|
Post by schmokes on Mar 26, 2006 19:31:35 GMT
Well, I dont have to get my money back because it was given to me. Loss of money is not the motive for my dis-satisfaction with this new edition.
I may still be interested in the collector's edition box set for the outtakes, the DVD, and the artwork. Can anyone tell me, is the artwork in the book presented in such a manner that it is full-page, the entire paintings - not cropped like on the 2CD digipak, and if the paintings are double-page spreads, is the center bind of the book so tight that the middle of the paintings are sunken into the crease of the spine, and therefore the whole picture cannot be viewed?
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Mar 26, 2006 19:50:57 GMT
Wow! Strong words!
I've not heard the new version- still waiting to pick it up from a friend, but I'm now quite curious to hear it and the differences. It is quite disconcerting to hear a re-edit/mix of something you've known for years with differences because the original becomes so engrained into your memory- the same with new edits of films (I guess Star Wars should get a mention, along with the recent Alien Saga edits and Apocalypse Now). Often I quite like the new versions- even though parts I'm familiar with are missing. It is nice, however, to have the choice of both.
It is entirely the right of the creator of a piece of work (audio or visual, or both) to reappraise it and make any changes they like- just as it's entirely the right of us listeners to dislke it.
On a technical note, 'Popular' music has been heavily compressed (or normalized if you like) since the technology was available- this is to make the record louder and more 'in your face'- classical and soundtracks, for instance don't suffer so much from this as the music relies on the drama created by large differences in the volume. Listen to the last Foo Fighters albums for instance- they even sound loud when the volume is quite low because they are compressed andlimited as much as possible. (for the non technical- compression is a way of reducing the differences between the loudest and quietest parts of a sound (ie the dynamics)- it is often used to make things sound louder by increasing the average volume of a sound or in some cases, the way the compression works makes things sound punchier and more full of energy- over compression can heavily colour the sound and reduce its dynamics completely-this is not always a bad thing and sometimes can enhance the sounds).
Having read an article about the restoration and remix of the WOTW recordings, it appears that they went back and tried to use the same equipment- ie compressors, limiters and equalizers, to keep the sounds as similar to the original recordings as they could. I think that they did work hard to do the best job possible, but it would be impossible to recreate the recording EXACTLY now as when it was originally mixed- unless you used the same mixing desks, tape recorders and monitors, not to mention removing 25 years of use from Jeff Wayne's ears and whoever helped mix it originally.
As I said, I haven't heard the new version yet- but I'm fairly sure that it will sound as though it had been recorded now and the 1978 version had never been published, as Horsell has said.
Incidentally, Schmokes, if you don't like the way music is produced these days, that's up to you. Just don't buy any more CD's- use your spare cash and save up for a ProTools system yourself- they're not too expensive these days to start with. The desktop recording boom is a remarkable and liberating thing.
|
|
|
Post by schmokes on Mar 26, 2006 20:11:01 GMT
Youre right - JW does have the right to alter his own work, however he wants. Just like George Lucas has the right to focus the 3 new Star Wars on computerized effects and glitzy production, as opposed to a storyline with substance and good acting. JW has apparently stooped into the same category. He's made his millions. Now he doesnt need to be artistically accountable.
I am also an audio engineer, a point I did not want to reveal until now because I didnt want people thinking I am just some overly critical audio geek. In regards to what youre saying about compression and normalization, I have seen a trend in recent years to over-compress the audio, regardless if it was digitized and transferred with superb quality. Since you mentioned the Foo Fighters, I might mention that NIRVANA's box set "With The Lights Out", being a recent release, also suffers from massive normalization. For example, serveral of the songs on that compilation were available previously as B-sides or on compilation CDs, etc. Well I went and compared the tracks that had been previously released to the editions of the same songs published on the new box-set, and just as I had feared, the new editions were marred with over-normalization, whereas the original CD-releases had sensible, non-destructive signal levels. That is the very reason I feared for the integrity of The War Of The Worlds. And lo and behold when I did examine it, I found it suffers from the same problems as I have seen with other newer releases, which is why I started this thread - to warn people of what they are being subjected to sonically. Compression has not always been this bad. Like I have said, the 20-bit remastered edition of WOTW is superbly done. That one is EXACTLY the same music, just mastered with a better process. JW went to all the trouble to go back to the master tapes track by track, and then negated the value of that with the destructive mastering processes.
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Mar 26, 2006 20:39:08 GMT
I haven't heard the Nirvana box set- I confess to not buying that many CD's at the moment- I think the last new album I got was Editors- The Back Room and I have David Gilmour's new album on the way- this I expect to have a similar spacious sound to the Division Bell- they always do their own thing when it comes to producing an album- like Peter Gabriel. So I don't really have too much knowledge of current production trends- in fact, though I bought a ProTools LE system myself late last year, I haven't really done much writing/recording at home as of yet- something I need to change soon.
Singles often get mixed for the radio- ie as loud and middly as possible. I suppose this is to enable them to stand out- against other singles made as loud as possible as well! I assume this is also to try and pre-compensate against the extreme compression used over analogue radio broadcasts- as the DAB community increases, hopefully this should decline though. In one respect, it would sound odd if a pop or rock song was barely compressed at all at mixdown- or even mixed complely differently to the norm- whether or not it would work would depend on how this was done.
I understand your disappointment with the changes to the mixing though, dynamics aside- I will (hopefully) still approach the new version of WOTW an open mind. Whether I find it better, worse, or indifferent remains to be heard. I actually didn't realise that the mix was changed that much. I'm sure I could have hours of fun comparing the two recordings back to back (something to test my ProTools system with?!). However, my time is at a premium at the moment (I'm so busy in general) and I probably have better things to do- like writing my own music for instance. I've spent far too much time over the last few years being a gear geek and wasting time spending imaginary cash reading SoundOnSound, rather than making do with what I have. An insecurity many modern musicians suffer from...
|
|
|
Post by adambomb on Mar 27, 2006 21:46:07 GMT
im just wondering if you think that any other band with a long standing classic album ie: Pink Floyd, The Beatles or even The Moody Blues, would allow any of their classic albums to be changed like this? I really think not... schmokes is right, in my modest opinion the new one sounds corny.
|
|
|
Post by Spirit of Man on Mar 28, 2006 4:35:41 GMT
It may be worth re-posting this on the official sites forum, simply cus the ProTools chap that digitised and remixed the album posts on there (nG), he may be able to respond to this subject with a little more perspective than most, including myself.
P.S. I know what you're saying about the recording & I've heard what you're talking about on a few albums recently, kinda leaves ya feeling a bit empty when ur listening to it, but I do think the new mix of WoTW sounds good and wasnt aware of any overuse of normalisation until you mentioned it & I still cant really hear it.
|
|
|
Post by schmokes on Mar 28, 2006 7:22:56 GMT
Well one thing you notice immediately, on the 20-bit remaster, Burton's opening statement has an ambiant echo quality that makes his voice sound haunting and deep and spacious, whereas on the new edition it sounds very thick and bassy, but not like how a person sounds in real life.
Basically none of the instruments sound like a live instrument sounds - nor has any ambiant presence - they all sound like the recordings are sampled impressions of what the given instrument sounds like, instead of a live instrument. The mixing also gives the impression that the separate instruments are all very narrowly fixated in a small domain in the stereo spread, instead of sounding spacious. Sound does not eminate and then suddenly drop off, it is emitted then gradually fades to silence. Even the quickest sound does not just happen, then its instantly and fully gone right after its maximum volume has ceased.
The drums sound totally flat and lifeless - they sound like the mirophone captured only the sound being eminated in the space that the microphone occupies, instead of being mic'd at a variety of distances to provide the sense that its a real instrument that is making sound within a given space. Additionally, this impression is heightened by the fact that any segment of the recording of the drums that is below a certain volume level, ie, the sound of the sound trailing off, is eliminated - which is partially why it sounds like it has no depth. Again, it sounds like almost like sampled drums, and they are too bass-heavy and too close.
The bass (not just the bass guitar itself but all bass frequencies) is unnaturally heavy. The loudest parts of the album are harsh and digital sounding. The orchestra sounds whimpy and compressed instead of stirring and spacious, and it is also mixed down in favor of the heavier aspects of the music, which have been over-driven. Basically this whole production was computerized and digitized to the tee, but done with such a lack of finesse and disregard for the album's spacious quality that it sounds like an apprentice's class project, rather than a seasoned producer with patience and careful attention to detail.
Computers do not have an emotional perspective on music, but they sure make it easy for an undiscriminating producer to profoundly alter the sound to an unnatural state. Computers have great potential and indeed this was recorded and digitized superbly, but then processed and mixed without regard to the album's sonic feel. The production process does not have to be done this way, as I have heard a few new remastered albums that sound phenominal and have not been over-produced. But TWOTW sounds like it got the same production treatment that you would expect to hear on some in-your-face, heavy handed, thrash rock album. Its not the right choice for a spacious soundscape full of nuance and subtlety.
|
|
|
Post by Slick2097 on Mar 28, 2006 9:30:28 GMT
Schmokes, you raise a few good points, but it doesn't affect my enjoyment.
I dont think you have, and if you have then please forgive me, listened to the SACD layer yet? It does sound different to the CD layer, even in 2 channel mode.
Perhaps your problems will vanish when you listen to it on the media it was actually remade for?
Ste.
|
|
|
Post by krys666 on Mar 28, 2006 12:42:10 GMT
I'm confused now...
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Mar 28, 2006 12:45:49 GMT
im just wondering if you think that any other band with a long standing classic album ie: Pink Floyd, The Beatles or even The Moody Blues, would allow any of their classic albums to be changed like this? I really think not... schmokes is right, in my modest opinion the new one sounds corny. Well- Jeff Wayne himself worked on the re-edit, so I think your question is not quite relevant here-as Mr Wayne is clearly and rightly protective of his work, I don't think he would release something he himself was happy with. A case for your point there was the original CD issue of the Led Zeppelin albums- Jimmy page was unhappy with the way they turned out and therefore went back and remastered it himself.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 28, 2006 21:36:15 GMT
This is very odd . . . .
I have all the CD releases of this album including the SACD. I also have a SACD player and when listening to the opening narration from Burton in SACD, his narration has echo, more clearer and defined in SACD than listening to it on my normal CD player.
I would like to point out at this stage, bit late, but better late than never. . . . This album release is in lay'mans terms) a tester. The album is not the normal SACD sound of the past 3/4 years (what ever it is), this is a newer format released by Sony, that is why Sony backed this album release.
|
|
|
Post by schmokes on Mar 28, 2006 21:51:55 GMT
Well as I said in my opening post, I do not have an SACD player. This discussion is about the CD layer of the hybrid disc.
And about Led Zeppelin, I have some friends with the original CD relases of their albums, and they really sound terrible. I have the studio sessions box set, which is superb.
There arent any changes to the music. It has not been over-nomalized. The only thing that has changed is the improved sound quality - which is kind of the point of this thread: CDs do not have to be trashed with new production techniques; if done properly they can ascend to new heights.
|
|
|
Post by adambomb on Mar 29, 2006 4:54:02 GMT
I hate the new double cd's remastered version of The War of the Worlds. It sounds like nuts compared to the 20bit-1995 version, What the hell? I hade my own argument with my close friends the other day, and they ALL said that the 95 version sounded better, crisp and cleaner... I swear to god if the movie has the same soundtrack as the 2005 version, I'm going to be sad...and I won't go to see it...
p.s... Thank god i didn't buy the expensive box set and mabey with the help of others, we can restore this classic to its perfection...
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Mar 29, 2006 8:41:35 GMT
[glow=Purple,2,300]Justwho's interpretation of 'perfection' is correct? Still, you can't please everyone all of the time!
I thought the new version was amazing (I don't have an SA-CD player, so only heard the hybrid stereo track). To me, this version is clearer, more detailed, and wider - there's much more feeling to it.
Remember, this is Jeff's vision - it's the album HE wanted to make. There were elements HE wanted to improve, so he did. You don't like it - don't listen to it! I don't give a to$$ about 'over-nomalization' or any of that geeky blather - I just enjoy the atmosphere and music. [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 29, 2006 9:06:19 GMT
There arent any changes to the music. It has not been over-nomalized. The only thing that has changed is the improved sound quality - which is kind of the point of this thread: CDs do not have to be trashed with new production techniques; if done properly they can ascend to new heights. I bet Gary Langan, a professional of the past 4 decades will be pleased to hear that he did not do the album properly
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Mar 29, 2006 16:50:39 GMT
Well- that'll learn him then, won't it! ;D
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 29, 2006 18:07:55 GMT
;D
|
|
|
Post by RossH on Apr 3, 2006 17:20:33 GMT
Personally I'm quite happy with the new mix, but then again I have no intention of getting rid of my original either. I feel the same way about Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon.
I suspect the people complaining the most about the remix don't actually have a copy of the original on CD, so I can more than understand their desire for the old version. I don't think it's really a bad reflection on the new mix, just that the old mix is now unavailable.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Apr 3, 2006 19:52:46 GMT
I suspect the people complaining the most about the remix don't actually have a copy of the original on CD . . . . . . or they just picked this album from random as they have naff all else to complain about
|
|
Trivet
Junior Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by Trivet on Apr 8, 2006 21:16:19 GMT
I agree that the new mix is appalling. While there are parts that do sound impressive they are cancelled out by far to many bad aspects.
I could moan all day about the re-edits, changed lyrics/vocals, missing syllables, the "S" at the start of "So our land now belonged to the Martians" for a start, but I really can't be bothered, so here are a few of my major gripes and once you've noticed them they will render this version of the album un-listenable.
For a start the elements of the Eve of the War are mixed wrong. Whereas the driving theme was originally a crisp "Da Da Daa... Dadada Dadada", it is now swamped by the backing and now goes "Dally-e Dally-e Daa" Dallia Dallia, far less impressive and The Fighting machine sounds flat and muted and slightly speeded up compared to the original.
But worst of all is Dead London. Originally there was a slight reverve of electric guitar, like a sigh just prior to "I saw over the trees on primrose hill" It is now missing and when the final "Ulla" was originally cut short, It's echo lingered in the ear until Richard spoke. now there is no echo and its the final mis-timed plink of the piano that dominates.
This is not the Album I fell in love with but a bastardised re-recording. I just hope that the original version masters still exist cause if Sony thinks this new version is superior it will junk It's previous CD masters leaving Jeff Wayne as sole guardian.
that the new mix is appaling
|
|