add to wish list | library


45 of 52 recommend this,
would you recommend it?

yes | no

amazon.co.uk
amazon.de
amazon.fr
amazon.it
 
 

Discussion: Genesis 1976-1982

Posts: 79
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next

Post by Old Hack June 19, 2007 (61 of 79)
I agree also with Michael and Amatala; well said. These recordings are painful to the ear after just a short listening time.

Have to say though, even with this fact, I still prefer the new Duke! It has gained so much in clarity with the vocals and other instruments that I can't go back to the original now!

But yes, far too compressed.

Post by Little Nemo June 19, 2007 (62 of 79)
racerguy said:

Again you take something completely out of context. Oh well. I see that you can't help it.

Where did I learn this? In the studio, by doing it. It is a natural result of mixing down an ANALOG multi-track, which happens to be how many, if not most pop/rock recordings done prior to the mid 1980s were recorded. I'm well aware that mixing digitally recorded tracks in the digital domain doesn't create this effect. Analog is different than digital.

One would think that a big-time recording engineer like yourself who is so talented and knowledgeable would know these things.

Wow is it me guys or does this jerk-off need some kinda help

Post by Old Hack June 19, 2007 (63 of 79)
Little Nemo said:

Wow is it me guys or does this jerk-off need some kinda help

Haha! He does seem to have one or two hangups! Oh well, takes all sorts.

Post by Dusty Chalk June 19, 2007 (64 of 79)
racerguy said:

Where did I learn this? In the studio, by doing it. It is a natural result of mixing down an ANALOG multi-track, which happens to be how many, if not most pop/rock recordings done prior to the mid 1980s were recorded.

Not true -- as long as one leaves plenty of headroom, an analog multitrack mix can sound plenty dynamic. I don't even need to have been in a studio to know this -- I've heard the results -- plenty of recordings from the pre-digital era to know that it's possible. Anything by Alan Parsons and/or Pink Floyd, Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds, Crack the Sky's Safety in Numbers -- the list is endless.

You're just digging yourself in deeper by making blatantly incorrect statements that most everyone can verify for themselves.

Post by yb June 20, 2007 (65 of 79)
The only thing these discs can make you dream of is how good these albums could have sounded on a really well mastered SACD.
That's clear : the remasters have too much dynamic compression. (nothing to do with data compression) It is the plague of pop/rock mastering for 10 years. (search "loudness war" in wikipedia).

But for Genesis, I wonder if SACD is relevant, because their sound has always been very poor, in vinyl LP, as well as in RBCD 80's digital remasters.
Listen the old vinyl of their great 1970-1975 "classical" albums : it was already overcompressed and fuzzy, lacking color, clarity and depth. That's why, among the great progressive band of the 70's, I always preferred other groups, e.g. King Crimson or Pink Floyd, who had a far better sound.
I guess the SACD can't improve the initial problem of Genesis's poor sound, even without the overcompression of the last remaster.

And have you ever listened Peter Gabriel's soundtrack of Scorse's "Last Temptation of Christ" (end of 80's) ? Good music, awfully crappy sound.

(King Crimson's recent remasters are excellent, and it would be a good idea to edit them in SACD).

Post by MichaelCPE June 20, 2007 (66 of 79)
I agree with yb that many Genesis recordings never sounded that great.

But all the earlier releases were taken from the stereo mixes.

For the SACD multi-channel mix (and the new stereo mix) the original multi-tracks were used.

I find it hard to believe that these were all badly recorded.

Rather I think that Nick Davis worked hard to "recreate" the original sound, and then added even more compression to make the new recordings sound "modern".

So I suspect that another mixer could have made the Genesis sound far better than any earlier release, and they could have been of similar quality to other rock from the same time which has been remixed for SACD/DVD-A.

I am so sad when I imagine what could have been, and I am devestated that the Gabriel years will probably also be over compressed and unlistenable.

Post by claypool June 20, 2007 (67 of 79)
The original "Trick" and "Abacab" CDs sound great. I've never heard a very good sounding version of "Wind and Wuthering", even the original vinyl wasn't that great, but still even the DE Remaster sounds so much better than this SACD. You can't blame the original recordings for the poor sound of these SACDs.

Post by racerguy June 23, 2007 (68 of 79)
Dusty Chalk said:

Not true -- as long as one leaves plenty of headroom, an analog multitrack mix can sound plenty dynamic. I don't even need to have been in a studio to know this -- I've heard the results -- plenty of recordings from the pre-digital era to know that it's possible. Anything by Alan Parsons and/or Pink Floyd, Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds, Crack the Sky's Safety in Numbers -- the list is endless.

You're just digging yourself in deeper by making blatantly incorrect statements that most everyone can verify for themselves.

I had decided I was finished with this silly back-and-forth, but since you decided to pile on....

So, Dusty Chalk - you admit you have no experience in this area, have never been in a recording studio, but you feel comfortable in telling me I'm wrong. Seems to me there are two discrete groups of people who know everything about everything without ever having done any of those things - teenagers, and Baby Boomer males. I wonder why that is.

I'd really like you to show me where I said that a recording made from an analog multi-track cannot sound "plenty dynamic." I won't wait for you to find it, though. You are mounting a classic strawman argument by claiming I said something I didn't say, then taking great pleasure in refuting it. That makes YOU the one making "blatantly incorrect statements."

The simple fact - FACT - is that mixing a multi-track narrows dynamic range. Nowhere did I ever say it eliminates it. This was a well-known phenomenon back when analog multi-track recording was in its heyday. It was even used deliberately, for effect.

If you're interested in learning more about this, I'd be happy to discuss what I know from my experiences, and explain why I believe this issue may have some bearing on what people hear when they listen to certain SACDs made from analog pop/rock recordings. If all you want to do is take cheap shots and throw out baseless insults like Old Hack and the other idiots, I won't waste my time. If you'd rather be one of those audiophiles who thinks he knows what went on in a recording or mastering studio from reading the opinions of other uninformed audiophiles, that's fine with me too.

Post by Dusty Chalk June 24, 2007 (69 of 79)
racerguy said:

So, Dusty Chalk - you admit you have no experience in this area, have never been in a recording studio, but you feel comfortable in telling me I'm wrong.
...
The simple fact - FACT - is that mixing a multi-track narrows dynamic range. Nowhere did I ever say it eliminates it. This was a well-known phenomenon back when analog multi-track recording was in its heyday. It was even used deliberately, for effect.
...
If you're interested in learning more about this, I'd be happy to discuss what I know from my experiences, and explain why I believe this issue may have some bearing on what people hear when they listen to certain SACDs made from analog pop/rock recordings...

I never said I was never in a recording studio, but even if I never was, I still feel perfectly comfortable telling you you're wrong about limited dynamic range in the era of analog recordings. Don't incorrectly extrapolate my statements to claim I know everything about everything -- I don't, never claimed to, never implied so. If you want to claim false accusations or having words put in one's mouth, you may want stringently avoid being guilty of same, because you end up just appearing the hypocrite.

Yes, there are ways it can be used to limit dynamic range -- George Martin's famous "wall of sound" recording style comes to mind -- but he had to deliberately do certain things to achieve this limited dynamic range. One could also do certain things to achieve a wider dynamic range. (And then there's the third possibility that one could do certain things to screw the whole mess up -- which is, of course, the easiest to do.)

This whole discussion arose because you claimed that the Genesis SACDs were compressed because they were simply recorded in analog back in the analog era, not because they were deliberately compressed, which is what the people arguing with you claim.

But if you want to backpedal and say that there can be plenty dynamic range in analog recorded recordings, that's fine. At least you have the sense to backpedal. But it would seem to contradict your initial claim in this thread.

And thanks for the offer to teach, but I prefer less berating tutors.

Post by Old Hack July 9, 2007 (70 of 79)
Dusty Chalk said:

I never said I was never in a recording studio, but even if I never was, I still feel perfectly comfortable telling you you're wrong about limited dynamic range in the era of analog recordings. Don't incorrectly extrapolate my statements to claim I know everything about everything -- I don't, never claimed to, never implied so. If you want to claim false accusations or having words put in one's mouth, you may want stringently avoid being guilty of same, because you end up just appearing the hypocrite.

Yes, there are ways it can be used to limit dynamic range -- George Martin's famous "wall of sound" recording style comes to mind -- but he had to deliberately do certain things to achieve this limited dynamic range. One could also do certain things to achieve a wider dynamic range. (And then there's the third possibility that one could do certain things to screw the whole mess up -- which is, of course, the easiest to do.)

This whole discussion arose because you claimed that the Genesis SACDs were compressed because they were simply recorded in analog back in the analog era, not because they were deliberately compressed, which is what the people arguing with you claim.

But if you want to backpedal and say that there can be plenty dynamic range in analog recorded recordings, that's fine. At least you have the sense to backpedal. But it would seem to contradict your initial claim in this thread.

And thanks for the offer to teach, but I prefer less berating tutors.

I hate to give ammo to 'racer guy' who will use any opportunity to insult someone rather than engage in friendly debate, but just have to point out - that famous 'wall of sound' was Phil Spector, not George Martin!

George Martin's style (in the first half of the 60s at least) was much more about keeping things simple and direct and clean (not too much reverb) and gutsy. Obviously with the Beatles it all got very experimental, but it was never that wall of sound thing (using a dozen guitars, 2 drummers, 4 pianists, etc, etc. Very Phil Spector.)

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next

Closed