MR

I have noticed that on the remasters, SP's voice sounds much brighter, higher even. Is that due to the remastering process? The song I'm thinking of most is Line of Fire. On The Essential Journey Cd and others, SP's voice sounds muddled and the places that I recall the extremely high notes aren't nearly as high as I remember them. Maybe they were different performances where he was saving his voice and not out and out singing?

What does the remasterng process do exactly? Does it simply clean up and restore what was already there? Does it add to it?

scarygirl wrote:I have noticed that on the remasters, SP's voice sounds much brighter, higher even. Is that due to the remastering process? The song I'm thinking of most is Line of Fire. On The Essential Journey Cd and others, SP's voice sounds muddled and the places that I recall the extremely high notes aren't nearly as high as I remember them. Maybe they were different performances where he was saving his voice and not out and out singing?

What does the remasterng process do exactly? Does it simply clean up and restore what was already there? Does it add to it?

Someone posted on this board that during a lot of recording processes, they do several takes, and that during the remastering they may use one of the other takes in certain parts of the song to give it a bit of difference from the original. That, and remasters are done with todays technology which produces a better sounding result.

Rick wrote:

scarygirl wrote:I have noticed that on the remasters, SP's voice sounds much brighter, higher even. Is that due to the remastering process? The song I'm thinking of most is Line of Fire. On The Essential Journey Cd and others, SP's voice sounds muddled and the places that I recall the extremely high notes aren't nearly as high as I remember them. Maybe they were different performances where he was saving his voice and not out and out singing?

What does the remasterng process do exactly? Does it simply clean up and restore what was already there? Does it add to it?

Someone posted on this board that during a lot of recording processes, they do several takes, and that during the remastering they may use one of the other takes in certain parts of the song to give it a bit of difference from the original. That, and remasters are done with todays technology which produces a better sounding result.

Thanks BABE!

seems that its a whole bunch of just making stuff louder..

larryfromnextdoor wrote:seems that its a whole bunch of just making stuff louder..

If that's the case I'll never have to worry about my NIECE being remastered.

Rick wrote:Someone posted on this board that during a lot of recording processes, they do several takes, and that during the remastering they may use one of the other takes in certain parts of the song to give it a bit of difference from the original. That, and remasters are done with todays technology which produces a better sounding result.

If that's the case, then whoever said that is either talking out of their ass or severely misinformed...(so much so that they shouldn't be speaking as an authority on such things.

The Mastering process has NOTHING to do with what is stated above...what you are refering to is remixing...and I am not certain that any of the original journey albums have been remixed.


When an album is recorded, (am oversimplifying here to make this easier to spell out) basic tracks are recorded either live (everyone together in the same room) or seperately (drums recorded to a click or with the bassist)...then additional tracks are added. These additional tracks could be guitar tracks, keyboards, bass, redone drum parts, entire vocal tracks, background vocals, guitar solos, etc.

Once all of that is recorded, the entire song is "mixed"....things like levels, effects, stereo imaging (panning), etc are all adjusted, raised, lowered, added, etc....and recorded down to a 2-track (master) recording(2-track meaning left and right stereo). This for better or worse, completes the mixdown process.

The recording is then *mastered*....the mixed-down 2-track master recording is taken to a (in most cases) a different studio that specializes in mastering. During the mastering process, the 2-track recording recieves treatments that make it compatible with digital reproduction equipment, more palatable for radio/tv broadcasting, magnetic tape reproduction, etc. Some of these treatments include compression, EQ, spacial imaging, etc....however, during no part of the mastering process, is the track remixed....or new 'takes' brought in...

Remastering is really a case of going back to the original 2-track master recording....and starting over....in an effort to bring some of today's digital technology to the songs, make them hotter, crisper, whatever buzzwords they want to use to get you to buy shit you already bought 10 years ago!

Seriously, if anyone ever tells you there are 'other' takes in the remasters, smack them for being a gullable idiot.

I know someone is going to bust into this thread with a "I'm sure of it...I can hear a different solo on Who's Crying Now" or some other courtroom proof....but trust me. Remastering does not include remixing....it simply does not.

larryfromnextdoor wrote:seems that its a whole bunch of just making stuff louder..

That's not always true Larry,

Sometimes when a song is remastered, the levels aren't "Brought up", but some of the background noise is brought down. They can do so many things with todays technology that may seem like they're making vocals louder, but they can just do a better mix to clarify everything and make the vocals stand out more in the mix. Technology is awesome these days!

G.I.Jim wrote:

larryfromnextdoor wrote:seems that its a whole bunch of just making stuff louder..

That's not always true Larry,

Sometimes when a song is remastered, the levels aren't "Brought up", but some of the background noise is brought down. They can do so many things with todays technology that may seem like they're making vocals louder, but they can just do a better mix to clarify everything and make the vocals stand out more in the mix. Technology is awesome these days!

yea , your right,, but i saw a video ( cant remember where to save my life, i thought someone posted it here), was all about this .. somethign about ..when they bring the volume up ,, you loose some of the clarity.. BUT it sounds crisper.. i dont know..

hitting on franks point.. i know of one album that was remastered/remixed,, and it was horried!!
Kiss' Smashes Thrashes.. took ALL the guts out of the songs,, AND added echo vocals etc.. bad..

Is like "Pro Tools ? as are beloved neal talks about?

stevew2 wrote:Is like "Pro Tools ? as are beloved neal talks about?

its really really cool.. so yes.. i cant sing.. i sing a bit of backup.. i can sound fairly good with protools, nuendo etc...sing one line at a time and stop.. PLUS ,, you just FIX whatever is bad.. on the computer ,looking at the wave.. you can get right down to the second.. crop it out.. and add your new vocals OR guitar.. oh ,its great for guitar.. you play a solo.. miss a note.. go back crop it out.. put ONE good note in .. and you cant tell .. its really entertaining to use it.. if you can figure it out.. the programs can be very complicated..

note to anyone that cant sing.. add a bunch of REVERB to your vocal and presto.. a singer is born..

protools is good for the little guy ,, that likes to make recordings.. much easier than a 4 track .. to me anyway..

larryfromnextdoor wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:

larryfromnextdoor wrote:seems that its a whole bunch of just making stuff louder..

That's not always true Larry,

Sometimes when a song is remastered, the levels aren't "Brought up", but some of the background noise is brought down. They can do so many things with todays technology that may seem like they're making vocals louder, but they can just do a better mix to clarify everything and make the vocals stand out more in the mix. Technology is awesome these days!

yea , your right,, but i saw a video ( cant remember where to save my life, i thought someone posted it here), was all about this .. somethign about ..when they bring the volume up ,, you loose some of the clarity.. BUT it sounds crisper.. i dont know..

hitting on franks point.. i know of one album that was remastered/remixed,, and it was horried!!
Kiss' Smashes Thrashes.. took ALL the guts out of the songs,, AND added echo vocals etc.. bad..

You're right! It comes down to this...

The person who "Remasters" an album, has all of the original tracks for a song. Some people are good engineers/producers, and some are not! Even though an album may have (originally) had a great producer, when you have someone new tweaking the knobs...they might totally Pardon my french (Fuck it up!)! They have (almost) the same control over a song that the Producer had. A lot of times though, they use technologies that weren't present during the time of the recording and the outcome is better then the original...USUALLY!!!

G.I.Jim wrote:

larryfromnextdoor wrote:seems that its a whole bunch of just making stuff louder..

That's not always true Larry,

Sometimes when a song is remastered, the levels aren't "Brought up", but some of the background noise is brought down. They can do so many things with todays technology that may seem like they're making vocals louder, but they can just do a better mix to clarify everything and make the vocals stand out more in the mix. Technology is awesome these days!

While I'll agree that the noise floor is brought down...Alot of these remasters are remastered a HELL of alot louder than the originals....and that's all thats needed to dazzle the uneducated kids that buy these things. Making something louder isn't always better. In fact, a louder signal sometimes just gets you closer to distorting the audio equipment quicker...which isn't a desirable thing.

larryfromnextdoor wrote:hitting on franks point.. i know of one album that was remastered/remixed,, and it was horried!!
Kiss' Smashes Thrashes.. took ALL the guts out of the songs,, AND added echo vocals etc.. bad..

Yup....can't argue with you there....the songs sounded better before they went back in to fuck with em....but in that case, it was a definite remix.

With respect to the journey discs, I do not believe any of them were remixed....with the exception of the Post-98 Perry stuff released on sony, like the Houston show/DVD....

strangegrey wrote:

Rick wrote:Someone posted on this board that during a lot of recording processes, they do several takes, and that during the remastering they may use one of the other takes in certain parts of the song to give it a bit of difference from the original. That, and remasters are done with todays technology which produces a better sounding result.

If that's the case, then whoever said that is either talking out of their ass or severely misinformed...(so much so that they shouldn't be speaking as an authority on such things.

The Mastering process has NOTHING to do with what is stated above...what you are refering to is remixing...and I am not certain that any of the original journey albums have been remixed.


When an album is recorded, (am oversimplifying here to make this easier to spell out) basic tracks are recorded either live (everyone together in the same room) or seperately (drums recorded to a click or with the bassist)...then additional tracks are added. These additional tracks could be guitar tracks, keyboards, bass, redone drum parts, entire vocal tracks, background vocals, guitar solos, etc.

Once all of that is recorded, the entire song is "mixed"....things like levels, effects, stereo imaging (panning), etc are all adjusted, raised, lowered, added, etc....and recorded down to a 2-track (master) recording(2-track meaning left and right stereo). This for better or worse, completes the mixdown process.

The recording is then *mastered*....the mixed-down 2-track master recording is taken to a (in most cases) a different studio that specializes in mastering. During the mastering process, the 2-track recording recieves treatments that make it compatible with digital reproduction equipment, more palatable for radio/tv broadcasting, magnetic tape reproduction, etc. Some of these treatments include compression, EQ, spacial imaging, etc....however, during no part of the mastering process, is the track remixed....or new 'takes' brought in...

Remastering is really a case of going back to the original 2-track master recording....and starting over....in an effort to bring some of today's digital technology to the songs, make them hotter, crisper, whatever buzzwords they want to use to get you to buy shit you already bought 10 years ago!

Seriously, if anyone ever tells you there are 'other' takes in the remasters, smack them for being a gullable idiot.

I know someone is going to bust into this thread with a "I'm sure of it...I can hear a different solo on Who's Crying Now" or some other courtroom proof....but trust me. Remastering does not include remixing....it simply does not.

Thanks for the clarification. I wish I could remember which song was mentioned as having a changed vocal in one part, but it was a Journey song. The question was posed as to the changed vocal, and the answer was given that the remasters could have a different vocal than the original from another take that was done during the original recording. Whoever it was sure sounded convincing.

G.I.Jim wrote: The person who "Remasters" an album, has all of the original tracks for a song....

Jim...while that might be true in some cases, it's more often *not* the case.

The mastering individual doesn't need the originals as a true mastering is a process done to the mixed-down 2-track final....Think of the old printing presses, where they actually had to 'set' the type. it would be like handing some of the rough drafts of an article to the typesetter. Frankly, it's something thats not really that useful to the guy that's trying to layout the paper.

I'm not sure if it's still available, but when Bon Jovi recorded either Crush or Bounce, they had a whole interview on BJTV with Bob Ludwig at Gateway sound on the mastering process....Bob was only given the 2-tracks.

Rick wrote:Thanks for the clarification. I wish I could remember which song was mentioned as having a changed vocal in one part, but it was a Journey song. The question was posed as to the changed vocal, and the answer was given that the remasters could have a different vocal than the original from another take that was done during the original recording. Whoever it was sure sounded convincing.

Well, theres a handful of protools 'mastering' plugins used these days. Pop in a Good Charlotte, Linkin Park or Efervesence CD and these 'spacial' plugins are ALL over it.

They're rather complicated....it's not just a case of being some variety of EQ filter...these plugins will setup a whole spectrum of EQ comb filters, take the different frequencies extracted from these filters, compress them differently, double them (while detuning one of the doubled tracks a cvnt hair), add in some echo, etc. When you hear these things happening, you might *think* the singing is brought up higher, but it's really just a complicated process of eq'ing certain frequencies, taking those frequencies and pushing them through a handful of complicated treatments....

strangegrey wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote: The person who "Remasters" an album, has all of the original tracks for a song....

Jim...while that might be true in some cases, it's more often *not* the case.

The mastering individual doesn't need the originals as a true mastering is a process done to the mixed-down 2-track final....Think of the old printing presses, where they actually had to 'set' the type. it would be like handing some of the rough drafts of an article to the typesetter. Frankly, it's something thats not really that useful to the guy that's trying to layout the paper.

I'm not sure if it's still available, but when Bon Jovi recorded either Crush or Bounce, they had a whole interview on BJTV with Bob Ludwig at Gateway sound on the mastering process....Bob was only given the 2-tracks.

That's the case SOME of the time, but just take the Journey songs...They were remastered (With Steve Perry at the helm) with the original tracks. They used a several of his alternate versions of vocal takes for the remasters. You're right though, a lot of the time they do it from just 2 tracks. usually, that's because the original tracks have disappeared! It happens more times than you'd think!!!

G.I.Jim wrote:That's the case SOME of the time, but just take the Journey songs...They were remastered (With Steve Perry at the helm) with the original tracks. They used a several of his alternate versions of vocal takes for the remasters. You're right though, a lot of the time they do it from just 2 tracks. usually, that's because the original tracks have disappeared! It happens more times than you'd think!!!

I know a tremendously large bit about the process and recording in general. If it's a master or a remaster, the original tracks are not touched, needed or used. If they are using them, they're still mixing/remixing. You might be confusing mixing with mastering.

In fact, these days, the mastering process and the mixing process are converging...especially with protools/DAWs....you can mix your album/song/project down to a file, instead of an external 2-track reel....then it's simply a case of bringing up the mastering software and loading up the file you just recorded.

In the case of Journey, a few things here....it's hard to trust who and what people say...because the truth isn't always what's stated. Like I said above, it might have been a case where the 2-track masters were put through somer of today's 'filters' which changed the character of the vocal...making it *sound* different. And it might have simply been a case of Perry explaining away that difference with a white lie of 'we used a different track'...instead of having to tell the truth, which alot of people might not have understood or accepted.

I'm not so sure the original tracks are in any condition to be used right now, but who knows, maybe they fired up the oven.


But if that's the case, we're talking remixing, *not* remastering. I'm under the impression that the Journey remasters, are just remasters, not remixes....although, I'd be willing to conceed this point, if someone has proof that what they did was remix the songs....not just remaster them.

strangegrey wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:That's the case SOME of the time, but just take the Journey songs...They were remastered (With Steve Perry at the helm) with the original tracks. They used a several of his alternate versions of vocal takes for the remasters. You're right though, a lot of the time they do it from just 2 tracks. usually, that's because the original tracks have disappeared! It happens more times than you'd think!!!

I know a tremendously large bit about the process and recording in general. If it's a master or a remaster, the original tracks are not touched, needed or used. If they are using them, they're still mixing/remixing. You might be confusing mixing with mastering.

In fact, these days, the mastering process and the mixing process are converging...especially with protools/DAWs....you can mix your album/song/project down to a file, instead of an external 2-track reel....then it's simply a case of bringing up the mastering software and loading up the file you just recorded.

In the case of Journey, a few things here....it's hard to trust who and what people say...because the truth isn't always what's stated. Like I said above, it might have been a case where the 2-track masters were put through somer of today's 'filters' which changed the character of the vocal...making it *sound* different. And it might have simply been a case of Perry explaining away that difference with a white lie of 'we used a different track'...instead of having to tell the truth, which alot of people might not have understood or accepted.

I'm not so sure the original tracks are in any condition to be used right now, but who knows, maybe they fired up the oven.


But if that's the case, we're talking remixing, *not* remastering. I'm under the impression that the Journey remasters, are just remasters, not remixes....although, I'd be willing to conceed this point, if someone has proof that what they did was remix the songs....not just remaster them.

I've heard several times with the Journey "remasters", that the phrasings are different on the new releases! I'm not just talking about a different Tone, or mix! This has come from a LOT of people who have heard the remasters. They used totally different takes on Perry's vocals. These are what I'm referring to for the most part. I don't dissagree that it's common for bands to have albums remastered from a set of stereo tracks...

strangegrey wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:That's the case SOME of the time, but just take the Journey songs...They were remastered (With Steve Perry at the helm) with the original tracks. They used a several of his alternate versions of vocal takes for the remasters. You're right though, a lot of the time they do it from just 2 tracks. usually, that's because the original tracks have disappeared! It happens more times than you'd think!!!

I know a tremendously large bit about the process and recording in general. If it's a master or a remaster, the original tracks are not touched, needed or used. If they are using them, they're still mixing/remixing. You might be confusing mixing with mastering.

In fact, these days, the mastering process and the mixing process are converging...especially with protools/DAWs....you can mix your album/song/project down to a file, instead of an external 2-track reel....then it's simply a case of bringing up the mastering software and loading up the file you just recorded.

In the case of Journey, a few things here....it's hard to trust who and what people say...because the truth isn't always what's stated. Like I said above, it might have been a case where the 2-track masters were put through somer of today's 'filters' which changed the character of the vocal...making it *sound* different. And it might have simply been a case of Perry explaining away that difference with a white lie of 'we used a different track'...instead of having to tell the truth, which alot of people might not have understood or accepted.

I'm not so sure the original tracks are in any condition to be used right now, but who knows, maybe they fired up the oven.


But if that's the case, we're talking remixing, *not* remastering. I'm under the impression that the Journey remasters, are just remasters, not remixes....although, I'd be willing to conceed this point, if someone has proof that what they did was remix the songs....not just remaster them.

If what you're saying is the case, wow. Maybe it's my ears, but some of the tracks, particularly Line of Fire and Escape, and others that escape my sleep deprived brain sound way different. I'm also thinking maybe too of teh Journey live compilation cd? I believe this was teh one where the insert claims that they found these lost tapes and baked them back to life? When you listen to those tracks, some which are supposed to be of the Houston shows and then compare them to the released houston dvd/cd, it's like nite and day. At least to me, anyway.

Why in the world can't they get rid of all those breath sounds on FTLOSM? SP sounds like he's in the middle of an asthma attack or something on some of those songs! Either that or hitting on a bong just before singing each phrase... yikes!

I love the CD, but it could use some major work to get rid of that!

A couple of clarifications, folks:
There are different masters. There's the original multitracks, which is the pre-mixed recordings. There's the mixed product which goes to mastering, and finally the master of the album which includes the mastering.

Unless something is screwy (like a wrong tape is pulled), all remasters should use the original un-mastered two-track mixed (stereo) masters. You should never go back to the multis unless you are remixing.

donnaplease wrote:Why in the world can't they get rid of all those breath sounds on FTLOSM? SP sounds like he's in the middle of an asthma attack or something on some of those songs! Either that or hitting on a bong just before singing each phrase... yikes!

I love the CD, but it could use some major work to get rid of that!

LOL!!! It isn't a matter of not being able to get rid of those...They could have done that during the recording process. I think it was more of a matter of him deciding to leave them in there to sound more mature. There's several singers who leave the breath sounds in. I do myself, but that's just because I'm lazy!

At least they aren't like Michael Jackson's breath sounds!!! Shamon...OOOHHH! AAAAHHHH!!!!! How do you know when it's bedtime at the Neverland Ranch?...When the big Hand touches the little hand!

strangegrey wrote:.....The recording is then *mastered*....the mixed-down 2-track master recording is taken to a (in most cases) a different studio that specializes in mastering. During the mastering process, the 2-track recording recieves treatments that make it compatible with digital reproduction equipment, more palatable for radio/tv broadcasting, magnetic tape reproduction, etc. Some of these treatments include compression, EQ, spacial imaging, etc....however, during no part of the mastering process, is the track remixed....or new 'takes' brought in...

Remastering is really a case of going back to the original 2-track master recording....and starting over....in an effort to bring some of today's digital technology to the songs, make them hotter, crisper, whatever buzzwords they want to use to get you to buy shit you already bought 10 years ago!

Seriously, if anyone ever tells you there are 'other' takes in the remasters, smack them for being a gullable idiot....

Actually, with multi band compressors / limiters you CAN change the volume of instruments. This is where the experience of long time mastering legends earn their money. You want a guitar solo to be louder or a vocal run to be louder or make the bass more punchier, etc, it's all very doable when an engineer knows their way around a multi band compressor. Throw in some good analog post processors that add stereo enhancement, ambience, etc, and you can alter the orginal mix dramatically.

I thought of sharing something here since this topic was brought up...
I guess you all remember Mitch Lafon's interview with Steve back in December 2005.There is a part of this interview that was never published,but Mitch sent it to me via email.Not sure why was this part left out,I didn't ask him....Maybe because it's was too technical and not everyone enjoys/understands the tech talk.Not our case,of course.


Steve Perry: "I know when it comes to working on a live project like this one. There are certain things logistically that you could not have done with tape. The first thing that was done.... these tapes were blown at a sampling rate of 192 ProTool hard drive then they were converted to 96 and then we worked on 96 for awhile and there were certain pops and clicks... and my wireless mic, for instance... though I love this mic... and it was a special wireless mic that I had put a different... ElectroVoice PL76 capsule on the top of this wireless mic... they didn’t come that way, cause I liked the sound of that condenser mic. It had a lot of vocal quality that I loved about the wireless mic but now that I’ve said that it also had problems because it was a transmitter microphone and... back in the day and still to this day when you transmit anything there’s a compressor in front of a transmitter and the reason that is... is so that it won’t over modulate... when a transmitter over modulates you KNOW it and when you’ve got thousands of watts in a PA system live... or a piece of tape running in a recording truck backstage and one of those mics over modulates... they just go PFFFT! They’re enormous... we’ll there was a couple of those and thank God – they weren’t while I was singing. They just happened and I’m listening and what do you do with that... what can you do with that? It’s everywhere. It’s leaking into every microphone in the world... well, with ProTools you can get rid of it. It’s fantastic. You can actually get rid of it and so we did and I was able to clean up some of those “logistical” problems which back in the day (when this was done) could not have been fixed. You would just try to turn the fader down and hope that not too many people would go ‘what the hell was that?’ (laughs). It just enhanced the performance by not letting something like that distract it....."

If I remember right, I think lots of fans agreed that there had to be some "remixing" done to Only Solutions and Colors of the Spirit? I think Perry totally denied it that there were changes done to anything, but I think you can really tell some "remixing" was done to a couple tracks on Strange Medicine (Young Hearts Forever, I think? There was an extra lyric thrown in or something?).

When you listen to those tracks, some which are supposed to be of the Houston shows and then compare them to the released houston dvd/cd, it's like nite and day. At least to me, anyway.

Surely they just used some of the "other night" tracks for Greatest Hits Live (Lights and Anyway You Want It stand out as different from the Houston MTV show). Probably recorded the night they recorded "Party's Over"? Although I totally think they used the "MTV" version of Don't Stop Believin' and edited in "South Detroit." It's so noticeable - the crowd screams really loud, even though he doesn't say Houston. Seems like every other nuance from the MTV show is in that version of DSB except "Born and raised right here in Houston."

Remastering is the Labels way of making the record louder to compete with current and modern albums. They bascially squash dynamics (soft/loud passages) out of the recording by slamming it with compression and bringing everything up to digital zero db.

As with most high singing male vocalists, Perry's voice comes from the throat region. This is why you hear the breathing so heavily on FTLOSM. They use compression to make it sound like he is singing really loud, when in actuality he is not. The result is that even the breathing is brought up to audible range. They can use a 'GATE' to eliminate the breathing, but often, the GATE adds an unwanted popping sound as the gate opens and closes. In reality, if you listen closely, you hear lots of breathing on songs with vocals. It's really up to the producer and/or mixer whether or not they want the breathing in there to add emotion to the passage.

The catalogue is looking and sounding fantastic right now.

Cease And Decist Steve is to be commended for his custodial efforts on the '78-'96 material.


Neal was flippant about the reissues, but I wish he would throw the new updated Frontiers, ROR, Departure or TBF on and give a listen.

G.I.Jim wrote:I've heard several times with the Journey "remasters", that the phrasings are different on the new releases! I'm not just talking about a different Tone, or mix! This has come from a LOT of people who have heard the remasters. They used totally different takes on Perry's vocals. These are what I'm referring to for the most part. I don't dissagree that it's common for bands to have albums remastered from a set of stereo tracks...

I'm not sure what's going on with the Journey remasters. I've not listened to them...save for a few tracks here or there, and I've heard nothing that suggests different tracks were used. I've heard plenty that's different...but everything I've heard is consistent with simply remastering the 2-track masters and playing the usual digital mastering games that goes on these days.

I still maintain that if they remixed them, they would have advertised that fact (as it would have been a selling point for the oh-so gullable journey fan base) However....it's probably just a remaster, with alot of eq filter games to change the feel/sound of certain parts....and Perry explaining it away with a 'I used different takes'. I just don't buy that...given the technological aspects of it.

texafana wrote:Actually, with multi band compressors / limiters you CAN change the volume of instruments. This is where the experience of long time mastering legends earn their money. You want a guitar solo to be louder or a vocal run to be louder or make the bass more punchier, etc, it's all very doable when an engineer knows their way around a multi band compressor. Throw in some good analog post processors that add stereo enhancement, ambience, etc, and you can alter the orginal mix dramatically.

Well, if you read my posts, I'm not disagreeing with you. HOWEVER, there's a dramatic limit to what you can and can't change without going back to the original multi-track recordings and remixing. Sure, you can bring certain things out in the mix...and there are even units/plugs out there that will cancel-out certain things like vocals, knocking it out of phase with itself, etc.

However, doing this stuff never happens *without* the expense of something else. Once mixed, a certain part, lets say a guitar track, shares frequencies with other things, drums, keyboards, etc. If you go into a remastering process to bring out more guitar, you will disrupt the other instruments that live on the same general area of the frequency spectrum. Will a good mastering engineer know how to limit the effects of this? Yes...but it's still there. you can't escape that. Bob Ludwig himself would be the first to tell you that, irrespective of how good he is at what he does!

If you're going into a remastering session with a stated goal of bringing out or subduing an instrument, you're really bastardizing the role (and purpose) of mastering with other things, like remixing.

Was that the stated goal of the Journey remasters? I dunno. I don't know enough about them to comment directly on these discs, only to suggest what I think *might* have happened, given the fact that these things are advertised as 'remasters'.

johnny15 wrote:As with most high singing male vocalists, Perry's voice comes from the throat region. This is why you hear the breathing so heavily on FTLOSM. They use compression to make it sound like he is singing really loud, when in actuality he is not. The result is that even the breathing is brought up to audible range. They can use a 'GATE' to eliminate the breathing, but often, the GATE adds an unwanted popping sound as the gate opens and closes. In reality, if you listen closely, you hear lots of breathing on songs with vocals. It's really up to the producer and/or mixer whether or not they want the breathing in there to add emotion to the passage.

Compression may or may not be the culprit. Depending on the type of mic, you wont need as much compression to get high volume on those breath inflections. I'm not disagreeing that his voice wasn't squashed there. Every recorded vocal out there has some squash on the singing. It's just that it might not be as much as you think...compress stuff too much, and it creates a tunnel sound to the voice....and Perry's voice sounds wide-open on FTLOSM.

Also, when I first heard YBW off of FTLOSM, I was actually tracking at a studio and we were taking a break. I turned to the engineer and said something to the effect of "Have you *ever* heard that much reverb on the lead vocals before?" After I called attention to it, he commented that he couldn't get it out of his mind...and that huge amount of digital verb on Perry's voice was unsettlingly distracting.

I find that Perry is one of the few guys out there that sounds good with lots of verb, without sounding rediculous....I credit his amazing intonation with that. If a regular joe sings a part well, but one fraction of a beat, he falls out of tune with himself, the reverb/echo will actually repeat or draw out the mistake...to the point where the mistake overlaps good singing. You have to stay on perfect pitch the entire phrase, or else the reverb will make your mistake sound even worse than it is.

FTLOSM has more verb on the lead vocals than a freaking 60s surf record. It's almost too much.

Red13JoePa wrote:The catalogue is looking and sounding fantastic right now.

Cease And Decist Steve is to be commended for his custodial efforts on the '78-'96 material.


Neal was flippant about the reissues, but I wish he would throw the new updated Frontiers, ROR, Departure or TBF on and give a listen.

You do realize some of those are still the old '96 remasters, just repackaged - right? Not all of the CDs were re-remastered. And I'm not in love with the new mastering jobs on the ones that were re-remastered.