runner_70
If you have the multitracks you can do pretty much anything these days. THe STeven WIlson remixes were mentioned already.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Future Manager wrote:[/b]
There's only so much you can with the original mixes. What I would really like are modern remixes like the ones Steve Wilson did for Yes. Then you can finally 'fix' the albums that have dated or muddled production (my first target would be Jazz).
Just listen to The Hero Revisited on the 2011 Flash Gordon bonus EP for an example of what can be done. The difference is night and day.[/QUOTE]
Bang on. Steven Wilson is a great example. And the new version of Momentary Lapse Of Reason on the latest Pink Floyd box set is a million times better now that it has parts played by the actual members of Floyd instead of session guys, as well as doing away with most of the dated 80s production.
Remastering does yield some improvements, but in this day and age of the loudness war they just sound sonically terrible most of the time. Remixes tend to be far more interesting, and as an added bonus they are labours of love to the point that they won't even fire up the outboard limiters to begin with.
There's only so much you can with the original mixes. What I would really like are modern remixes like the ones Steve Wilson did for Yes. Then you can finally 'fix' the albums that have dated or muddled production (my first target would be Jazz).
Just listen to The Hero Revisited on the 2011 Flash Gordon bonus EP for an example of what can be done. The difference is night and day.[/QUOTE]
Bang on. Steven Wilson is a great example. And the new version of Momentary Lapse Of Reason on the latest Pink Floyd box set is a million times better now that it has parts played by the actual members of Floyd instead of session guys, as well as doing away with most of the dated 80s production.
Remastering does yield some improvements, but in this day and age of the loudness war they just sound sonically terrible most of the time. Remixes tend to be far more interesting, and as an added bonus they are labours of love to the point that they won't even fire up the outboard limiters to begin with.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]dudeofqueen wrote:[/b]
A turd is a turd, regardless of how hard you polish the fucking thing - if what's on the TAPE isn't great, it'll always be just what's on the tape in a shinier wrapper.[/QUOTE]
But what if what was on the tape is great but the mix was hastily done, like The Beatles stereo mixes between 1965-68? The Giles Martin mixes are leaps and bounds better purely on making more use of the stereo field alone, never mind EQ. The same goes for the 1999 mix of Yellow Submarine. Compare Steven Wilson's mix of Chicago II to the original. His is light years better.
EQ can do pretty incredible things nowadays. Someone here did a fan mix of Queen II a few years back, and the difference is night and day. By isolating certain frequencies he managed to pull out entire parts that were completely buried previously. And that was just from using the stereo mix, not the 16 track masters.
The technology absolutely does exist to "polish a turd" as it were. The advent of automation alone made a massive difference in how well a mix could be done. That said, a poor mix can all come down to who's behind the mixing desk. There are countless variables at play, either in 1967 or in 2020.
And if all this continues to not make sense to you despite the numerous examples and context provided, then either you aren't a recording engineer, you're a shitty one, or you're just being a contrarian for the sake of being one.
A turd is a turd, regardless of how hard you polish the fucking thing - if what's on the TAPE isn't great, it'll always be just what's on the tape in a shinier wrapper.[/QUOTE]
But what if what was on the tape is great but the mix was hastily done, like The Beatles stereo mixes between 1965-68? The Giles Martin mixes are leaps and bounds better purely on making more use of the stereo field alone, never mind EQ. The same goes for the 1999 mix of Yellow Submarine. Compare Steven Wilson's mix of Chicago II to the original. His is light years better.
EQ can do pretty incredible things nowadays. Someone here did a fan mix of Queen II a few years back, and the difference is night and day. By isolating certain frequencies he managed to pull out entire parts that were completely buried previously. And that was just from using the stereo mix, not the 16 track masters.
The technology absolutely does exist to "polish a turd" as it were. The advent of automation alone made a massive difference in how well a mix could be done. That said, a poor mix can all come down to who's behind the mixing desk. There are countless variables at play, either in 1967 or in 2020.
And if all this continues to not make sense to you despite the numerous examples and context provided, then either you aren't a recording engineer, you're a shitty one, or you're just being a contrarian for the sake of being one.
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b][QUOTE] [b]dudeofqueen wrote:[/b]
A turd is a turd, regardless of how hard you polish the fucking thing - if what's on the TAPE isn't great, it'll always be just what's on the tape in a shinier wrapper.[/QUOTE]
The technology absolutely does exist to "polish a turd" as it were. The advent of automation alone made a massive difference in how well a mix could be done. That said, a poor mix can all come down to who's behind the mixing desk. There are countless variables at play, either in 1967 or in 2020.[/QUOTE]
and the production in general.
you only have to listen to the crisp clear sound - esp drums, on those first FOUR Cars LPs. who was behind it all? Roy Thomas Baker. At the same time the Queen sound went thin and wispy, the Cars were sounding clean, crisp and immediate.
A turd is a turd, regardless of how hard you polish the fucking thing - if what's on the TAPE isn't great, it'll always be just what's on the tape in a shinier wrapper.[/QUOTE]
The technology absolutely does exist to "polish a turd" as it were. The advent of automation alone made a massive difference in how well a mix could be done. That said, a poor mix can all come down to who's behind the mixing desk. There are countless variables at play, either in 1967 or in 2020.[/QUOTE]
and the production in general.
you only have to listen to the crisp clear sound - esp drums, on those first FOUR Cars LPs. who was behind it all? Roy Thomas Baker. At the same time the Queen sound went thin and wispy, the Cars were sounding clean, crisp and immediate.
cmsdrums
The Ludwig remaster of ‘I Can’t Live With You’ from Innuendo has the e-drum fill at the very start brought right up in level and punch, but then it loses all the ‘oomph’ when the rest of the track comes in - that is pretty poorly mastered, and as if they ran a filter over it whilst they went for a cuppa and then didn’t listen to it again!
Dim
I thought the drums sound on ICLWY was done by using a computer program and orchestrated by Brian.
earwig
Don't confuse remixing and remastering folks!!
The two things AREN'T interchangeable...
The two things AREN'T interchangeable...
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]earwig wrote:[/b]Don't confuse remixing and remastering folks!!
The two things AREN'T interchangeable...[/QUOTE]
exactly.
mix/remix - has all of the individual elements in separate form. these can be edited, tweaked - adjustments and enhancements can be applied to individual tracks.
master/remaster - is done from a mixdown of a finished stereo mix. therefore, any adjustments change everything - to the same degree.
you can remaster over and over - Thriller (for example) has been remastered several times.
you cannot remix a master/remaster
cart and horse, basically
The two things AREN'T interchangeable...[/QUOTE]
exactly.
mix/remix - has all of the individual elements in separate form. these can be edited, tweaked - adjustments and enhancements can be applied to individual tracks.
master/remaster - is done from a mixdown of a finished stereo mix. therefore, any adjustments change everything - to the same degree.
you can remaster over and over - Thriller (for example) has been remastered several times.
you cannot remix a master/remaster
cart and horse, basically
SpaceGrey
I think it will not be so important whether the studio album as part of the box set will be remastered. News Of The World is not remastered, and it works and in fact, no one asked this do.
SpaceGrey
I wonder will we see someday Queen I,II,Sheer Heart Attack,ANATO,ADATR,Jazz,The Game,Hot Space and so on as box set
dudeofqueen
Officer Clawhauser, re:
Doughnuts all ok today chap? Good.
>And if all this continues to not make sense to you despite the numerous examples and context provided
Revisionist. In much the same way as the Bo Rhap movie fiasco tampered with the reality of the band's history, a "night and day" change to a piece of art makes it a *DIFFERENT* piece of art by anyone's (especially your own, highly flexible) standards.
QPL Press Release
(Manufactured by Phil Symes in conjunction with officer of the law and self-proclaimed authority The (ahem) Real Wizard)
Here we are, boys and girls.
The Miracle - as you've always wanted to hear it.
We decided that what Queen released in 1989 was, frankly, a pile of old shit, so we've polished it up, turned it upside down and popped a dress on it so that it's what SHOULD Have been issued way back then.
Peter Freestone has gone on record as saying "I know for a fact that Freddie thought this album was a stroke of sonic genius; in fact, when he heard Roger's programmed drums, he immediately rushed to the phone, called Roger up and said "Darling, this is ground-breeaking. My dear old thing, I think you've set a new standard. The modern-day Gene Krupa, you naughty thing you!" however, we all knew differently and Paul Gambaccini had to be held back with a bungee rope and the promise of an 18 year old Belgian boy from telling Fred."
So, have a listen to what someone ELSE reckons The Miracle should sound like - after all, Fred's pushed up daisies for years now and the monkeys can do what the fuck they like so long as it's not boring, eh!?
Doughnuts all ok today chap? Good.
>And if all this continues to not make sense to you despite the numerous examples and context provided
Revisionist. In much the same way as the Bo Rhap movie fiasco tampered with the reality of the band's history, a "night and day" change to a piece of art makes it a *DIFFERENT* piece of art by anyone's (especially your own, highly flexible) standards.
QPL Press Release
(Manufactured by Phil Symes in conjunction with officer of the law and self-proclaimed authority The (ahem) Real Wizard)
Here we are, boys and girls.
The Miracle - as you've always wanted to hear it.
We decided that what Queen released in 1989 was, frankly, a pile of old shit, so we've polished it up, turned it upside down and popped a dress on it so that it's what SHOULD Have been issued way back then.
Peter Freestone has gone on record as saying "I know for a fact that Freddie thought this album was a stroke of sonic genius; in fact, when he heard Roger's programmed drums, he immediately rushed to the phone, called Roger up and said "Darling, this is ground-breeaking. My dear old thing, I think you've set a new standard. The modern-day Gene Krupa, you naughty thing you!" however, we all knew differently and Paul Gambaccini had to be held back with a bungee rope and the promise of an 18 year old Belgian boy from telling Fred."
So, have a listen to what someone ELSE reckons The Miracle should sound like - after all, Fred's pushed up daisies for years now and the monkeys can do what the fuck they like so long as it's not boring, eh!?
cmsdrums
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]earwig wrote:[/b]Don't confuse remixing and remastering folks!!
The two things AREN'T interchangeable...[/QUOTE]
master/remaster - is done from a mixdown of a finished stereo mix. therefore, any adjustments change everything....
[/QUOTE]
Not strictly true - during the mastering process of a stereo track you can set EQ adjustments to only certain frequencies so others are not affected...for example, they want to boost a bass part that is at 120hz in the track...they can do so without boosting, for example, the cymbals which will only cover a much higher frequency range.
[QUOTE] [b]earwig wrote:[/b]Don't confuse remixing and remastering folks!!
The two things AREN'T interchangeable...[/QUOTE]
master/remaster - is done from a mixdown of a finished stereo mix. therefore, any adjustments change everything....
[/QUOTE]
Not strictly true - during the mastering process of a stereo track you can set EQ adjustments to only certain frequencies so others are not affected...for example, they want to boost a bass part that is at 120hz in the track...they can do so without boosting, for example, the cymbals which will only cover a much higher frequency range.
Anton3283
The Miracle box set will be released in October, press release will be on Freddie's Birthday.I dunno why, but I sure of it
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b][QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]earwig wrote:[/b]Don't confuse remixing and remastering folks!! The two things AREN'T interchangeable...[/QUOTE]
mix/remix - has all of the individual elements in separate form. these can be edited, tweaked - adjustments and enhancements can be applied to individual tracks.
master/remaster - is done from a mixdown of a finished stereo mix. therefore, any adjustments change everything - to the same degree.[/QUOTE]
Not strictly true - during the mastering process of a stereo track you can set EQ adjustments to only certain frequencies so others are not affected...for example, they want to boost a bass part that is at 120hz in the track...they can do so without boosting, for example, the cymbals which will only cover a much higher frequency range. [/QUOTE]
I take your point. but, my point was really that with remastering you have two (stereo) finished tracks to work with. therefore, any frequency change will alter everything at the same frequency.
i've re-pasted my post so it can be seen in context - it was a distinction between the two processes.
[QUOTE] [b]earwig wrote:[/b]Don't confuse remixing and remastering folks!! The two things AREN'T interchangeable...[/QUOTE]
mix/remix - has all of the individual elements in separate form. these can be edited, tweaked - adjustments and enhancements can be applied to individual tracks.
master/remaster - is done from a mixdown of a finished stereo mix. therefore, any adjustments change everything - to the same degree.[/QUOTE]
Not strictly true - during the mastering process of a stereo track you can set EQ adjustments to only certain frequencies so others are not affected...for example, they want to boost a bass part that is at 120hz in the track...they can do so without boosting, for example, the cymbals which will only cover a much higher frequency range. [/QUOTE]
I take your point. but, my point was really that with remastering you have two (stereo) finished tracks to work with. therefore, any frequency change will alter everything at the same frequency.
i've re-pasted my post so it can be seen in context - it was a distinction between the two processes.
Jake12
I think remixing needs to be redone on almost every album.. I honestly want the albums to sound similar to Let Me In Your Heart Again. Yes i understand a lot of people don’t like the sound of it, but I do! It just sounds so fresh and modern. That’s what I think should be done