From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V5 #183 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Friday, July 29 2005 Volume 05 : Number 183 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Yes Master [Dave Walker ] [loud-fans] Re:Yes Master ["don't mine me" ] Re: [loud-fans] enz split off (addendum to reply to Bradley) [Jeff Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yes Master On Jul 27, 2005, at 11:32 PM, Jeff wrote: > Okay: with some bands, the balance is clearly going to be tipped > toward the live band being the "real" thing (jam bands, say), while an > Aphex Twin record (does he even play live?) is clearly going to be the > real thing while any live performance is either an approximation or > (better approach) a whole 'nother animal. But with most bands, the > truth is somewhere in between. I saw the Aphex Twin perform live in 1994 [i.e. in the "pre-laptop" era, which I guess you could call the tube-amp and Hammond organ age of live techno ;) ] He sat crosslegged towards the edge of the stage, next to a stack of equipment in a road case, er, fiddling with stuff. There was a really, really, deranged guy he brought along with him going apeshit behind him, dancing like a madman, while he produced many, many decibels (did I mention how LOUD, but clear and precise, it all was?) of catchy-yet-abrasive material, some of which was familiar from recordings ('Digeridoo', some of the Joyrex and Caustic Window material), and some which, to my knowledge, hadn't ever showed up on any released recordings (and maybe still hasn't). And no, I don't think he performs live anymore. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:21:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "don't mine me" Subject: [loud-fans] Re:Yes Master Bradley on remastering: >> Basically, i'm saying that the sounds of the individual instruments, now properly remastered, have the texture, presence and blend of actual instruments together in a room--they're much closer to what they actually sound like to the ear in person (this is not always true, but in the case of this album it is.) The echoes and reverb used to create some depth and a sense of placement are artificial, but they're not unlike what would happen in a room (as oppsed to records of similar vintage where the instrument sounds are not at all "natural".) << We have some folks on the list who know better than I, but this sounds much more like "remixing" than "remastering" to me. My understanding of mastering is that it's something you do to a complete stereo track, and involves almost exclusively changes to dynamics (compression; especially differential compression of different frequences) and spectrum (equalization) but not time-based effects like delay or 'verb. I think the differences between early CD mastering and state-of-the-art CD mastering are mostly volume -- CD's now almost always use the full dynamic range and 80s discs often peaked at -1dB or less -- and slightly different EQ curves, both to reduce the "brittle" or "harsh" qualities perceived in early CDs, and to deal with the proliferation of subwoofers. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:18:25 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: [loud-fans] enz split off (addendum to reply to Bradley) On 7/28/05, Bradley Skaught wrote: > I remember talking with Scott about how much better the early GT stuff > sounded on vinyl because the synths and electronic drums interacted with > that format better than on CD. And a lot of that is changing with > remastering that is somehow better able to capture some of the grit and > warmth of those sounds I think it's just this: before CDs, people mastered music knowing that it was going to be heard primarily on vinyl - and through their experience, they knew how to make it sound good given the limitations and characteristics of the vinyl format. When CDs first came out, a lot of the initial releases just dumped the vinyl mix onto CD - and consequently, they sounded harsh and grating because CDs didn't have the high-end rolloff that vinyl did. It took time for mastering folks to get used to CDs' characteristic sound - and more recent CDs lack that harsh edge early ones had. Essentially vinyl's limitations acted as a filter or EQ on the high end of those synths and electronic drums - and when a fuller range of their sound showed up on CD, they sounded wrong - not just because of what people were used to, but because in mastering the albums, the masterers knew (consciously or not) what would & wouldn't show up on vinyl. It's rather like if you adjust the treble on your stereo for a particular room so it sounds good, then move the stereo into a room with less furniture (say), suddenly it's too bright. I wonder if the annoying brightness of "the '80s sound" had anything to do with making sounds that would sound good on vinyl but putting them out on CD? since it was the transitional era between the two formats... - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V5 #183 *******************************