Kevin Shirley - Again

[Don]

Let's hope they have the new album mastered better than Revelation was. Revelation was not mastered that great, ESPECIALLY the 2nd disc, as the sound quality on it was complete shit (not even listenable). Hopefully they will get someone like Bob Ludwig or Tom Coyne to master it..

If I recall correctly, Disc 2 was produced by Cain, not Shirley.

[bradwjensen]

Let's hope they have the new album mastered better than Revelation was. Revelation was not mastered that great, ESPECIALLY the 2nd disc, as the sound quality on it was complete shit (not even listenable). Hopefully they will get someone like Bob Ludwig or Tom Coyne to master it..

If I recall correctly, Disc 2 was produced by Cain, not Shirley.

That may be so, but producing it not the same as mastering.. I guess I don't know if the producer chose to have the mastering done in a shitty way, but both discs were mastered pretty crappy. If you play the first disc and try listening for the high pitches, they're not really there, as they have been compressed a ton and the bass has been boosted a ton. It's not very airy and clean sounding, like it should be (the dynamics are all gone). After a bit of listening it starts to really strain your ears, which is bad, and unlike the old way of mastering.

A good examples of good and bad (re-)mastering would be to download the special edition of Michael Jackson's Thriller, and also the new 25th version of Thriller, then play songs back-to-back from each version. Both were recently remastered, but by different people, and there is a huge difference in sound quality, and the 25th version sounds a million times cleaner and it doesn't strain your ears like the special edition does.

After hearing those two versions of Thriller played back-to-back, you will easily notice how horrible the sound quality is on Revelation. It's just as bad as the special edition of Thriller.

[Don]

Let's hope they have the new album mastered better than Revelation was. Revelation was not mastered that great, ESPECIALLY the 2nd disc, as the sound quality on it was complete shit (not even listenable). Hopefully they will get someone like Bob Ludwig or Tom Coyne to master it..

If I recall correctly, Disc 2 was produced by Cain, not Shirley.

That may be so, but producing it not the same as mastering.. I guess I don't know if the producer chose to have the mastering done in a shitty way, but both discs were mastered pretty crappy. If you play the first disc and try listening for the high pitches, they're not really there, as they have been compressed a ton and the bass has been boosted a ton. It's not very airy and clean sounding, like it should be (the dynamics are all gone). After a bit of listening it starts to really strain your ears, which is bad, and unlike the old way of mastering.

A good examples of good and bad (re-)mastering would be to download the special edition of Michael Jackson's Thriller, and also the new 25th version of Thriller, then play songs back-to-back from each version. Both were recently remastered, but by different people, and there is a huge difference in sound quality, and the 25th version sounds a million times cleaner and it doesn't strain your ears like the special edition does.

After hearing those two versions of Thriller played back-to-back, you will easily notice how horrible the sound quality is on Revelation. It's just as bad as the special edition of Thriller.

Over the last decade a lot of discs are coming out at lower volumes and then having a remastered addition come out later sounding totally different. It almost seems intentional as everything is digital anyways.

[bradwjensen]

Let's hope they have the new album mastered better than Revelation was. Revelation was not mastered that great, ESPECIALLY the 2nd disc, as the sound quality on it was complete shit (not even listenable). Hopefully they will get someone like Bob Ludwig or Tom Coyne to master it..

If I recall correctly, Disc 2 was produced by Cain, not Shirley.

That may be so, but producing it not the same as mastering.. I guess I don't know if the producer chose to have the mastering done in a shitty way, but both discs were mastered pretty crappy. If you play the first disc and try listening for the high pitches, they're not really there, as they have been compressed a ton and the bass has been boosted a ton. It's not very airy and clean sounding, like it should be (the dynamics are all gone). After a bit of listening it starts to really strain your ears, which is bad, and unlike the old way of mastering.

A good examples of good and bad (re-)mastering would be to download the special edition of Michael Jackson's Thriller, and also the new 25th version of Thriller, then play songs back-to-back from each version. Both were recently remastered, but by different people, and there is a huge difference in sound quality, and the 25th version sounds a million times cleaner and it doesn't strain your ears like the special edition does.

After hearing those two versions of Thriller played back-to-back, you will easily notice how horrible the sound quality is on Revelation. It's just as bad as the special edition of Thriller.

Over the last decade a lot of discs are coming out at lower volumes and then having a remastered addition come out later sounding totally different. It almost seems intentional as everything is digital anyways.

It's because the record labels (supposedly) think the louder the cd is, the more it sells. At least I read that somewhere a long time ago. It's bad enough that everyone thinks horribly compressed mp3s sound just fine, when they're really not all that good on your ears, nor do they sound good on decent equipment.

Here's a great example of what they do to new albums compared to old ones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

Bob Ludwig talks a little about the loudness war here: http://www.gatewaymastering.com/gateway ... ssWars.asp

[bradwjensen]

It would be amazing if Journey would have all of their albums remastered, CORRECTLY, and released them like The Beatles did with their albums (24bit FLAC files that can be trans-coded or compressed to whatever format the user wants to use). If there is ever a better way to save music losslessly, in the future, you could always convert those FLAC files to that new method, without losing more sound quality. FLAC is so great because you can have higher quality audio than CDs and DVDs, and you can have Surround Sound, if you wanted. The Eagles, The Beatles, Paul McCartney (The Fireman), Nine Inch Nails, and Radiohead are all selling albums in the FLAC format, already.

This place is mastering and sells excellent 24 bit @ 48khz FLAC files, and they talks all about it and why it's the best solution, today: http://blog.bowers-wilkins.com/lab/soun ... -bit-flac/

[Don]

It's a shame SACD didn't catch on.

[Jeremey]

It would be amazing if Journey would have all of their albums remastered, CORRECTLY, and released them like The Beatles did with their albums (24bit FLAC files that can be trans-coded or compressed to whatever format the user wants to use). If there is ever a better way to save music losslessly, in the future, you could always convert those FLAC files to that new method, without losing more sound quality. FLAC is so great because you can have higher quality audio than CDs and DVDs, and you can have Surround Sound, if you wanted. The Eagles, The Beatles, Paul McCartney (The Fireman), Nine Inch Nails, and Radiohead are all selling albums in the FLAC format, already.

This place is mastering and sells excellent 24 bit @ 48khz FLAC files, and they talks all about it and why it's the best solution, today: http://blog.bowers-wilkins.com/lab/soun ... -bit-flac/

I don't believe B&W actually does mastering, I think they are more involved in the selling of high end consumer audio. However, a good audiophile blog nonetheless....I think that so many people are used to digital downloads and mp3 quality and iTunes (in exchange for immediate availability and portability), that the audiophile market itself will continue to become more and more of a niche market....

[bradwjensen]

I don't believe B&W actually does mastering, I think they are more involved in the selling of high end consumer audio. However, a good audiophile blog nonetheless....I think that so many people are used to digital downloads and mp3 quality and iTunes (in exchange for immediate availability and portability), that the audiophile market itself will continue to become more and more of a niche market....

Yes, I guess I messed up my words a little.. They're selling and promoting high end audio products, not mastering the music themselves..

And, while I said the Thriller 25th re-master sounded better than the Special Edition re-master, both of them suffer from much compression and pumping-up of the volume (Thriller 25th actually has the loudness pumped up more than the Special Edition..) :/ After listening to the original pressing of the Thriller album (which I don't own atm), I think I would actually prefer to have the quiet, original pressing than the newer remastered versions..

I guess I just hope that Record Companies and Bands will start asking for more dynamics in their final products, rather than loudness. We can always turn it up ourselves, but we can't put the dynamics back in the albums ourselves.