Blaise Pascal
Thank you!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
MackMantilla
Great work. Thanks!
TyphoonTip
Again, why no mention of the 1st press CDs?
Jam Monkey
[QUOTE] [b]TyphoonTip wrote:[/b]
Again, why no mention of the 1st press CDs?[/QUOTE]
I really wanted that section to only deal with remasters, rather than be a comprehensive list of all CD issues.
Of course, some form of mastering would have happened with those first press CDs as part of the transfer from an analogue source to a digital format. But as I understand it, many other remastering processes did not happen (hence a lot of the quality issues these discs suffer from).
For that reason I think you can count the 1991 US releases as the first 'proper' remaster.
Again, why no mention of the 1st press CDs?[/QUOTE]
I really wanted that section to only deal with remasters, rather than be a comprehensive list of all CD issues.
Of course, some form of mastering would have happened with those first press CDs as part of the transfer from an analogue source to a digital format. But as I understand it, many other remastering processes did not happen (hence a lot of the quality issues these discs suffer from).
For that reason I think you can count the 1991 US releases as the first 'proper' remaster.
TyphoonTip
[QUOTE] [b]Jam Monkey wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]TyphoonTip wrote:[/b]
Again, why no mention of the 1st press CDs?[/QUOTE]
I really wanted that section to only deal with remasters, rather than be a comprehensive list of all CD issues.
Of course, some form of mastering would have happened with those first press CDs as part of the transfer from an analogue source to a digital format. But as I understand it, many other remastering processes did not happen (hence a lot of the quality issues these discs suffer from).
For that reason I think you can count the 1991 US releases as the first 'proper' remaster.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]TyphoonTip wrote:[/b]
Again, why no mention of the 1st press CDs?[/QUOTE]
I really wanted that section to only deal with remasters, rather than be a comprehensive list of all CD issues.
Of course, some form of mastering would have happened with those first press CDs as part of the transfer from an analogue source to a digital format. But as I understand it, many other remastering processes did not happen (hence a lot of the quality issues these discs suffer from).
For that reason I think you can count the 1991 US releases as the first 'proper' remaster.[/QUOTE]
TyphoonTip
[QUOTE]
[b]Jam Monkey wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]TyphoonTip wrote:[/b]
Again, why no mention of the 1st press CDs?[/QUOTE]
I really wanted that section to only deal with remasters, rather than be a comprehensive list of all CD issues.
Of course, some form of mastering would have happened with those first press CDs as part of the transfer from an analogue source to a digital format. But as I understand it, many other remastering processes did not happen (hence a lot of the quality issues these discs suffer from).
For that reason I think you can count the 1991 US releases as the first 'proper' remaster.[/QUOTE]
_______________________
Cheers for the reply.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that 1st press CDs were omitted because of inferior sound quality?
That seems very strange indeed, as there is a considerable volume of opinion that suggests that these presses are (for the most part), the best sounding digital versions we have. In a web cast Q&A Bob Ludwig last year very briefly spoke about the recent remasters, and that he felt that up to that point, the 1st presses were the pick of the digital bunch, up to that point.
A quick check of any audiophile forum, will also reveal how discredited other remaster series are, particularly the 91 Hollywood, and 93-4 Digital series. Both indecently, were plagued with far more problems than the 1st presses.
Mastering is an art of selection and omission (it's a large part of my job). So to suggest that the 1st presses were not 'remastered' simply because you have information regarding relative mastering processes of the 1st press vs other remasters, is factually incorrect. That would still be the case even if those CDs were flat transfers, which they aren't.
IMO the best sounding digital version is the DCC of Opera; and the simplicity of that mastering process (as detailed by Steve Hoffman himself) is staggering. To the point where, by your definition, it may not be a remaster. Yet it sounds amazing. With mastering, more often than not, less is more.
Of course sound quality is totally subjective, but it does seem odd that you've gone to great lengths to detail the remasters, while ignoring the CDs that many favour.
Now, having just read back what I wrote, I realise it may sound a tad aggressive. Sorry if it does. In the end, the work you've done is great, and a fantastic resource for all fans. And for that I thank you sincerely. I guess everyone has a raw nerve, and this is mine. So sorry again if it comes across as an attack.
[b]Jam Monkey wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]TyphoonTip wrote:[/b]
Again, why no mention of the 1st press CDs?[/QUOTE]
I really wanted that section to only deal with remasters, rather than be a comprehensive list of all CD issues.
Of course, some form of mastering would have happened with those first press CDs as part of the transfer from an analogue source to a digital format. But as I understand it, many other remastering processes did not happen (hence a lot of the quality issues these discs suffer from).
For that reason I think you can count the 1991 US releases as the first 'proper' remaster.[/QUOTE]
_______________________
Cheers for the reply.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that 1st press CDs were omitted because of inferior sound quality?
That seems very strange indeed, as there is a considerable volume of opinion that suggests that these presses are (for the most part), the best sounding digital versions we have. In a web cast Q&A Bob Ludwig last year very briefly spoke about the recent remasters, and that he felt that up to that point, the 1st presses were the pick of the digital bunch, up to that point.
A quick check of any audiophile forum, will also reveal how discredited other remaster series are, particularly the 91 Hollywood, and 93-4 Digital series. Both indecently, were plagued with far more problems than the 1st presses.
Mastering is an art of selection and omission (it's a large part of my job). So to suggest that the 1st presses were not 'remastered' simply because you have information regarding relative mastering processes of the 1st press vs other remasters, is factually incorrect. That would still be the case even if those CDs were flat transfers, which they aren't.
IMO the best sounding digital version is the DCC of Opera; and the simplicity of that mastering process (as detailed by Steve Hoffman himself) is staggering. To the point where, by your definition, it may not be a remaster. Yet it sounds amazing. With mastering, more often than not, less is more.
Of course sound quality is totally subjective, but it does seem odd that you've gone to great lengths to detail the remasters, while ignoring the CDs that many favour.
Now, having just read back what I wrote, I realise it may sound a tad aggressive. Sorry if it does. In the end, the work you've done is great, and a fantastic resource for all fans. And for that I thank you sincerely. I guess everyone has a raw nerve, and this is mine. So sorry again if it comes across as an attack.
kevukuk
Thanks for all your hard work and congrats on the birth of your daughter.
dysan
Yeah congratulations! recently had one myself. I'd wondered where the other ones had got to! I did like reading through these on a Sunday morning.
Jompster
Thank you very much for all of these! Fantastic job!