Anniversary GWS
Huck
pressing or did I get lucky?
big baby jeebus
they mean that they themselves no longer have any copies, because they've all
been sold to retailers. when you hear that the new limp bupkiz CD has sold a
million copies, that means that a million copies have been purchased wholesale
by record stores, not necessarily that a million people have actually bought it
themselves. so it's entirely possible that you could still find a new GWS in
the stores.
how does it sound, anyway? is it all clipped out and compressed to shit like
every other rock CD that's come out in the past few years? should i regret
having sold my twin/tone copy on half.com? (and am i the only person here
who's completely anal about that kind of thing?)
Bucky Jones
cutting up production of album when necessary. im no expert but that is the
unrealized half of what is wrong with music today. there is untalented talent
when it comes to performers but there are plenty of untalented producers that
are making all of these albums sound exactly alike
big baby jeebus
no shit. it seems can't use headphones to listen to any CD released after
1996, my ears feel like they're in a vaccuum. even ween's guilty of this to
some extent... "stroker ace" could be kicking my ass with rock power a lot
harder if it weren't so compressed. a few weeks ago, on a whim, i sent andy
vandette & howie weinberg of masterdisk an email addressing the situation, and
i actually got an informative (but not terribly hope-inspiring) response from
andy. i'll be glad to post it here if anyone cares.
but back to my question, have you heard the new GWS? how does it sound?
Dan Watkins
> but back to my question, have you heard the new GWS? how does it sound?
Well, it certainly does sound better than the Twin Tone release. I
guitar in particular sounds much meatier and thicker. I also think
that they softened the harsh treble on the guitar in Birthday Boy a
little bit. It doesn't make my ears bleed anymore. They also boosted
the volume on the whole album, so the resolution is much better.
Plus, they cranked Puffy Cloud up a good bit. I don't have to turn my
volume all the way up in my car to hear it.
-Dan
Sunformer
thu...@acer-access.nospamplease.heylookatmypenis.com (big baby jeebus)
wrote:
Post it. Id like to read it. Thanks...
mojo
from what I can gather, Pat was also quite emphatic about the highly compressed
norm of modern recordings
p frey
about with the invention of digital compression (the Finalizer, etc...). It allowed
you to manipulate the sound in untold ways. Some of it was good - but it started
getting abused.
I remember when Greg went to the mix session of "Beacon Light" and his main job was
to make sure it didn't get too compressed. It was a battle - it all comes out of
wanting your record to sound the loudest on radio. But it's become a crutch.
Now I see/hear Greg using it in ProTools (judiciously, I'm sure!) and he's gotten
very sensitive to the sound of it. He will often go in an manually knock down just
the peaks of a loud section of a song, as opposed to heavy compression on the whole
track.
For all you recording hobbyists .... IMHO, the use of compression is one of the most
important, and most difficult skills to learn when making really pro sounding
recordings. If you record digitally, it's even more important 'cause there's no
natural tape compression. [as a side note, that's what's so great about 4 track
cassette recording ... it's all naturally squished - ween is all about that sound]
I think Chris Shaw does a good job with compression. Any one hear the new Bob Dylan
record? He did that and it sounds really wonderful. I hope we can still get him for
the next ween record...
ok - off my soap box
pat
mojo wrote:
--
Chocodog serves up official Ween Merchandise on the Web
http://merchandise.chocodog.com
http://www.weenradio.com/
WeenRadio named #3 Best Digital Music Entity of 2000 by RollingStone.com
big baby jeebus
From: rever...@mothertree.com
To: ho...@masterdisk.com,an...@masterdisk.com
Subject: Modern mastering techniques
Dear Masterdisk folks,
I really don't know if this you guys are the right people to talk to
about this. Put simply, I decided to write you mainly because I've seen
the words "Mastered by (such-and-such) at Masterdisk" in the credits of
so many of the CDs I own, and I can't think of anyone else I might bring
this up to.
My beef is with the rampant overuse and abuse of compression that has
become the industry standard for rock & roll albums. I'm not talking
about data compression like MP3, I mean actual audio compression. Nobody
seems to know how to master CDs properly anymore. They're all compressed
to shit and digitally clipped out by 200%, just so the listener doesn't
have to go through the excruciating trouble of turning the volume knob a
couple notches to the right. For some reason this has been the norm for
about four or five years now. I'm pretty sure I'm the only non-industry
person who's bothered to say anything about this, but I honestly feel if
everything is digitally distorted and compressed and the instruments are
fighting each other to be on top, instead of working together to kick
your ass like they should be, that kind of defeats the purpose of the
mastering process. Most decent stereo speakers are resilient little
mothers; don't go mangling the sound just so the speakers don't get blown
out. I honestly don't mind turning up the volume on my stereo if it
means I get better sound quality, and I don't think people whose ears
haven't been trained to pick these things up would complain either.
I can't use headphones to listen to any rock CDs released within the past
four years, because my ears feel like they're in a vacuum whenever the
compression kicks in. This may be all well and good for the rap-metal
crowd, who probably couldn't care less what their music sounds like as
long as a rhythm is present and the guitar is as distorted as possible,
but I feel the bands I enjoy deserve better than this piss-poor "industry
standard". I feel I should point out that I'm not some old knowitall
geezer who pines for the Way Things Were. I'm a 21-year-old audiophile
who enjoys mastering and burning his own mix discs (and CDs of his own
band's music), and who does a much more listenable job of it than most
modern "professionals" would.
Again, I'm sorry if you're not the right people to address about this
issue. I'm sure that nothing will change as a result of my having
written this, and that the CD mastering gurus will just keep finding
newer and more efficient ways to molest and disfigure the music all for
the sake of artificially raising the volume, and I'll keep wincing every
time the kick drum drowns out the guitar, and the artists themselves will
remain clueless and just take it for granted that that's how it's
supposed to sound. I've just needed to get this off of my chest for some
time.
Scott Chapman
Virginia Beach, VA
big baby jeebus
From: an...@masterdisk.com
To: rever...@mothertree.com
Subject: Re: Modern mastering techniques
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:22:36 -0700
Scott,
I share your concerns about the loudness of CD's. But working at
Masterdisk for 16 years now, I can tell you that I've heard you
complaints before-even before the mass popularity of CDs...I can remember
how overcompressed, distorted and sickly bright Michael Jackson's
"thriller" sounded the first time I heard it. Not to mention allot of the
mid eighties Hall & Oats stuff I saw Bob Ludwig master. But now? the
compression on THAT stuff sounds pretty tasteful, if not non-existent. I
think you lead a very noble effort, but when I merely add +2dB of level
to your records, and A/B them for your friends-(or whoever)-I'd bet money
$$$$ they pick the boosted master. Sorry but I've been around too long
not to admit that mastering is 75% level game-and working with Howie
Weinberg I can see the loudest guy wins.
Are we the villains because we push the envelope farther-at the
insistence of our clients? I don't think so. If you need someone to
blame-try Bob Clearmountain-He's the golden ears who said the apogee
A/D's soft limit setting was cool. Suddenly everyone used it on
everything & made CDs +5dB pretty much over night. At least its taken 5-7
years for the average CD level to rise another 2-3dB......
I agree that some CDs are too loud for musical listening. Red Hot Chili
Peppers "Californication" and Princes' xxxxxxx are my own top offenders.
But I know they were turned up way passed what either mastering engineer
(Vlado & Dawsey) ever wanted. Both artists insisted that they have the
loudest CD around. Many are misguided types who got where they are
believing everything sounds better SLAMMED, cause thats the way they did
it in the analog world.
Now that anyone with a PC thinks he's a mastering engineer-my top
villains are the Digi-plugin-tool guys who are convinced their plugins
sound "just like analog" then distort everybody's mixes trying to compete
with the real mastering studios....or even worse they try to "one UP" me
with one crummy digital gain stage, causing me to push the rest of the
record beyond what I want.......My audio professor said "there is no such
thing as a good recording-only less bad ones
There is no right answer for this. If you wanna make your CDs softer/more
dynamic/more musical, I salute you. I agree that there are some musical
genres that should still keep dynamics
intact-jazz/classical/orchestral/gospel.........and when I get one of
those, I work hard to keep them that way. But when Metalica calls me-you
better believe that mine will be very competitive, level
wise......................Hey even Steely Dan has made the level
jump-c'mon in Steve the waters fine....let me show you good loud vs bad
loud on your next proect.......Best of Luck to you,
Sincerely,
Andy VanDette
Chief Engineer
Masterdisk NYC
big baby jeebus
From: rever...@mothertree.com
To: an...@masterdisk.com
Subject: Re: Modern mastering techniques
So what you're saying is, yes it sucks, but nobody who values their job
can find the balls to disagree with Prince, so there's nothing that can
be done? That is ridiculous. If these "misguided types" of which you
speak don't realize that massive compression actually reduces and softens
the attack instead of strengthening it, then it should be the
responsibility of those who DO understand this to at least attempt to
educate them about it. It's a depressing situation when the enlightened
give that much control to the ignorant.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Compression Should Never Be Used,
or any such blanket statement. Compression has its place, and can be
quite useful in moderation. However, since moderation seems to be
unfashionable in everything but politics nowadays, I doubt anyone would
be open to the idea of using rock CDs from, say, the early '90s as models
for compression usage. Of course, I grew up on music that sounded like
that, so even the volume level on albums like Nevermind or Pork Soda may
sound extreme to somebody who's been in the business as long as you have
(I admit Thriller actually sounds OK to me).
Now I can tell that people in the industry still at least know how to do
it right, when I listen to albums that were first released before compact
discs were around, then reissued on CD (mostly during the 90s, when CD
mastering folks understood what they were doing a little better). The
people responsible for committing those recordings to digital obviously
had respect for the music and knew that they would be doing both the
artists and the audience a disservice by artificially forcing the volume
up 9 db and clipping everything out. Why can't more recent recordings
get the same respect? When I look at the waveform of a song from one of
my Bowie or Genesis or Zappa remasters, I can plainly see the dynamics in
the song, the quiet parts and the loud thundering parts. If I look at
the wave on a song from the new Iggy Pop or System of a Down album,
zoomed all the way out it just looks like a long rectangle, and it sounds
like crap besides.
I refuse to believe that a consumer will return his new Metallica CD to
the record store on the grounds that it's "not loud enough" and that he
doesn't like having to turn the volume up by hand. I'm not asking that
you (you meaning the CD mastering community in general) refuse to do it
their way and risk losing their business. If they demand that you mangle
their music, you don't have much of a choice. All I'm asking is that you
at least try to make the artists slightly less uninformed (I don't care
how, leave pamphlets under their windshield wipers or something), and see
if you can't get your peers and competitors in the field to quit
encouraging this "louder music at any cost" foolishness.
I know I'm making a much bigger deal out of this than it really is but,
well, I have a lot of time on my hands, and complaining about things like
this helps to keep my mind off of the big stuff. I'll stop complaining
about it now and get on with my life
Scott
Dweeb
got a response, but you are certainly in a small minority.
I read the Cakewalk groups daily and EVERY day somebody asks "Why don't my
mixes sound as loud as so-and-so's?", and they are pointed toward the latest
mastering program or compressor plugin.
I am sure that most people with untrained ears who listen to music in their
cars or in the background WILL always prefer the compressed master. It's
just louder, that's all they can tell. And groups are NOT gonna put up with
a mix that's not as loud as possible.
As for GWS2, I actually think it sounds better than the original mix on most
tracks. A couple tracks seem to have lost the bass. I haven't really
compared the levels. But, I'm old and my ears are fucked up (medical truth!)
so I am not the best judge. I think it's really worth it just for the extra
tracks.
Dan Watkins
> get the same respect? When I look at the waveform of a song from one of
> my Bowie or Genesis or Zappa remasters, I can plainly see the dynamics in
> the song, the quiet parts and the loud thundering parts. If I look at
> the wave on a song from the new Iggy Pop or System of a Down album,
> zoomed all the way out it just looks like a long rectangle, and it sounds
> like crap besides.
Well, Zappa wasn't exactly an angel when it comes to remastering CDs
either. Check this out:
http://home5.swipnet.se/~w-59501/vinylvscds/you_are_what_you_is.html
http://home5.swipnet.se/~w-59501/vinylvscds/sheik_yerbouti.html
http://home5.swipnet.se/~w-59501/vinylvscds/tinsel-town_rebellion.html
-Dan
big baby jeebus
>Well, Zappa wasn't exactly an angel when it comes to remastering CDs
>either. Check this out:
>
>http://home5.swipnet.se/~w-59501/vinylvscds/you_are_what_you_is.html
>http://home5.swipnet.se/~w-59501/vinylvscds/sheik_yerbouti.html
>http://home5.swipnet.se/~w-59501/vinylvscds/tinsel-town_rebellion.html
well the people who are saying things like "it sounds so compressed to
me" are people who have been alive and rocking out a decade or so longer
than i have, so their ears are trained to different things... also i
haven't heard the original viynl of any of the zappa CDs i have so i
can't really tell
Dan Watkins
> well the people who are saying things like "it sounds so compressed to
> me" are people who have been alive and rocking out a decade or so longer
> than i have, so their ears are trained to different things... also i
> haven't heard the original viynl of any of the zappa CDs i have so i
> can't really tell
I'll admit that my hearing really sucks. I didn't even know there was
a problem with the You Are What You Is CD until I read about it online
(that one guy was FOURTEEN when he noticed it). As for the Sheik
Yerbouti and Tinsel Town Rebellion CDs, they don't really bother me
while I'm listening to them, but if I were to listen to one of the CDs
and then immediately listen to the LP, I would go "Holy shit!!!" The
CDs really suck in comparison to the vinyl.
-Dan
JWB
>
> I'll admit that my hearing really sucks. I didn't even know there was
> a problem with the You Are What You Is CD until I read about it online
> (that one guy was FOURTEEN when he noticed it).
I'm amazed to stumble across this...because guess who the afore-mentioned 14-year old was?
ME!
Yes, I noticed it and it was the first time that I ever heard "over-compression". I thought that my
ears were going bad.
The problem with all of the Zappa discs mastered in 1990 is that something went horribly wrong in
the mastering stage. So much compression was added to the tapes that they lost all of their "life"
and literally became non-dimentional. In the worst case...You Are What You Is....things literally
went ballistic in the stereo image...with instruments cancelling each other out, causing "simulated
dropouts"...and the high-end was so harsh that it literally gave you a headache. 10 years ago when I
first heard it in headphones, I had to just shut it off and put it away. It was the first time that
I ever couldn't stand the SOUND of something.
Years later, I found out what the deal was. At the TIME I didn't know, I just thought the album
SUCKED.
To this day, I have NEVER heard worse mastering work than the Zappa CDs released in 1990. Just
abominable.
> As for the Sheik
> Yerbouti and Tinsel Town Rebellion CDs, they don't really bother me
> while I'm listening to them, but if I were to listen to one of the CDs
> and then immediately listen to the LP, I would go "Holy shit!!!" The
> CDs really suck in comparison to the vinyl.
YAWYI and Tinseltown Rebellion were re-mastered in 1999 and the pressing plates were secretly
replaced. These masters blow the vinyl AWAY. The reason that so many CD's sound worse than vinyl is
because so few people knew what they were doing when they transferred these vinyl gems to the
digital format. But the re-mastering work on those two albums is incredible. They both sound like
"new" albums. If you bought brand new copies today, you would probably get the "good" master.
Why they haven't re-mastered Sheik Yerbouti, Zoot Allures, or Fillmore East is beyond me. Those came
out just as bad as "Tinseltown Rebellion". (but YAWYI was light years ahead in awfulness.)
I highly reccommend picking up a new copy of YAWYI...at least to give the new and old masters an
A/B.
JWB
big baby jeebus
>YAWYI and Tinseltown Rebellion were re-mastered in 1999 and the pressing
>plates were secretly replaced. These masters blow the vinyl AWAY. The
>reason that so many CD's sound worse than vinyl is because so few people
>knew what they were doing when they transferred these vinyl gems to the
>digital format. But the re-mastering work on those two albums is
>incredible. They both sound like "new" albums. If you bought brand new
>copies today, you would probably get the "good" master.
yeah. too bad YAWYI kinda sucks