 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, the early 90s Varèse Sarabande CD of The River doesn't sound worse than Dracula which was released at the same time.
And the remastered album of Dracula in the latest Deluxe edition doesn't sound significantly better than the first CD edition.
About The Fury, the early 90s Varèse Sarabande CD wins hands down compare to the more recent and louder remasterings of the album.
Crazy, my remastered editions of these clearly sound better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough. Some people are happy with the adequate/acceptable sound of the original River Varese CD.
I agree, it's not terrible sounding and has served me for the last however many years it's been released for.
But the prospect of hearing 20 minutes of new and alternate music excites me, as a huge John Williams fan.
Plus many orchestral and instrumental details probably buried in the historical recording and mixing.
That comment that these new recordings sound more like the remastering engineer than the actual composer is the most ridiculous comment I've ever read around here. And I've read some ridiculous comments around here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And you're saying the music doesn't sound like John Williams or Jerry Goldsmith or James Horner anymore?
Which is what I find ridiculous.
I didn't like Intrada's Dressed To Kill or Rocketeer, but I could always tell it was Pino Donaggio and James Horner's music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, "polite approval", and not sounding as the composer originally intended?? These comments have entered the realm of absurdity. Most of us are just average fanboys, but it would be nice if MM chimed in on this thread with an informed opinion on the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, "polite approval", and not sounding as the composer originally intended?? These comments have entered the realm of absurdity. Most of us are just average fanboys, but it would be nice if MM chimed in on this thread with an informed opinion on the matter.
I would rather MM didn't lower himself to answer this nonsense... Mr Williams clearly holds his work in the highest esteem which is why he now produces every John Williams expansion. I've been thoroughly enjoying the 'Far and Away' release the last couple of days and very much looking forward to my copy of 'The River' arriving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thor: I can understand that the original release is not up to the crystal-clear sonics of current CD productions, but calling it 'awful' is just too harsh. As Nono said, it has a certain warmth and identity about it that most newer recordings don't.
TerraEpon: Sampling a bit of the original album right now. It has that 80s digital harshness for sure, but I'd hardly call it 'awful' and I'm a pretty harsh critic of actual awful sound quality.
The Varèse CD release of the 1984 MCA album was the least polished of a set of discouragingly desultory CD releases sub-licensed from MCA. And that’s my final opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nono, what would like Mr. Matessino to do, exactly? Mixing monitors were notoriously poor and inaccurate back in the 70s and 80s, so one could not even really hear what was in the recording. Modern monitors from companies like Genelec and JBL are much more accurate and revealing, which means a mastering engineer can make much more educated decisions when applying EQ, etc.
The argument for and against compression has been hashed to death here, so would rather not revisit that, and focus on other areas of mixing / remixing. My short take - over-compression is a bad thing, agreed. But there is always some compression added at some point in the recording or mastering process - sometimes it's even added by the microphones themselves.
So, beyond that, what represents a "proper" remaster in your view?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
