I've just been listening to the latest remaster (the one with the bonus tracks)of True Colours and imho the mastering sounds horrible. Even compared to the two years earlier remaster it largely sounds compressed, over bright, and with minimal dynamic range.

A few thoughts:
a)Was the brickwalling a decision made by the record company to make sure the album did not sound quiet on portable music players or low end sytems
b)Do the re mastering engineers have much influence anymore

It all rather reminds me of the Southpark episode where the kids try to stop movie directors ruining classic movies through revisionist tinkering.

An illustration of the "loudness wars" is shown in the YouTube link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

All of the remasters are brickwalled to some extent but they'er nowhere near as bad as many recent releases have been. I do think they sound good, and the life that Eddie breathed into many of the mixes completely outweighs any negatives from the mastering.

My only major gripe is the remixing of some tracks from Corroborree and the editing of Next Exit (why oh why did you remove the best bit, Ed??).

quote:

Originally posted by Paul H:
All of the remasters are brickwalled to some extent but they'er nowhere near as bad as many recent releases have been. I do think they sound good, and the life that Eddie breathed into many of the mixes completely outweighs any negatives from the mastering.

My only major gripe is the remixing of some tracks from Corroborree and the editing of Next Exit (why oh why did you remove the best bit, Ed??).

Yeah I agree with this. Some remasters seem to practically be the same album, just a lot louder. It's ridiculous, I could've done that myself and saved the $25! (Since remasters always seem to cost an arm and a leg)

Those are really my only gripes too. For the remaster of Waiata/Corroborree, having it remixed too made it better on some songs, and worse on others. It made me appreciate some songs more and some less. Oh well, I've still got the old version so I can pick and choose which versions I listen to of each song.

Apparently the Oasis album "Definitely Maybe" was the first album that used the Brickwall Mastering technique (shudder). The master engineer Owen Morris simply wanted the album to be the loudest CD on a pub's jukebox when it came on. He must have succeeded because it seems every album uses that dreaded Brickwall. It sounds crap.

The Split Enz masters definitely uses it and I'm still in tow minds whether it is good or not. Seems as though they trying to downsize the sound quality of CDs and mp3s because of these stupid iPods which sound crap. Whatever happened to dynamics?

I will state now I am no audio expert at all - that will probaby be obvious from what I'm about to say...

But I am a lifelong fan, and I totally adore the True Colours remaster. It is, IMHO, far better than the original release.

I was expecting more of the remaster of my fave album, Dizrhythmia, after lots of posts on it here, but I was disappointed on most counts. True Colours was def worth the extra $ to get the remaster.

Just my 2c worth.

You don't have to be an "audio expert" to pass comment on whether you like the sound or not, it's purely subjective and each person will have different tastes.

Some like the impact of brickwalling, and it certainly helps when listening in environments where there is a lot of background noise (outdoors, in the car etc).

However, there is growing evidence that loudness causes ear fatigue and makes you "tired" of hearing an album after only a few songs. The lack of relatively quiet passages deprives your ears of the chance to "rest" and thus depreciates the enjoyment.

Also, on higher-end systems (which I don't have, by the way!) which are designed specifically to pick up the subtleties of sound, brickwalling can sound awful because, well, there ARE NO subtleties.

As I say, it's subjective. Personally, overall I like the sound of the Enz remasters. As I said in my first post, they're louder than I think is necessary but not as loud as they could be. I'd give Eddie 8.5/10 (and take a point off for editing Next Exit and remixing).

I don't mind remixing if it adds clarity and makes a track less muddy, but to actually alter the arrangement by adding/removing sounds shouldn't have happened.

If McCartney had taken it upon himself to remix the Beatles' catalogue and decided he didn't like some of Ringo's drum fills or George's guitar work and mixed them out, there'd be uproar.

Granted, the Enz catalogue isn't so well known, but to the fans, it's as important.

Take a look at http://www.turnmeup.org

quote:

Take a look at http://www.turnmeup.org

Thanks Jaff's

quote:

Brickwall Mastering technique (shudder)

YUK!!!




Original - YES!!!



I tend to agree with Dazz on this one,I personally like to have control of the Volume control - not have somebody do it for me.

And I'm not going to pussy foot around when I say that I think that the Remastered version of True Colours sounds dreadful - What happened Ed?
You Know,some times,some things are best left the way they were meant to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Dazz:
Apparently the Oasis album "Definitely Maybe" was the first album that used the Brickwall Mastering technique (shudder). The master engineer Owen Morris simply wanted the album to be the loudest CD on a pub's jukebox when it came on. He must have succeeded because it seems every album uses that dreaded Brickwall. It sounds crap.

Many would argue* that that particular album would sound crap with or without the brickwalling. Owen was the producer, not just the mastering engineer, he went on to do another couple of oasis albums (possibly all of them? not a fan), as well as the early Ash albums and a few other quite notable things.

quote:

The Split Enz masters definitely uses it and I'm still in tow minds whether it is good or not. Seems as though they trying to downsize the sound quality of CDs and mp3s because of these stupid iPods which sound crap. Whatever happened to dynamics?

??? I don't quite understand what you mean by downsizing an mp3 for an ipod. MP3s are **** regardless, ipods just play whatever format you load in to them and don't in themselves sound terrible (ignoring the fact that the standard earphones you get aren't brilliant) or make the quality worse. You gets out what you puts in...

I have been pondering recently how awful it is that there's an entire generation of people who think that "good sound" = "MP3 quality sound" as that's all they've ever listened to.

*Ok, perhaps its just me, though it is a proven fact that Oasis are rubbish.

quote:

I have been pondering recently how awful it is that there's an entire generation of people who think that "good sound" = "MP3 quality sound" as that's all they've ever listened to.

Sadly Sara in my experience most people can't hear the difference.

[/QUOTE]Many would argue* that that particular album would sound crap with or without the brickwalling. [/QUOTE]

Hey, I'm a big fan of Oasis! Anyway I do remember when it first came out how I complained how it sounded like mud but nowadays it sounds completely normal. Goes to prove how my ears have been trained to accept this aural assault.

[/QUOTE]I have been pondering recently how awful it is that there's an entire generation of people who think that "good sound" = "MP3 quality sound" as that's all they've ever listened to.

*Ok, perhaps its just me, though it is a proven fact that Oasis are rubbish.[/QUOTE]

There is also another theory why 'brickwalling' has happened. Apparently American record companies want the "full maximum impact" (is there a half maximum impact? when it is played on radio. Having it appear loud, even with the radio's own compression, guarantees that the listener can still listen to your song at low volume even with surrounding ambient noise. Other words, pure commercial reasons other than logical.

The same technique used for TV commercials, hence that people will complain the ads are louder than the program. Technically they're not but yes, they do sound louder because of the compression and limiters and god knows what else they use on there these days. 'Taint good.

I agree True Colours sounds a bit more "louder" on the 2006 remaster, I have a copy of I Got You culled from an "Australian" (heh heh) compilation, which is lacking in both the volume and subtleties of the remaster, though that could be chalked down to it being a 2nd or 3rd generation master being used for the compilation. Personally I don't really have any opinion on whether the remastering has ruined it, I'm just glad that there's not a situation like Midnight Oil where the first-run CD mastering was crap and it's been a 10 year wait just for a non-compilation remastered release, and only that of the Oils' most commercially successful album rather than the entire catalogue

quote:

Originally posted by Dazz:

quote:

originally posted by Sara:
Many would argue* that that particular album would sound crap with or without the brickwalling.

Hey, I'm a big fan of Oasis!

No accounting for taste

quote:

There is also another theory why 'brickwalling' has happened. Apparently American record companies want the "full maximum impact" (is there a half maximum impact? when it is played on radio. Having it appear loud, even with the radio's own compression, guarantees that the listener can still listen to your song at low volume even with surrounding ambient noise. Other words, pure commercial reasons other than logical.

I'm not sure that would work though would it? as radio normalise the levels - at least in the UK they do. Singles are given a proper bashing at mastering here as there's pressure on A&R* to get it sounding as loud as possible so it sounds "good" on the radio (yes, i've been told before that loud = good), and then radio compress the hell out of it anyway for broadcast. I can't say i've ever noticed that actually working (compressing stuff to make it appear loud so that with radios own compression it stands out at low volume...).

*Which brings me to the added issue that a lot of them and senior management don't understand sound, which is partly how we got in this mess in the first place.

Heavy compression and limiting at the mastering stage plus heavy limiting on a commercial radio broadcast equals terrible clipping distortion. Nobody wins.

Imagine you're looking at a friend on the other side of a window. To make himself as visible as possible he decides to press his face flat against the glass. Squashed nose, cheeks and all. Hey, looks kinda ugly now all his definition's gone, but at least he's closer, right?

WTF??? You must need a new stereo system.

I have over 600 CDs and these latest remasters are absolutely the BEST mastering I have EVER heard. The sound is almost 3 dimensional, it's incredible!

The mastering is so good that I'm recommending Adrian Stuckey to my recording artist friends.

My comments in this topic aren't specifically about the Split Enz remasters, which sound better to me than the over-distorted "Spellbound" compilation. However, I still prefer the sonics of the vinyl releases, especially "Time and Tide" for reasons I've explained before. That CD is too 3-dimensional.

I know I'm wandering off topic, but how do the Mushroom Mid Price releases compare to the original Mushroom CDs. Are they the same mastering? I have the Mid Prices and the remasters and am wondering whether to hunt down the originals. (Are the originals on the boxed sets or are they the Mid Prices?).

In most cases, weren't the Mid-Price CDs the first Mushroom Enz CD releases?