Manuser Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 True, Technologic is really brickwalled indeed, I can't listen to Up Days, too loud,. I think Chi-a.d.'s Infinitism possibly could use a rerelease and remastering. The Bass on some of the tracks completely overwhelms the other parts of the tracks, and especially the kicks. The mastering of this album is a disaster, makes me wonder if it was actually mastered in the first place? Because Earth crossing does not sound worst than Infinitism. Anyway, the prize for worst mastering ever goes to Alpha Circuit - Module Z. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyHorse Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I would first like to hear the original unmastered versions + compare it with the mastered versions we already have on CD. Then see if actually it was the lack of mixing and good production or the mastereing thatw as the blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imba Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Trippy Future Garden! But i think it's bad produced, well tracks are from early 90s but a bit louder would be nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuser Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Especially "Welcome to the future", which is my favourite track of the album. But it was said to be produced in 1991?? that's incredible! surely the most advanced psytrance at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the goa constrictor Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 The TIP Orange Comp Especially Psychaos "Intellect" That track is the shit =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin OOOD Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I would first like to hear the original unmastered versions + compare it with the mastered versions we already have on CD. Then see if actually it was the lack of mixing and good production or the mastereing thatw as the blame. Not quite what you're after, as I don't have permission to share the unmastered version of the track, but it should give you some idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAnarchy Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Trippy Future Garden! But i think it's bad produced, well tracks are from early 90s but a bit louder would be nice This would be my pick too Imagine a full remaster of it! That would be amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyHorse Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Not quite what you're after, as I don't have permission to share the unmastered version of the track, but it should give you some idea. Like I said: I can't give any complete funded comment on mastering job if I didn't hear the source track (naked without mastering and without limiters on the master channel to have an idea of the dynamics of the track). When you listen a bought CD, you can maybe hear the music is too loud, or other general stuff. But maybe the track was very noisy and the mastering was done at its best OR the track was good and the label wants loud music (for example). -> That is why I hestite in statements about mastereing of a particulair CD. What I do can say is that these days music sounds (much) louder than in the 90's (what I don't always like): but is that mastering or production? I think both; BUT to give a detailed comment on the mastering alone, I need - like I said - the naked track. Otherwise I don't dare to fully comment the mastering job. I might give hinst or pop questions, yes. To get more clearness about the proces. Again: full details I can only give when I can compare unmastered track and mastered track togheter. For example: one can fuck up a good produced track with bad mastering by making it too loud or distord the balance or cut away the top layers of the music, destroy the dynamics, tare the under layers all open to obtain more loudness/power (some called it in the past maximal mastering for dance floors and festivals). That is why I say: I can't really pick an album that needs remastereing, cause I have none of the source tracks. I feel it as unfair, commenting on mastering without knowing the complete story of the music. BUT that doesn't mean, like IMBA stated above, you can comment on loudness of music. I agree 100%. It's just my opinion. BUT I like to give comments and feedback with the right amount of arguments, and I don't have'm to fully judge the mastering of all these albums. Doesn't mean I wouldn't request any remastereing, just to know what the diffrence would be. For example: I like the silent version of the Etnica track a bit more than the louder one. I actually don't like both 100%, but if I had to choose, I'd opt for the first one. Still, the first version is much more smooth, but some percussion details aren't there; so in that view I like the 2nd one more (but imo it is way too loud on the high tones). It is nice to be able to compare - that is correct! In general I don't like loudness at all PS A quick question: "what is the real diffrence between a digital and analog master?" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin OOOD Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 If a track sounds too loud and compressed, that's usually because of processing which has been applied to the stereo mixdown either by the artist or by the mastering engineer. Likewise if a track sounds muffled, or boomy, or harsh, or has no bass, it is because of decisions made about the mastering. Even a badly-produced track can be mastered to avoid these things, and although the mastered track will still sound badly-produced it won't suffer from those problems. A "noisy" track (I guess you mean a track that has been produced with a high peak level, ie. loud?) can be mastered quietly. The loudness of the final master is independent of the relative loudness of the mixdown. Bad production makes mastering harder and just making something loud is not 'mastering' it. Mastering is 100% of the reason why tracks these days sound much louder than tracks released 20 years ago. I would say that 100% of oldschool tracks could be subjectively improved by being remastered. The differences would include an improved frequency balance, more punchiness and more clarity without harshness or over-brightness. The question "what is the real diffrence between a digital and analog master?" is an ambiguous one and does not distinguish between the final delivery format, which can be analog or digital depending on the retail format and/or how it will be duplicated by the manufacturer, and the processes involved in the mastering itself, which can be analog, digital or a mixture of both, and are independent of the final delivery format. For instance you can master a track using only digital processes (eg. plugins) but deliver it to the manufacturer in an analog format (eg. laquer or 1/4" tape). Is it then a digital master, or an analog one? How about a track which is mastered solely using analog hardware but delivered to the manufacturer as a digital CD image? The question is not precise enough, but I hope I've helped clarify the issues 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abasio Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 Very informative thanks. I knew precisely none of this things before today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.