When the fuck will we get Dave`s solo albums remastered?

[Mr Badguy]

The six pack sounds amazing after remastering.

However, my CDs of "CFTH", "EEAS" and "Skyscraper" display all the ineptitude of early CD mastering.

Nothing outrageous, just kinda muffled and not as loud as they should be.

"A little ain`t enough" and all the albums afterwords sound fine.

I think it`s about time we got all of Dave`s solo stuff reissued with digital remastering, bonus tracks, enhanced packaging and sleevenotes (something sadly missing from the CVH albums).

How `bout it?

[Nickdfresh]

I would think RHINO would be on this...

[POJO_Risin]

I don't know Nick...wouldn't they have to buy the rights for those albums to remaster them...

and let's face it...it's not like DLR's going to have a million people running to the stores to buy the albums...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by POJO_Risin
I don't know Nick...wouldn't they have to buy the rights for those albums to remaster them...

and let's face it...it's not like DLR's going to have a million people running to the stores to buy the albums...

I think they do actually, I thought RHINO is owned by WARNER now?

And I read on the internet earlier today that RHINO has put nearly every Mystery Science Theater 3000 on DVD, I think they can manage two or three CDs.

RHINO seems to be on a mission to remaster almost anything.

I actually wonder what it all means, the CD "remastering" thing that is...

I read High Definition Compact Disc (HDCD), so I think they just update the recording to digital from the original source tapes using better transfer and compression technology. It probably costs little more than just re-issuing the old version...


PS: RHINO was indeed bought by WARNER MUSIC GROUP...

[ppg960]

Might happen eventually?But with HDCD on the way soon all the old will sound new, I hope??

[POJO_Risin]

I forgot Rhino was bought out...

[NATEDOG001976]

Eat 'em and smile could use a re-master or a gold cd release.

[Three_Lock Rock]

why? not like theyll sell to anywon other than the fagtards like you fagguits!!!!!!!!

three lock rock
no stiopping the red rocking!!!1 fagguts!~

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ppg960
Might happen eventually?But with HDCD on the way soon all the old will sound new, I hope?? \

It's already here. I think every CD is recorded using an HDCD or equivalent...

All the VH remasters are HDCD, and WB/Rhino print the HDCD logo on the back.

[Casemeister]

Louder? Please, no. There is a stupid trend of compressing/limiting the absolute hell out of "remasters" these days. A lot of people actually go out and search for the early CDs because they sound BETTER. IMO, the early CDs sound about as good as they need to.

ALAE sounds quite different, but that's because of the BIG production. EEAS and Skyscraper simply don't have that kind of production. The DLR Best Of is probably how any remasters would sound (a little louder, though, and with less dynamics). IMO, that one sounds okay but it is a little harsh. The actual albums sound more natural.

It'd be nice to see really well mastered DLR albums, but I don't think they need it all that badly... and it's entirely possible that they'll be made much worse, soundwise, by any "remastering."

[Mr Badguy]

Originally posted by Three_Lock Rock
why? not like theyll sell to anywon other than the fagtards like you fagguits!!!!!!!!

three lock rock
no stiopping the red rocking!!!1 fagguts!~

Looking beyond the stupidness of that comment, how many people buy lots of other...um..."cult" titles that get remastered?

The Yes and AC/DC (to name but two) back catalogues have been remastered TWICE.

There is money to be made and it`s surprising that noone is making it off the back of Dave`s albums.

[Golden AWe]

...and when are the Skyscraper demo tapes released?

[Terry]

I doubt anytime soon.

I mean, I'd certainly like to see it happen, but like Pojo said, there's not some huge section of the public clamoring begging for it.

[Terry]

Originally posted by Three_Lock Rock
why? not like theyll sell to anywon other than the fagtards like you fagguits!!!!!!!!

three lock rock
no stiopping the red rocking!!!1 fagguts!~

You can't even fucking spell...

...not even a case of being dyslexic here. You're just an out-and-out ignorant motherfucker, huh?

Wow. What a nitwit!:rolleyes:

[Hardrock69]

Hey, with all respect to Uncle Dave, I WANT THE WARNER BROTHERS DEMOS REMASTERED FIRST!!!!!!!!

I mean "officially". I remastered them myself, as well as I could anyway.

God knows how many generations even a normal FLAC cd-r of those tapes is....probably be lucky if the very earliest generation on cd is 3rd or 4th....

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Mr Badguy
Looking beyond the stupidness of that comment, how many people buy lots of other...um..."cult" titles that get remastered?

The Yes and AC/DC (to name but two) back catalogues have been remastered TWICE.

There is money to be made and it`s surprising that noone is making it off the back of Dave`s albums.


Now that you mention it....let me guess...on the AC/DC stuff, remastered for the first cd release and then remastered again (currently) so they can be sold again as "remastered"?

Shit and then the next level is already happening with the SACD and DVD Audio stuff....now if you just by this fucking record AGAIN, you can have a 5.1 Surround Sound Mix.....

GODDAMMIT WHY DID JIMI HENDRIX HAVE TO DIE IN 1970?!?!?!?!?!?

THIS IS THE KINDA SHIT HE WAS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH 35 FUCKING YEARS AGO!!!!

GRRRRRRRR

:mad:

BUT...I digress....

I would venture to say that they have reached the limits of what can be sold to audiences in the audio realms.

I mean, 5.1 Surround Sound...well, you can go 6 or 8 or 9 channels.....shit you only need so many to give you full coverage (us just being humans and all....)...there is not much more you can do to sound to make it any more "real", or "lifelike".

The only real quantum leaps that still need to be made are in the visual realms. I wanna have a table about 10 feet long by 5 feet wide, where I can watch entire 3-D movies in holographic realism.

Or FUCK THAT...I wanna sit in my goddam armchair with a giant bong and some killer smoke, and turn on a holographic projector so I can have my own HOLODECK AND SIT RIGHT IN THE FUCKING MIDDLE OF ZE FILM!!!

http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/meaning-of-life/thumbnails/08-middle-of-the-film.jpg


On that note...computer-wise....we will be able to have the real-life computer power necessary to run Captain Kir's Enterprise in a box on our desktop inside of 50 years.

Shit, our top-secret research facilities probably have shit like that already...

But....YEAH! LET'S GET DAVE'S ALBUMS REMASTERED....uh YEAH!


:cool:

[Hardrock69]

WOOHOO!

FUCKING PARTY!!!!!

:D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Casemeister
Louder? Please, no. There is a stupid trend of compressing/limiting the absolute hell out of "remasters" these days. A lot of people actually go out and search for the early CDs because they sound BETTER. IMO, the early CDs sound about as good as they need to.

ALAE sounds quite different, but that's because of the BIG production. EEAS and Skyscraper simply don't have that kind of production. The DLR Best Of is probably how any remasters would sound (a little louder, though, and with less dynamics). IMO, that one sounds okay but it is a little harsh. The actual albums sound more natural.

It'd be nice to see really well mastered DLR albums, but I don't think they need it all that badly... and it's entirely possible that they'll be made much worse, soundwise, by any "remastering."

You're seriously out of your mind. Hey man, it's apples and oranges and stuff, but...

There is noway that an early-to-late 80's CD sound transfer sounds as good as newer HDCD. The first CD mastering ripped the heart and soul out of the music, sort of like an MP3 does, only worse...

Listen to a source tape, then listen to the old-school CD version and you'll see what I mean. I have U2's "Rattle And Hum" on VHS Hi Fi, and I have the CD version of the same. There's no comparison, the CD sounds hollow, devoid of the musical nuances and missing the dynamics of the sound. In fact, I recently ripped the video tape, and made a much better sounding CD using my computer...

[Nickdfresh]

Part II.)

If you don't believe me, download Apple iTunes ('cause it's actually a good, free player and CD burner), then rip CD tracks to the "Apple Lossless" format, which is a accurate gauge of the dynamic of a sound recording, and you'll see how much older CD's left out of the recording because the "bits-per-second" rate (bps) increases with the sound quality...

I recently ripped Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon," one of the first CDs, and it played at around 600bps, while a newer recording from the mid-90's on is more like 900-1100bps...

[WARF]

Skyscraper needs to be remixed and remastered.

[NATEDOG001976]

Originally posted by WARF
Skyscraper needs to be remixed and remastered.

Not remixed. MegaDave messed up when he did that when he remixed all the old Megadeth Cd's. He changed the sounds guitars ect...really fucked it up.

[Casemeister]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You're seriously out of your mind. Hey man, it's apples and oranges and stuff, but...

There is noway that an early-to-late 80's CD sound transfer sounds as good as newer HDCD. The first CD mastering ripped the heart and soul out of the music, sort of like an MP3 does, only worse...

Listen to a source tape, then listen to the old-school CD version and you'll see what I mean. I have U2's "Rattle And Hum" on VHS Hi Fi, and I have the CD version of the same. There's no comparison, the CD sounds hollow, devoid of the musical nuances and missing the dynamics of the sound. In fact, I recently ripped the video tape, and made a much better sounding CD using my computer...


Part II.)

If you don't believe me, download Apple iTunes ('cause it's actually a good, free player and CD burner), then rip CD tracks to the "Apple Lossless" format, which is a accurate gauge of the dynamic of a sound recording, and you'll see how much older CD's left out of the recording because the "bits-per-second" rate (bps) increases with the sound quality...

I recently ripped Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon," one of the first CDs, and it played at around 600bps, while a newer recording from the mid-90's on is more like 900-1100bps...

I'm out of my mind?

The example you cited strikes me as being a little odd. If you want to use a bitrate, ALL CDs have the same one: 1411.2kbps. It's over 10M/s. Now, yes, I can understand what you're saying, but it's just an odd way of measuring sound quality, IMO. I haven't heard any DSOTM CDs, though, so I shouldn't really comment. The new one may well sound better. Not all new remasters are bad -- just many of them. ;)

CDs sound the way they do because of the MASTERING. Yes, D/A converters have improved, but a well mastered CD from 1986 will still sound better than a poorly mastered 2005 CD. Often, early CDs were just "flat" (or nearly flat) transfers of the master tapes. Today, they often limit, EQ, compress, and use noise reduction like nobody's business. A good mastering engineer knows how to get a great sound out of tapes without resorting to such measures... probably because those measures usually do more harm than good. Compressing the life out of a release just ensures that any listening session of even moderate length WILL bring on "ear fatigue." Put simply, these overcompresed, loud CDs just become tiring to listen to.

If you want an accurate guage of a recording's dynamics, try something like Adobe Audition (formerly Cool Edit Pro) and have a look at any older mastering of an album -vs- any newer mastering of an album. In MOST cases, you'll see that the dynamic range is SIGNIFICANTLY reduced on the newer release.

It's ironic; one of the original selling points of the CD format was that its dynamic range was huge. As the years have passed, those warm, dynamic CDs have become rarer and rarer and compressed CDs with less and less dynamics are becoming the norm. "Maximizing" CDs is just wasting their dynamic range.

(For those reading who aren't overly into audio, the "compression" that I refer to is a process that works with the dynamics -- or, in more simple terms, the difference in volume between quiet and loud passages -- and is not the same type of compression as MP3, etc.)

[Casemeister]

*

[Terry]

I can tell the difference with remastered vs. an older cd, but it doesn't really bother me if I don't have the latest edition of whatever.

Hell, I snagged a mint condition vinyl copy of Fair Warning this weekend, went home and played it on my old turntable and got just as much enjoyment out of it. Think it might have to do with being raised on records and 8-tracks, then making the transition to cassettes and then CDs...

...like, I have about 200 cassettes that I'm not gonna bother updating to CDs as long as they keep making boom boxes.

Plus, some stuff, like...say...Exile On Main Street, was MEANT to sound all jumbled up. When stuff like that gets re-released on CD and they try to clean it up sos y'all can discern the instruments, it just done don't sound right.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Casemeister
I'm out of my mind?

The example you cited strikes me as being a little odd. If you want to use a bitrate, ALL CDs have the same one: 1411.2kbps. It's over 10M/s.

That's also the potential of a WAV file favored by purists as the format to rip or transfer media to a bootleg, 1411Kps, yet it is not the universal play rate. The actual play rate is reduced, if you compress a WAV file to FLAC/SHN/APE/Apple Lossless, you will see the true Kps per recording, the file itself may have the POTENTIAL to read data at 1411kps, but in fact the actual data itself will compressed to the data encoded on the file, usually between 500-1300Kps, so obviously not all CDs are playing at the same rate. Not really.


Now, yes, I can understand what you're saying, but it's just an odd way of measuring sound quality,

Not really, I measure sound quality with my ears. I'm just trying to provide more solid support than empirical data...

But I think when an older CD format is essentially encoding less data (sound) than a newer one, that tells me something.


IMO. I haven't heard any DSOTM CDs, though, so I shouldn't really comment. The new one may well sound better. Not all new remasters are bad -- just many of them. ;)

Well, that's your opinion. Some feel that they sound harsh, but in fact most feel they are a truer representation of the original tape sourced recording.


CDs sound the way they do because of the MASTERING. Yes, D/A converters have improved, but a well mastered CD from 1986 will still sound better than a poorly mastered 2005 CD. Often, early CDs were just "flat" (or nearly flat) transfers of the master tapes. Today, they often limit, EQ, compress, and use noise reduction like nobody's business.

Well, yes, the production value varies. EQ and noise reduction were used on cassettes, so this is obviously nothing new...

But, a well mastered CD from 86,' will sound better when remastered? Is that what you are saying? Yes, a shitty mastering job will be improved by remastering also, though it will not sound as good as a great original recording.


A good mastering engineer knows how to get a great sound out of tapes without resorting to such measures... probably because those measures usually do more harm than good. Compressing the life out of a release just ensures that any listening session of even moderate length WILL bring on "ear fatigue." Put simply, these overcompresed, loud CDs just become tiring to listen to.

Well, there are those that would say that vinyl and cassettes (before they wore out) were far better than CDs or any digital music source in sound reproduction, despite CDs being touted as an improvement. Because, with the older formats were essentially "lossless" while digitization is an effort to "sample" the sound continuum into "1s and 0s." Thereby, for every few pieces of music or sound encoded into a digital bits, a couple are left out, resulting in a hollow sounding, as Neil Young put it, "a screen door" over a painting or scenic landscape. You're not seeing/hearing the whole picture/sound, just most of it. Compression is a way of overcoming this by maximizing the data digitally encoded. This allows nuances to show up in the recording that were often absent upon transfer to CD...


If you want an accurate gauge of a recording's dynamics, try something like Adobe Audition (formerly Cool Edit Pro) and have a look at any older mastering of an album -vs- any newer mastering of an album.

Or I could just use Exact Audio Copy (EAC) and do a frequency analysis...:)


In MOST cases, you'll see that the dynamic range is SIGNIFICANTLY reduced on the newer release.

Um, no, quite the opposite. The older releases often cut the higher, "inaudible" frequencies out.


It's ironic; one of the original selling points of the CD format was that its dynamic range was huge. As the years have passed, those warm, dynamic CDs have become rarer and rarer and compressed CDs with less and less dynamics are becoming the norm. "Maximizing" CDs is just wasting their dynamic range.

Dude, there is no way in hell that you're going to sell me on the fact that older CDs have more dynamics when they simply record less data, or in this case, music.


(For those reading who aren't overly into audio, the "compression" that I refer to is a process that works with the dynamics -- or, in more simple terms, the difference in volume between quiet and loud passages -- and is not the same type of compression as MP3, etc.)

"Compression" is mainly the amount of data transferred into a given media such as CD/DVD. The higher the compression, the louder it is since there is MORE SOUND PRESENT!! The frequency range will be higher as well...

[Hardrock69]

Ok so there are three different definitions of "compression " here....