without stomping on lower energy signals. Those who understand this use analog compression even if the original is digital. Davis admitted that by dividing the power up into LFE and other channels in the 5.1 mix in high resolution, escapes the majority of detrimental digital compression effects. On the Giles Martin 5.1 remixes of Abbey Road, you can clearly hear the dynamic range expansion as compared to the stereo remixes. However, it sounds like analog compression was likely used prior to the final conversion to stereo. However the magic sauce used by Ken Scott and George Martin are known by Giles which helped him make this incredible recording. The drums on ďThe EndĒ in 5.1 sound incredible. Like in room, beautiful. Best thing since sliced bread
    ď[They] agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.Ē

  5. #155
    Member Since: 3/27/2002 MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Kingdom of YHVH
    Posts
    2,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve983 View Post
    ^^^^

    Yep, that's the way to really enjoy music
    it's the only way to definitively find out which one I prefer anywayz
    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?

  6. #156
    Sorry to say it chaps, but I am loving this remix.

    It sounds grittier and lacks a lot of the echo, gloss and female singers.

    Overall, it now sounds more like something from The Wall than the original AMLOR
    When not wasting time here, wasting time at:
    historyofliverpool.com

  7. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    The problem with compression is not compression in itself, it’s whether compression is analog or digital.
    Sorry, but that’s just not true. Compression, used tastefully, can be a great effect (Adrian Belew’s rhythm guitar on King Crimson’s “Heartbeat,” for example).

    But when used for other purposes and across the board, it can be detrimental, whether it’s digital or analogue. Applying too much compression across the board removes a lot of the dynamics that make some music so wonderful. Any track that covers a broad volume/dynamic range will be squashed into it all sounding like it’s all largely at the same level. While I understand he got better at it, so the Peter Gabriel years Genesis box, for example, has less of a problem than the 1983-1998 one, the Genesis remixer did things that, IMO, really reduced the music’s effect. Thankfully, he did get better, so the period I love the most sounds pretty good (especially the SACD). But my second favourite period, 1976-1980, suffers what the later years box does...but, at least, not quite as much as i recall (been awhile since I’ve listened). But guys like Steven Wilson get it, and never over-compress the music he is remixing...and it’s all the better for it. Giles Martin, too.

    Taking quiet passages and, through compression, bringing them up to the same level (or close) as the loud passages just destroys what the artists generally intend with their music. Think of, say, “Peace - A Theme,” from King Crimson’s In the Wake of Poseidon, being at the same general volume level as “The Devil’s Triangle” at its most nightmare-inducing best, and that may help explain why compression, when abused, truly transforms the music...and not in a good way.

    Some music is meant to be so quiet that you almost have to sit forward in your chair to hear it, making a louder passage that might follow all the more dramatic. Bring the level of both passages closer to the same and it transforms the music in a terrible way, removing one of the devices used by musicians to create greater drama in their work.
    Last edited by jkelman; 1 Week Ago at 06:58 PM.
    John Kelman
    Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
    Freelance writer/photographer

  8. #158
    Member Dok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Land of the Blue Smoke
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by battema View Post
    FWIW It's zombie Floyd.
    I want more Zombie Floyd!

  9. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    The problem with compression is not compression in itself, it’s whether compression is analog or digital.
    I have to take issue with this statement as someone who masters and mixes for a living. There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with digital compression or limiting, nor is it inferior (or superior) to analog compression or limiting. Digital compression/limiting in mastering is used first and foremost for very transparent and subtle leveling, since it doesn't impart a sonic imprint on the music like analog does. In fact, the very gold standard in audiophile mastering is the Weiss DS1-MK3, which is all-digital and an incredible piece of machinery. Any ill-effects of compression/limiting is not due to whether it's analog or digital, but whether the engineer knows his/her job - or whether he/she has been ordered by a label to butcher the product with brickwall limiting.

  10. #160
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob Holm-Lupo View Post
    I have to take issue with this statement as someone who masters and mixes for a living. There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with digital compression or limiting, nor is it inferior (or superior) to analog compression or limiting. Digital compression/limiting in mastering is used first and foremost for very transparent and subtle leveling, since it doesn't impart a sonic imprint on the music like analog does. In fact, the very gold standard in audiophile mastering is the Weiss DS1-MK3, which is all-digital and an incredible piece of machinery. Any ill-effects of compression/limiting is not due to whether it's analog or digital, but whether the engineer knows his/her job - or whether he/she has been ordered by a label to butcher the product with brickwall limiting.
    I’d be very interested in understanding at an engineering implementation level of the Weis DS1-MK3. I have hypothesized that digital compression could approach analog but way more bits would be needed per sample than normally is used (more than 24 bits). I can’t escape the fact that flat topping a signal analog or digital destroys information. When I think of analog compression, I’m not thinking limiting, but a tube like function with even harmonics, not odd harmonics.
    ď[They] agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.Ē

  11. #161
    I think you are approaching the subject in a bit of a lopsided way. It's useless to think in terms of bits. Modern digital compressors like the Weiss have amazing converters that affect the sound infinitely less than any analog equipment could. But that is actually besides the point. All recorded sound these days goes through digital conversion processes. What's important to understand is that clipping is not peculiar to digital or analog. Both types of compression can clip, or not clip. It simply depends on how hard you drive the signal a) into the compressor and b) how much gain reduction you apply. Digital compressors are in fact used to a large degree because they don't clip during any kind of normal usage. The headroom in a digital compressor is much, much larger than in an analog compressor. So like I said, digital compressors are usually used for the very transparent and dynamic jobs, where you want to preserve as much of the recording's nuances as possible. Just to put it into perspective, Bob Katz, the undisputed king of audiophile, transparent mastering, has the Weiss as his favorite compressor and has stated he uses it on 90% of his jobs. Meaning that you have probably heard a lot of audiophile albums and thought "wow, that's some nice analog mastering", but in fact it was digital
    Now, back to analog. Analog compressors are used when you WANT to impart some sonic characteristics on the music that weren't there to begin with. An analog compressor introduces clipping at much lower thresholds than digital, but it is introduced gradually, and it is often the kind of distortion that is musically desirable for certain genres. "Driving" the signal gently through an analog compressor can create a more "glued-together" sound that is often desirable. Personally I often use analog compressors more for their sonic attributes than to actually level the signal much. A final word on harmonics. Tubes create both even and odd harmonics, and both have their use in music - the former being "cleaner", the second being perceived as "warmer". Pro analog equipment designers usually weigh the different harmonics according to how they want the product to sound.
    Hope some of this helps

  12. #162
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob Holm-Lupo View Post
    I think you are approaching the subject in a bit of a lopsided way. It's useless to think in terms of bits. Modern digital compressors like the Weiss have amazing converters that affect the sound infinitely less than any analog equipment could. But that is actually besides the point. All recorded sound these days goes through digital conversion processes. What's important to understand is that clipping is not peculiar to digital or analog. Both types of compression can clip, or not clip. It simply depends on how hard you drive the signal a) into the compressor and b) how much gain reduction you apply. Digital compressors are in fact used to a large degree because they don't clip during any kind of normal usage. The headroom in a digital compressor is much, much larger than in an analog compressor. So like I said, digital compressors are usually used for the very transparent and dynamic jobs, where you want to preserve as much of the recording's nuances as possible. Just to put it into perspective, Bob Katz, the undisputed king of audiophile, transparent mastering, has the Weiss as his favorite compressor and has stated he uses it on 90% of his jobs. Meaning that you have probably heard a lot of audiophile albums and thought "wow, that's some nice analog mastering", but in fact it was digital
    Now, back to analog. Analog compressors are used when you WANT to impart some sonic characteristics on the music that weren't there to begin with. An analog compressor introduces clipping at much lower thresholds than digital, but it is introduced gradually, and it is often the kind of distortion that is musically desirable for certain genres. "Driving" the signal gently through an analog compressor can create a more "glued-together" sound that is often desirable. Personally I often use analog compressors more for their sonic attributes than to actually level the signal much. A final word on harmonics. Tubes create both even and odd harmonics, and both have their use in music - the former being "cleaner", the second being perceived as "warmer". Pro analog equipment designers usually weigh the different harmonics according to how they want the product to sound.
    Hope some of this helps
    My approach is that of an engineer, however I appreciate that at the end of the day subjective is what matters. Subjectivity however doesn’t necessarily help do a design myself without an infinite amount of experimentation. Too many times effective salesmanship determines the consensus versus absolute metrics. Until I understand specifically what the details of those designs are which are correlated to the subjective consensus, I don’t really know why they sound good. I agreed with you that when limiting is discussed, analog or digital doesn’t matter. So what I want to know is what makes digital compression superior in the non-limiting, but non-linear amplitude case.

    I understand that tubes do produce odd harmonic distortion too, because they can be overdriven and there will be some small amount, but tube distortion when not limiting is predominately even. There are also MOSFETs which can emulate tubes in an analog sense with higher dynamic range. I discussed tubes as an example because more people know about them and the fact they can be very linear and used for nonlinear effects. I know I don’t like distortion from a lot of digital guitar effects, while many like that mean and nasty sound.
    Last edited by Firth; 1 Week Ago at 07:46 AM.
    ď[They] agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.Ē

  13. #163
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by jkelman View Post
    Sorry, but thatís just not true. Compression, used tastefully, can be a great effect (Adrian Belewís rhythm guitar on King Crimsonís ďHeartbeat,Ē for example).

    But when used for other purposes and across the board, it can be detrimental, whether itís digital or analogue. Applying too much compression across the board removes a lot of the dynamics that make some music so wonderful. Any track that covers a broad volume/dynamic range will be squashed into it all sounding like itís all largely at the same level. While I understand he got better at it, so the Peter Gabriel years Genesis box, for example, has less of a problem than the 1983-1998 one, the Genesis remixer did things that, IMO, really reduced the musicís effect. Thankfully, he did get better, so the period I love the most sounds pretty good (especially the SACD). But my second favourite period, 1976-1980, suffers what the later years box does...but, at least, not quite as much as i recall (been awhile since Iíve listened). But guys like Steven Wilson get it, and never over-compress the music he is remixing...and itís all the better for it. Giles Martin, too.

    Taking quiet passages and, through compression, bringing them up to the same level (or close) as the loud passages just destroys what the artists generally intend with their music. Think of, say, ďPeace - A Theme,Ē from King Crimsonís In the Wake of Poseidon, being at the same general volume level as ďThe Devilís TriangleĒ at its most nightmare-inducing best, and that may help explain why compression, when abused, truly transforms the music...and not in a good way.

    Some music is meant to be so quiet that you almost have to sit forward in your chair to hear it, making a louder passage that might follow all the more dramatic. Bring the level of both passages closer to the same and it transforms the music in a terrible way, removing one of the devices used by musicians to create greater drama in their work.
    Great comments, or at least they correlate with what I heard on the Genesis remixed boxes. I have guessed that the Gabriel box sounded so much better because the equipment to do the remix was so much better than vinyl I had, especially Trespass, NC, Foxtrot and the Lamb. SEBTP sounded good on vinyl and didnít seem that improved in the box. One thing is for sure, listening to pre1980 Genesis in a car was quite a challenge because of the dynamic range and the noise in the car. This is still true even with the stereo remixes from CD. The SACD stereo track on those boxes was said by friends to sound quite superior to the original CDs. However Davis said the remix SACD result was identical to the CD remix result. However he couldnít vouche for the mastering of the remix CD versus the remix SACD. I think it is incompetent for the engineer to not evaluate the final product, with measurements and the ear.
    ď[They] agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.Ē

  14. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by battema View Post
    FWIW I don't even remotely expect the new release to beat the original (since I am a big fan of the original). It isn't going to be a more "authentic" version of the album: it has altered contributions from one key member done nearly 2 decades later, and from a then-only-barely-reinstated member who is dead, so they used live tracks lifted from decades ago to simulate his actually being able to contribute to the album. It's zombie Floyd. Which, by the way, is also totally fine and I'm happy to hear it when it's released.

    What it will be IMHO is a fun thought experiment, maybe cool for revealing additional tracks and nuances buried in the original mix. It'll get a bit of attention right out the gate and then likely be something I revisit infrequently, but will still revisit from time to time. But if it nudges the original album back into more regular circulation at Chez Batts then all the better

    Oh, and FWIW they could've released it as David Gilmour's Pink Floyd Sails Away From Nasty Waters and I'd still love the hell out of it. It's a slice of nostalgia for me that helped in part shape my interest in how keyboards could be used in a rock band. But they didn't, they released it as Pink Floyd and that's totally peachy.
    This is a really good way of putting it, IMO, and is pretty much how I feel about it too. Something that's nice to have, but probably not going to surpass the original. Although if it does, then hey, awesome!

    AMLOR was not one of my favorite Floyd albums, but it definitely had its moments and I still love "Learning to Fly".

  15. #165
    That's Mr. to you, Sir!! Trane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    in a cosmic jazzy-groove around Brussels
    Posts
    3,511
    Quote Originally Posted by rael74 View Post
    Sorry to say it chaps, but I am loving this remix.

    It sounds grittier and lacks a lot of the echo, gloss and female singers.

    Overall, it now sounds more like something from The Wall than the original AMLOR
    Well, I certainly prefer it to the original version (based on that one track available, anyways), I won't make a definitive statement before hearing the rest of the album.
    Now the thing becomes listenable (I didn't say likeable), to the point that I'm really curious to hear the rest.

    Quote Originally Posted by battema View Post
    FWIW I don't even remotely expect the new release to beat the original (since I am a big fan of the original). It isn't going to be a more "authentic" version of the album: it has altered contributions from one key member done nearly 2 decades later, and from a then-only-barely-reinstated member who is dead, so they used live tracks lifted from decades ago to simulate his actually being able to contribute to the album. It's zombie Floyd. Which, by the way, is also totally fine and I'm happy to hear it when it's released.

    What it will be IMHO is a fun thought experiment, maybe cool for revealing additional tracks and nuances buried in the original mix. It'll get a bit of attention right out the gate and then likely be something I revisit infrequently, but will still revisit from time to time. But if it nudges the original album back into more regular circulation at Chez Batts then all the better

    Oh, and FWIW they could've released it as David Gilmour's Pink Floyd Sails Away From Nasty Waters and I'd still love the hell out of it. It's a slice of nostalgia for me that helped in part shape my interest in how keyboards could be used in a rock band. But they didn't, they released it as Pink Floyd and that's totally peachy.
    LOL for Zombie Floyd.

    as for Gilmour's Pink Wastes Sails Away from Angry Waters, who knows, if tyhe results are as convincing as that One Slip track, I may actually welcome it in the Floyd section in my shelves

    to MT who's probably shitting his pants reading this.
    my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.

  16. #166
    Member Since: 3/27/2002 MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Kingdom of YHVH
    Posts
    2,341
    I was shocked that PE's resident Gilmour hater had not written his obligatory 37 posts in this thread...

    well, heeeeeeeeeeere's Waters' chief cook and boot licker!!!
    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?

  17. #167
    Nerds.....

  18. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    Great comments, or at least they correlate with what I heard on the Genesis remixed boxes. I have guessed that the Gabriel box sounded so much better because the equipment to do the remix was so much better than vinyl I had, especially Trespass, NC, Foxtrot and the Lamb. SEBTP sounded good on vinyl and didn’t seem that improved in the box. One thing is for sure, listening to pre1980 Genesis in a car was quite a challenge because of the dynamic range and the noise in the car. This is still true even with the stereo remixes from CD. The SACD stereo track on those boxes was said by friends to sound quite superior to the original CDs. However Davis said the remix SACD result was identical to the CD remix result. However he couldn’t vouche for the mastering of the remix CD versus the remix SACD. I think it is incompetent for the engineer to not evaluate the final product, with measurements and the ear.
    Well, assuming the mix and mastering is good, SACD should sound better than regular CDs because it’s a higher resolution format. And the Gabriel box’s better sound isn’t, I’d bet, anything to do with better gear...more that the putcry about the previous boxes was so loud that they paid attention. But medium has no bearing on the mix..it is about higher resolution allowing for broader frequency and dynamic range. But the positioning of the instruments across the soundstage won’t change (though higher res formats will possess a broader soundstage).

    I’d recommend picking up a book about basic sound engineering, as it sounds to me, with no disrespect intended, that your understanding of the process could stand a little improvement...if, that is, you care

    As for mix vs master? I don’t recall if Davis was responsible for both. If so, then yes, he was responsible for the finished sound, irrespective of medium. But if he was only mixing and someone else mastering? It’s not his job to listen to the mastered music; he’s hired to mix the music, and if that’s then passed off to another engineer for mastering, well, that’s on the second guy. Some engineers specialize in mastering, so it’s not uncommon for an album to be mixed and mastered by two different people. But once the mixer’s work is done, it’s done (just consider Steven Wilson’s mixes...many of which are transferred as-is but others then mastered by someone else).

    And yes, in a car the dynamics can often mean quieter passages are hard to hear....but I’ll take that over flat dynamics any day. If the artist intended the music to cover a broad dynamic range, I think it’s just flat-out wrong to eliminate it.

    Of course, when the artist does it because of aging ears (Hammill’s VDGG remasters, anyone?), well, that’s another story.
    Last edited by jkelman; 1 Week Ago at 02:11 AM.
    John Kelman
    Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
    Freelance writer/photographer

  19. #169
    Mod or rocker? Mocker. Frumious B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Smyrna, GA
    Posts
    382
    I have always looked out from behind these eyes.
    "It was a cruel song, but fair."-Roger Waters

  20. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by jkelman View Post

    As for mix vs master? I don’t recall if Davis was responsible for both. If so, then yes, he was responsible for the finished sound, irrespective of medium. But if he was only mixing and someone else mastering? It’s not his job to listen to the mastered music; he’s hired to mix the music, and if that’s then passed off to another engineer for mastering, well, that’s on the second guy. Some engineers specialize in mastering, so it’s not uncommon for an album to be mixed and mastered by two different people. But once the mixer’s work is done, it’s done (just consider Steven Wilson’s mixes...many of which are transferred as-is but others then mastered by someone else).
    .
    From what I read the Wilson stereo remixes are not mastered at all.

    https://www.digitaltrends.com/featur...-cannot-erase/

    Q: I’ve spoken with many an artist who’s said, “I turned in my final approved master, and what I got back on the back end is not what I heard in studio at all.” You’ve taken control of the mastering stage yourself and you don’t have to give anyone instructions about what to do anymore, right?

    SW: The simple answer is I don’t have any of my work mastered. It goes straight from my mixes — flat transfers onto the disc. And that applies to the mixes I do for the Yes reissues, the XTC reissues, the Jethro Tull reissues, and of course my own work too. And it’s amazing how many of the musicians I speak to, when I say to them, “I don’t want this mastered” — they’re initially shocked. But then they understand. Why would you need this mastered? You’ve approved the masters and you think the mixes sound great, so why would you not just release them as they are?
    Now, I’m not saying that’s right for everyone, because some people need or want that extra pair of ears to check what they’ve done. But I’m at the stage now where I’m 100 percent confident that what I produce out of my studio is e
    Last edited by olivetti; 1 Week Ago at 06:58 AM.

  21. #171
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by jkelman View Post
    Well, assuming the mix and mastering is good, SACD should sound better than regular CDs because itís a higher resolution format. And the Gabriel boxís better sound isnít, Iíd bet, anything to do with better gear...more that the putcry about the previous boxes was so loud that they paid attention. But medium has no bearing on the mix..it is about higher resolution allowing for broader frequency and dynamic range. But the positioning of the instruments across the soundstage wonít change (though higher res formats will possess a broader soundstage).

    Iíd recommend picking up a book about basic sound engineering, as it sounds to me, with no disrespect intended, that your understanding of the process could stand a little improvement...if, that is, you care

    As for mix vs master? I donít recall if Davis was responsible for both. If so, then yes, he was responsible for the finished sound, irrespective of medium. But if he was only mixing and someone else mastering? Itís not his job to listen to the mastered music; heís hired to mix the music, and if thatís then passed off to another engineer for mastering, well, thatís on the second guy. Some engineers specialize in mastering, so itís not uncommon for an album to be mixed and mastered by two different people. But once the mixerís work is done, itís done (just consider Steven Wilsonís mixes...many of which are transferred as-is but others then mastered by someone else).

    And yes, in a car the dynamics can often mean quieter passages are hard to hear....but Iíll take that over flat dynamics any day. If the artist intended the music to cover a broad dynamic range, I think itís just flat-out wrong to eliminate it.

    Of course, when the artist does it because of aging ears (Hammillís VDGG remasters, anyone?), well, thatís another story.
    I understand the engineering that could be done correctly, Iím just mystified by subjectivity and statements made by Davis that the digital information on the SACD stereo track is identical to the CD. This statement is equivalent to taking the CD 16 bit 44kbs data and converting it directly to DSD. One explanation for my friends subjective impression of the SACD stereo version is that DSD conversion to analog may simply be more accurate in their players or Davis doesnít know what really happened when he handed off a 24 bit 96 KHz stereo mix with compression to the mastering engineer, for DSD and CD conversion.
    ď[They] agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.Ē

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
  •