IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
mzil
post Oct 3 2012, 19:42
Post #51





Group: Members
Posts: 422
Joined: 5-August 07
Member No.: 45913



^Exactly.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Oct 3 2012, 19:55
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 1780
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 3 2012, 11:42) *
QUOTE (Porcus @ Oct 3 2012, 00:19) *
ReplayGain. Or foo_abx.

I'm confused about the ". Or"


Yeah, your log shows what you used. But if mzil (whom I actually quoted) does not want to use fb2k, it is still easy to level volume.

This post has been edited by Porcus: Oct 3 2012, 20:00


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 3 2012, 20:56
Post #53





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 3 2012, 11:35) *
One can say (and measure, and hear) with certainly that mastering X is 'smiley faced' compared to mastering Y, but one is limited to speculating on *why* that is.

The converse would be that all the other labels are all colluding to employ a frowny face unless it just happened to be done independently by chance. Of course this is still assuming that what you're crying "lore" is actually reality: that people are claiming that most MFSL releases have a "typical sound" and that is regardless of who has walked trough the doors over their history.

It's a pedantic point but I was not sure it was being fully acknowledged here. Has it been now or will it appear to be conveniently overlooked once again?

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 3 2012, 21:21


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mzil
post Oct 3 2012, 21:42
Post #54





Group: Members
Posts: 422
Joined: 5-August 07
Member No.: 45913



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 3 2012, 15:56) *
QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 3 2012, 11:35) *
One can say (and measure, and hear) with certainly that mastering X is 'smiley faced' compared to mastering Y, but one is limited to speculating on *why* that is.

The converse would be that all the other labels are all colluding to employ a frowny face unless it just happened to be done independently by chance.

That's not the converse of what he said and there's no reason to lump "all other labels" as being just one way, "frowny face EQ" or otherwise. They may all be different from one another, as just one possibility, for example. Another is that they are all the same, or at least very similar, but there are reasons for that and it's not because of chance and not because of collusion.


There is no one "correct" EQ and different companies may be shooting for different ones for many differing reasons/goals.

This post has been edited by mzil: Oct 3 2012, 22:01
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 3 2012, 21:47
Post #55





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Now you're being pedantic and of course there's a reason or have you not been following along?

Were you thinking that by "all other labels" that I meant to include those who produced titles MFSL never remastered? I assure you I did not.

If MFSL has a typical sound relative to everyone else and that sound is flat relative to the source material then how is it incorrect to suggest that everyone else is employing a frowny face to the source material?

Wow, even after your edit, you still don't seem to get it. The initial suggestion being refuted was that MFSL was closer to the originals.

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 3 2012, 22:17


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Oct 3 2012, 21:52
Post #56





Group: Members
Posts: 1780
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



For further confusion, throw in the reported DSOTM pressing with pre-emphasis without setting the TOC flag right. Morons, if correct ...


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 3 2012, 22:12
Post #57





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



If you apply de-emphasis to the Capitol sample, rescan RG and compare it to MFSL you'll find the newly de-emphasized sample has less treble than the MFSL with the MFSL sample still sounding boomy. IOW, the result is that the Capitol has even more mid-range compared to the MFSL title.

Attached File  dsotm___breathe__capitol___deemph_.flac ( 2.64MB ) Number of downloads: 78


This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 3 2012, 22:18


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mzil
post Oct 3 2012, 22:17
Post #58





Group: Members
Posts: 422
Joined: 5-August 07
Member No.: 45913



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 3 2012, 16:47) *
Were you thinking that by "all other labels" that I meant to include those who produced titles MFSL never remastered?

No. [*Not sure where that came from?*]

Please re-read my last post which I have edited.

QUOTE
If MFSL has a typical sound relative to everyone else and that sound is flat relative to the source material then how is it incorrect to suggest that everyone else is employing a frowny face to the source material?


There are a lot of "ifs" in that question but I think my edited post addresses some of the possibilities.

This post has been edited by mzil: Oct 3 2012, 22:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 3 2012, 22:19
Post #59





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (mzil @ Oct 3 2012, 14:17) *
[*Not sure where that came from?*]

A blind guess in an attempt to understand your POV. A plain no would have sufficed.

QUOTE (mzil @ Oct 3 2012, 14:17) *
Please re-read my last post which I have edited.

I did. While other labels may be different than one another they would all have a frowny face EQ relative to MFSL. Assuming that the MFSL is flat then it clearly suggests everyone else is employing a frown (the reason doesn't matter). The only "if" is the assumption that the lore is true.

Heaven forbid I have to repeat myself, but there appears to be another point that has been overlooked:
QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 2 2012, 16:20) *
[Either] MFSL is closer, non-MFSL is closer or neither is closer. The principle of Occam's Razor kinda tosses the first example in favor for the other two, does it not?

Please try to refrain from nit-picking my use of the word "point" to describe what is technically a question.

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 3 2012, 22:37


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mzil
post Oct 3 2012, 23:11
Post #60





Group: Members
Posts: 422
Joined: 5-August 07
Member No.: 45913



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 3 2012, 16:47) *
If MFSL has a typical sound relative to everyone else ..

= if #1, and I'm going to assume you mean an averaging of everyone else's EQ curve in total, they all may be different

QUOTE
.. and that sound is flat relative to the source material

= if #2, [I never said it was an absolute fact, I think I said " I vaguely recall" and said the EQ might be "minimal" and that I'm searching for more info.]

QUOTE
how is it incorrect to suggest that everyone else is employing a frowny face to the source material?


"a frowny face", singular? What makes you believe all sources except MFSL have identical EQ's? Some may be big frowns, others small frowns, some with sideway smirks, and some may have smiley faces too, but they are more mild than MFSL's smiley face EQ, so in an analysis against MFSL's EQ it would show it was more frowny, comparatively, however both are smiley to the original source.[Just as an example]

Without access to the original master tape, we will just never be sure. All we can do is compare the copies against eachother, but we will never know for sure which comes closest to the original tape or which had the closest sound to what the Beatles were hearing through those awful headphones and awful speakers back then.

I have other projects I have to attend to and can't devote any more time to this thread. I also see that previous post(s) have changed so what I've just written above may have inaccuracies, misquotes, or may have already been addressed, but I have no time to attend to them. DOH. Sorry. Bye all!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 3 2012, 23:15
Post #61





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



1) Aside attempting to address your comment about there being no reason to lump labels together (I have good reason!), it doesn't matter to me what you said or didn't say. The discussion was in progress before you entered:
QUOTE (_if @ Oct 1 2012, 22:37) *
Don't you think though since both the MFSL and 2009 remasters were done from the original tapes that it's the original releases that are actually the inaccurate ones? You may think they sound better, but that doesn't mean they're more faithful.

2) The degree of smile or frown does not matter. It was about a trend or tendency. The question was whether the lore (if believed) was correct in attributing a smile to MFSL or incorrect in attributing a smile when it should instead be attributing a frown to everyone else. The second scenario was posed in an attempt to give MFSL marketing the benefit of the doubt in light of the "evidence."

The simplest conclusion (Occam's Razor) is that MFSL does employ EQ and is therefore not guaranteed to be the most flat transfer, regardless of how they market their product.

If it turns out that the lore is baloney and there is no trend or tendency then MFSL may very well always be a flat transfer; we simply can't infer any conclusions through inductive reasoning.

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 4 2012, 01:34


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
godrick
post Oct 4 2012, 00:28
Post #62





Group: Members
Posts: 304
Joined: 31-December 10
Member No.: 86948



QUOTE (Porcus @ Oct 3 2012, 21:52) *
For further confusion, throw in the reported DSOTM pressing with pre-emphasis without setting the TOC flag right. Morons, if correct ...



I think I may have this disc, and did not previously know this had pre-emphasis (I solely rely on dBpoweramp (DMC) to detect pre-emphasis, DMC did not flag my disc as having it, but don't know exactly how DMC detects pre-emphasis). Perhaps a thread split is good to address several questions I have regarding this, or a redirect to a previous thread if this has been already covered in detail. thanks!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 4 2012, 00:33
Post #63





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



If there is no topic to bump, feel free to start a new one. Let's not discuss it here.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Oct 4 2012, 05:48
Post #64





Group: Members
Posts: 2159
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



Do we know that MFSL's versions are typically smiley faced compared to all other versions of the same release?

How many masterings of DSOtM are there, anyway?

This post has been edited by krabapple: Oct 4 2012, 05:49
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Oct 4 2012, 07:24
Post #65





Group: Members
Posts: 884
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 3 2012, 21:48) *
Do we know that MFSL's versions are typically smiley faced compared to all other versions of the same release?

How many masterings of DSOtM are there, anyway?

CDs: http://pinkfloydarchives.com/Articles/DSOTMCDM.htm

This post has been edited by eahm: Oct 4 2012, 07:24
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Batman321
post Oct 4 2012, 08:35
Post #66





Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 28-December 09
Member No.: 76405



QUOTE (eahm @ Oct 4 2012, 01:24) *
QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 3 2012, 21:48) *
Do we know that MFSL's versions are typically smiley faced compared to all other versions of the same release?

How many masterings of DSOtM are there, anyway?

CDs: http://pinkfloydarchives.com/Articles/DSOTMCDM.htm




What pressings of the Beatles albums were made directly from the original master tapes and not from tape copies? My guess is that only the first UK pressings used the original masters.

Is this the first time that they are being pressed from digital masters?

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ed Seedhouse
post Oct 4 2012, 16:32
Post #67





Group: Members
Posts: 134
Joined: 19-May 09
Member No.: 69959



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 3 2012, 10:49) *
Whether you have an open mind or are skeptical depends on how you wish to spin your words. My mind is open to the possibility that the claim in that wikipedia article about no use of EQ is false. wink.gif


This is just pejorative. Any true skeptic will have an open mind and to suggest that there is a dichotomy is insulting. A "skeptic" that will not change his mind when presented with appropriate evidence isn't a skeptic.


--------------------
Ed Seedhouse
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ed Seedhouse
post Oct 4 2012, 18:39
Post #68





Group: Members
Posts: 134
Joined: 19-May 09
Member No.: 69959



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 3 2012, 10:49) *
Whether you have an open mind or are skeptical depends on how you wish to spin your words. My mind is open to the possibility that the claim in that wikipedia article about no use of EQ is false. wink.gif


This is just pejorative. Any true skeptic will have an open mind and to suggest that there is a dichotomy is insulting. A "skeptic" who will not change their mind when presented with appropriate evidence isn't a skeptic.


--------------------
Ed Seedhouse
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Batman321
post Oct 4 2012, 19:18
Post #69





Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 28-December 09
Member No.: 76405



Please go back to the topic.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Oct 4 2012, 20:41
Post #70





Group: Members
Posts: 2159
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (eahm @ Oct 4 2012, 02:24) *
QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 3 2012, 21:48) *
Do we know that MFSL's versions are typically smiley faced compared to all other versions of the same release?

How many masterings of DSOtM are there, anyway?

CDs: http://pinkfloydarchives.com/Articles/DSOTMCDM.htm


ye gods! and that only covers CDs/SACDs, through 2002!

This post has been edited by krabapple: Oct 4 2012, 20:44
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Oct 4 2012, 20:49
Post #71





Group: Members
Posts: 2159
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



It occurs to me that I own a number of MFSL CDs....and in a few cases I also have 'standard issue' versions to compare to. For many, I don't. Perhaps we could crowd source this, and test lore against data. For a given MFSL mastering, decide on a track to compare, and generate a frequency plot for the MFSL and other versions, using a standard FFT setting. I would use Audition to do this; don't know what other applications are out there...



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 4 2012, 23:20
Post #72





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Ed Seedhouse @ Oct 4 2012, 10:39) *
to suggest that there is a dichotomy is insulting

To suggest that I suggested that is insulting. dry.gif


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Oct 5 2012, 10:00
Post #73


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 3 2012, 02:42) *
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 2 2012, 11:41) *
QUOTE (mzil @ Oct 2 2012, 14:54) *
Regarding EQ, since none of us have heard the master recordings directly
...well, no, but at least in the case of The Beatles there are enough bootlegs around, some of known provenance, to have a rough idea what they sound like.

As greynol said though, there does seem to be a clear trend,



Does there? Do we have a significantly large sample of comparative frequency plots such that we can make claims about trends across Mofi's entire output (which extends back decades)? Or is it essentially audiophile lore?
I meant specifically the "clear trend" of all other Beatles releases having less bass and/or less treble than the MoFi ones - nothing more.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Oct 5 2012, 10:08
Post #74


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (Batman321 @ Oct 4 2012, 08:35) *
What pressings of the Beatles albums were made directly from the original master tapes and not from tape copies? My guess is that only the first UK pressings used the original masters.
I have no idea. But on a related note, this is fascinating for Beatles geeks...
http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beatles/

QUOTE
Is this the first time that they are being pressed from digital masters?
No, there were vinyl releases that matched the 1987 CD remasters (original albums) and the 1993 CD remasters (red and blue albums). Plus the newer releases that never had analogue masters. In terms of vinyl quality, the 1987 ones are good (though I only own one!), but in terms of mastering, I'm not sure why anyone would want that mono PPM remaster with audible tape damage.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Oct 5 2012, 10:16
Post #75


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



I just want to tell you, absolutely definitively, that there are audiophile record companies that talk the talk about "absolute straight transfers of master tapes" and "no EQ, compression, etc" - while using every trick in the book to create the "nice" "audiophile" sound that their customers expect. They would, privately, find it strange that anyone would avoid using EQ if, by using it, it subjectively improved the sound. They would be cautious about using compression, but would sometimes use things that added harmonic distortion. They care passionately about the sound, and work very hard on the marketing - but what the customers want to read in the marketing isn't actually how that great sound is created. wink.gif

You can hardly blame them. Some mastering engineers are 100% honest about what they do, and audiophile people turn their noses up at it. Same processes and results from other engineers, but because they claim to have done none of these "dirty" things, audiophile people praise them.

I have no idea what happens at MoFi, before anyone tries to make the connection.

Cheers,
David.

This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: Oct 8 2012, 09:47
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st April 2014 - 08:29