| Subject: Re: De-mixing explained (sort of) - part 2 |
Author:
Dale
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Thu October 27, 2022 17:56:25
In reply to:
Franklyn
's message, "Re: De-mixing explained (sort of) - part 2" on Thu October 27, 2022 04:13:44
Hi again.
O.K. I can certainly accept your personal preference for the technologically "advanced" versions of many classic recordings.
At the risk of being repetitive, my concern is when those advancements (and remixing) really do change the feel and warmth of a very good quality original mix.
I certainly do not dispute your hearing ability whatsoever.
Our well meaning disagreement has to do with the actual need
to clearly hear every individual ingredient in the sauce,
and whether or not that is what was intended by the original artist and producer back in the day.
If you really enjoy that level of clarity, and do not at all find that it can strip the original offering of it's magic,
then I have to say to each their own.
Obviously, the remixing of such iconic recordings
would not be done if the rights holders did not think there was a market for them. You are one voice that proves there is such an audience.
One quibble in your last post...
George Martin is widely quoted that he felt certain things had to be tweaked prior to the first cd releases of Help and Rubber Soul. This was not a serious remix, such as Gilles Martin has been doing, but rather a "re-balancing" of right and left stereo volume, and in a few cases, creating a digital echo for either the left or right channel, to prevent dead air in that channel. He also did some basic eq'ing to boost either treble or bass, and also overused noise reduction technology available to him, which actually dampened the excitement of the recording to some degree.
It is generally agreed that he actually did less of these
"audio adjustments" on his cd prep of Revolver, and once again, certainly did not perform a "re-mix", as that would have been very big news indeed.
Regarding the 2009 CD edition, the engineers involved in that digital transfer learned from the negative comments
re: the 1986. cd edition. You are correct that they used George Martins "mix" for the 2009 cd, but actually dialed back the massaging that Martin undertook in 1986. In other words, the 1966 stereo mix is the basis for both cd editions. Due to the higher resolution digital transfer technology available by 2009, most cd listeners (at least those who likely prefer the original analogue in the first place)find the 2009 cd edition to be a much more satiating listening experience.
That is a long winded way to say that neither cd edition, '86 or '09, was an actual remix of the original stereo version.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 