Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:55 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:28 pm
Posts: 2541
Location: in the tiny dirt somewhere
Fred_Zappelin wrote:
Doesn't clip for me. Try buying a good set of speakers and receiver.

This is not a subjective thing, and it's not a product of bad playback equipment. As HJ showed, the clipping is on the CD.

_________________
_________________Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:11 am
Posts: 1023
Location: North German Wasteland
Fred_Zappelin wrote:
They sound great even if they are slightly louder than other releases. Doesn't clip for me.
Scientists have made tests with a variety of consumers. Most of them don't care and ANYTHING can be fed to them.
Fred_Zappelin wrote:
I think the newest versions are much clearer, you can actually hear every instrument.
Usually a side effect of the compression: things that were never supposed to be loud in the first place are suddenly loud in the compressed mix and that is confused with "clearness" by the listener. He now hears things that he didn't hear before because he simply didn't pay attention.
Fred_Zappelin wrote:
I sold off my original CDs because they sound inferior.
Probably a mistake.

One other example from my collection: Yes - Relayer, one of my all time favourite albums. At first when listening to the recent Rhino remaster I thought the same: much clearer. But closer examination through headphones (a better playback system will reveal the problems even further) showed: unnecessary compression and unnecessary noise reduction that eliminates the original tape hiss but also some of the details*. What I thought was clearer was only made louder. Blindly I first considered the original CD inferior, but now it is the only version I can listen to, tape hiss and all the details intact.

*A good place to check this out is Steve Howe's solo on Sound Chaser. In the original the guitar jumps out and has impact because all the loud attacks of the aggressively picked notes are intact. The impact and the range between loud and soft is reduced on the remastered version. Some of the space between the notes and in the quiet moments when the mellotron strings come in is diminished because of the noise reduction. But many people still think that the remaster is better because they have been getting used to listening superficially only. They get tired of listening and don't know why: it is the squashed undynamic "better remastered" CD they are just listening to.

Th.

Edits in italic: this is not as bad as other examples, though. I had written myself into rage, so I had to revisit this today.

_________________
Active forum member since 2005 - R E T I R E D from public forum activity in 2013


Last edited by Thinman on Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:48 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:44 pm
Posts: 1466
Location: An air base in Central Europe
Thinman wrote:
One other example from my collection: Yes - Relayer, one of my all time favourite albums.

Sooooooooon..

Image :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:11 am
Posts: 1023
Location: North German Wasteland
buffalo_voice wrote:
Sooooooooon.
Wait 'til Trendmonger 2.0 comes after you! :wink: :wink: :wink:

_________________
Active forum member since 2005 - R E T I R E D from public forum activity in 2013


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 10:51 pm
Posts: 2345
Location: Europe
Fred_Zappelin wrote:
To all who hate the sound of these recent Zappa releases . . .

Just to prevent ANY confusion: I don't hate these releases. To quote myself:
HJ wrote:
I would rather have Buffalo made loud rather than no Buffalo. Make no mistake there.

But it is interesting that this (mistake?) slipped in amongst all the good stuff ZFT releases. It is worth a discussion. And the more that people object to these mastering techniques the better.

_________________
"Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself" - FZ
http://www.myspace.com/kirnehness


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:11 am
Posts: 1023
Location: North German Wasteland
An example of a review I have just read in the moment. The author mentions the problems of a remastered version (in german): http://www.babyblaue-seiten.de/album_9872.html#oben
I appreciate the fact that a reviewer cares about such things.

Th.

_________________
Active forum member since 2005 - R E T I R E D from public forum activity in 2013


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 4:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:11 am
Posts: 1023
Location: North German Wasteland
A book recommendation:
http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Audio-Second-art-science/dp/0240808371/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1250510406&sr=8-1
All aspects of mastering audio.

_________________
Active forum member since 2005 - R E T I R E D from public forum activity in 2013


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:44 pm
Posts: 1466
Location: An air base in Central Europe
Hey, vaultmeister, I'd also be thrilled with a –>compressed<-- version of this: ;)

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:11 am
Posts: 1023
Location: North German Wasteland
Buff, is that your own design or where does it come from? Anyway, I would suggest to release it with this cover exactly the way it is!

Th.

_________________
Active forum member since 2005 - R E T I R E D from public forum activity in 2013


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:44 pm
Posts: 1466
Location: An air base in Central Europe
Zhanx! did it during my lunch break --

edit - The ‘real’ version, commemorating the 15th anniversary of its non-release :P

Image

...with a LSO vol. I feel..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2002 3:42 pm
Posts: 1020
Location: The Short Forest
Thinman wrote:
Fred_Zappelin wrote:
They sound great even if they are slightly louder than other releases. Doesn't clip for me.
Scientists have made tests with a variety of consumers. Most of them don't care and ANYTHING can be fed to them.
Fred_Zappelin wrote:
I think the newest versions are much clearer, you can actually hear every instrument.
Usually a side effect of the compression: things that were never supposed to be loud in the first place are suddenly loud in the compressed mix and that is confused with "clearness" by the listener. He now hears things that he didn't hear before because he simply didn't pay attention.
Fred_Zappelin wrote:
I sold off my original CDs because they sound inferior.
Probably a mistake.

One other example from my collection: Yes - Relayer, one of my all time favourite albums. At first when listening to the recent Rhino remaster I thought the same: much clearer. But closer examination through headphones (a better playback system will reveal the problems even further) showed: unnecessary compression and unnecessary noise reduction that eliminates the original tape hiss but also all the details*. What I thought was clearer was only made louder. Blindly I first considered the original CD inferior, but now it is the only version I can listen to, tape hiss and all the details intact.

*A good place to check this out is Steve Howe's solo on Sound Chaser. In the original the guitar jumps out and has impact because all the loud attacks of the aggressively picked notes are intact. The impact and the range between loud and soft is completely gone on the remastered version. Also the space between the notes and in the quiet moments when the mellotron strings come in is gone because of the noise reduction. But many people still think that the remaster is better because they have been getting used to listening superficially only. They get tired of listening and don't know why: it is the squashed undynamic "better remastered" CD they are just listening to.

Th.


Are you sure you have compared the Miles albums I mentioned? I really listened with critical ears before I got rid of the old versions. Those "Contemporary Masters" series weren't very good. Also try comparing old/new w/ Jaco Pastorius s/t CD, or the first two Mahavishnu CDs. There's much improvement in the newer versions. As of now, the only '70s Miles albums that haven't gotten the reissue treatment are Agharta/Pangaea. The general consensus I've read at places like allaboutjazz forum is they sound like shit. I think they're decent, but an reissue of those would be nice. I do think there's a definite trend/problem with newer bands putting everything in the red just to be louder. Tool/APC is a perfect example.
I've also noticed in most of my recent purchases lately that any CD mastered by Bob Weston is done right. He's making the CDs sound like they're supposed to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:11 am
Posts: 1023
Location: North German Wasteland
Hi Fred_Zappelin,

Fred_Zappelin wrote:
Are you sure you have compared the Miles albums I mentioned?
No, I'm not sure because I don't have them ;-). I was generally pointing out that often what people perceive as "clearness" or "better sonics" is just loudness. And that certain details come out because of the compression. This can be a good thing but is not necessarily the intention of the original engineer/producer/artist.
Fred_Zappelin wrote:
Also try comparing old/new w/ Jaco Pastorius s/t CD
If you mean the first Jaco record, I have both the original LP and the first CD issue and I think they both sound right and I don't need a remastered version for the reasons I have described above.

Some companies' older CDs have a "fine print department" like this:

"The music on this Compact Disc was originally recorded on analog equipment. We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact Disc can reveal limitations of the source tape."

This could be described as "Warning/Guarantee" and I would consider it a quality mark (if it is true in all cases). And it was already possible to make a good high-quality transfer from analog to digital in the old days. Simply spoken, the quality depends on the filter circuits of the A/D converters, not the resolution. It is not necessarily a matter of having to use 24 Bit/96kHz technology. Frank's original 1987 FO transfer was used on MOFO and I hope they didn't tweeze it too much :wink:.

I think it is worthwhile, interesting and important to discuss this kind of things. And to be aware that not everything is gold that glitters.

Th.

_________________
Active forum member since 2005 - R E T I R E D from public forum activity in 2013


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:24 am
Posts: 8
While the waveform evidence is incontrovertible, and I appreciate a wide dynamic range, I also fuckin' love the Buffalo album and am extraordinarily happy that it exists in exactly the form that it exists.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:11 am
Posts: 1023
Location: North German Wasteland
The discussion has taken a deviation: http://www.killuglyradio.com/2009/08/19/the-loudness-war-in-modern-audio-mastering/. Including the regular contributions by Mr. Graffiti On The Wall alias Trendmonger.

Th.

And I don't want to withhold this little column from anybody who can read German. This contains the story of a very special recording of Ravel's Bolero :wink: :


Attachments:
Dynamik.jpg
Dynamik.jpg [ 251.25 KiB | Viewed 3333 times ]

_________________
Active forum member since 2005 - R E T I R E D from public forum activity in 2013
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 3:29 am
Posts: 5039
To me each and every project not only stems from a source master
but from the performance arrangement.
It's ridiculous if one places too much focal analysis on the Loudness War
Trend when there are a given set of variables that exceed that.

In the case with the 1984 tapes, which I have no clue as to Headroom
requirement variable FZ and his live engineers placed on those recordings
or what happened as the projects moved forward but wha I do know is that these
waveform analysis do not tell the entire story of any given project.
What clearly stands out be it listening to completed projects or thinking back of being
at 13 shows on the 1984 tour is the digital instrumentation used lacked dynamic density
because of the limitations of the early age of the digital instruments themselves.

From my perspective the digital instruments on the live 1984 tracks as heard on Trance Fusion are sounding
better as compared to any other project that has 1984 live material with the same basic arrangement structure.
I am not sitting here calling all the 1984 material on the YCDTOSA series terrible but when I listen to
Trance Fusion I am definitely hearing the digital instrumentation having more dynamic density regardless
of waveform analysis. Its as if those cold digital instruments have quite a bit more life to them.

_________________
Trendmonger's Moment Of Clarity

FZ "Read It And Weep"
April 17,1981

Frank Zappa left the ZFT in Control of his Vaults and Artistic rights.
We the fans are not in control. We have a choice to use our eyes and ears or read it and weep.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 10:51 pm
Posts: 2345
Location: Europe
Trendmonger wrote:
To me each and every project stems from a source master.
It's ridiculous if one places too much focal analysis on the Loudness War
Ok, so you're fine with compressed and clipped releases of Frank's music? Interesting. I cannot help but direct the attention again to this link,
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2007/05/16/loudness-war-music-over-compression-demonstrated-on-youtube/,
which contains this statement about excessive compression in the mastering phase: "It just tends to get applied without artistic intent in some albums." The important point here is indeed that the source master recording behind Buffalo release DID NOT CONTAIN THE CLIPPINGS I show in the waveform analysis. They are created by Filipetti. Period. I strongly doubt Frank Zappa would have approved; but this is personal speculation.

Trendmonger wrote:
In the case with the 1984 tapes, which I have no clue as to Headroom
requirement variable FZ and his live engineers placed on those recordings
or what happened as the projects moved forward but wha I do know is that these
waveform analysis do not tell the entire story of any given project.
What clearly stands out be it listening to completed projects or thinking back of being
at 13 shows on the 1984 tour is the digital instrumentation used lacked dynamic density
because of the limitations of the early age of the digital instruments themselves.

From my perspective the digital instruments on the live 1984 tracks as heard on Trance Fusion are sounding
better as compared to any other project that has 1984 live material with the same basic arrangement structure.
I am not sitting here calling all the 1984 material on the YCDTOSA series terrible but when I listen to
Trance Fusion I am definitely hearing the digital instrumentation having more dynamic density regardless
of waveform analysis. Its as if those cold digital instruments have quite a bit more life to them.
I don't think that digital instruments in the 1980s had less dynamics as such, so I don't see your point there. You are right that the waveform evidence presented does not tell the whole story about a given remix/remaster. For example, it may very well be the case that a modern remix can change the timbre of a cold 1984 digital sound to a warmer one. This, however, is an issue orthogonal to the issue of compression and the volume level of the master, and thus dynamics.

I would rather like to hear the warmer sound placed within the dynamics intended by the composer/performer/producer (moreover, did the composer intend the 1984 synth sound or not?). I have really no particular need for a loud and compressed mastering where loud parts out of necessity are clipped and, thus, distorted (in the general sense of the word). One that is uncompressed and maintain the original dynamics will do just fine!

_________________
"Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself" - FZ
http://www.myspace.com/kirnehness


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:11 am
Posts: 1023
Location: North German Wasteland
@HJ: Thanks for that. Nothing to add.

Except: There will always be people who would say about a Bolero-version with all sections at equal loudness: "Great! Now I can finally hear all the instruments and the details I didn't hear before! Now I can throw away my old crappy version with the too soft beginning!"

Th.

_________________
Active forum member since 2005 - R E T I R E D from public forum activity in 2013


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 3:29 am
Posts: 5039
HJ wrote:
I don't think that digital instruments in the 1980s had less dynamics as such, so I don't see your point there. You are right that the waveform evidence presented does not tell the whole story about a given remix/remaster. For example, it may very well be the case that a modern remix can change the timbre of a cold 1984 digital sound to a warmer one. This, however, is an issue orthogonal to the issue of compression and the volume level of the master, and thus dynamics.

I would rather like to hear the warmer sound placed within the dynamics intended by the composer/performer/producer (moreover, did the composer intend the 1984 synth sound or not?). I have really no particular need for a loud and compressed mastering where loud parts out of necessity are clipped and, thus, distorted (in the general sense of the word). One that is uncompressed and maintain the original dynamics will do just fine!



I find it quite difficult for anyone to not generally see and hear that the digital instrumentation is the first weak link.
To me it is ever clear that a Yahmaha DX7, Kurzweil and Chads digital kit is that first weak link.
FZ was obviously digging in deep head first into new digital technologies.
I am always glad FZ was pushing the envelope on new technologies but
as a Monday Morning Quarterback this is phase one of why all those tapes sand live concerts themselves sounded thin.

The fact that now as with case of Trance Fusion these live tapes finally are sounding with a bit more life
this is something we should all be talking about more so than the lack of Headroom Regalia in Modern Loud CD Mastering.

We all basically tend to look at the final project but who knows what levels
the original source masters, the build reels , to the final CD mastering where faults may lie.
If and when clipping takes place I think we need to dig deeper than this loud CD mastering issue.
The ZFT tend to due a very good job with the liner notes.
Joe Travers gave some comments on two recent CDs in question.
It seems now with new recordings today especially with 24bit digital
lots of headroom is left to guard against clipping
but FZ digital masters were recorded on digital tape in 1984 for example
who knows if the recording levels of as I said
original tapes or build reels work on later were pushed a bit too far.
Regardless my gut says first weak link is the digital instruments.

Do I want everything in the future to flow in that loud mastering trend , no,
but we as fans need to keep an open mind as to the work in progress
that started a very long time ago. It's not as if these source recordings are made today.
As Joe Travers has mentioned in this topic & also as DZ has mentioned in interviews
the ZFT are working closely with a variety of engineers they match on different projects.
They tend to work with the best in the business.
(A picture of Jim Lange throwing that big kiss just popped into my head, Oh well never mind.
Michael Jackson On The dating Game Show (1972) !!!RARE!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkrY2XPF35Q
)

Trance Fusion sounds amazing, especially in comparison to previous 1984 material.
Some fans have the nerve to fit it all into some CD mastering war giving little to no credence of
the history of similar tape sources. There is nothing wrong with criticizing some problems that may exist with anything
but the critics/fans get far too carried away with pushing the negative.

_________________
Trendmonger's Moment Of Clarity

FZ "Read It And Weep"
April 17,1981

Frank Zappa left the ZFT in Control of his Vaults and Artistic rights.
We the fans are not in control. We have a choice to use our eyes and ears or read it and weep.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 1261
Location: Ohio
Why are you going on and on about the 1984 band? Trance-Fusion has only five cuts from that band. And most of Thinman's commentary was about the Buffalo CD.

You're a big fan of recording technology and methodology. Why is this discussion seemingly going over your head? We all know that you are not a fan of the 1984 band's keyboard and drum sounds, but that preference is not germane to the current mastering discussion at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

_________________
Good writing is clear writing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 7:29 pm
Posts: 9584
no response...


> -----------------------------------
> from: slime.o@ hczappafan.com
> to: frank@decibels_r_us.com
> subject: zappa buffalo cd remastering
> date: 13-aug-09 11:53:04 -0500
>
>
> hi, this message is for f.filipetti;
>
> a raging discussion is now going on about the quality of your recent work on zappa buffalo cd; when
> waveforms from the buffalo cd are compared to the same material from the old emi cd, it appears the
> volume levels are way too high, the result sounds painfully bad... no dynamic range left, like a big generic
> block of sound ... photos are posted on the zappa.com forum under the topic:
> 'the loudness war in modern audio mastering'
>
> here's a link to the thread:
>
> http://www.zappa.com/messageboard/viewt ... =1&t=17588
>
> given that zappa was arguably the greatest producer & sound engineer ever, and that his original albums
> have no equal as far as production, the zappa/buffalo cd is considered to be sub-standard
>
> any comment ?
>
>
> regards
>
>
> slime.o
>


Image

_________________
Image


Last edited by slime.oofytv.set on Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:28 pm
Posts: 2541
Location: in the tiny dirt somewhere
slime.oofytv.set wrote:
Image

Excellent...

_________________
_________________Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 10:51 pm
Posts: 2345
Location: Europe
Trendmonger wrote:
Some fans have the nerve to fit it all into some CD mastering war giving little to no credence of
the history of similar tape sources. There is nothing wrong with criticizing some problems that may exist with anything
but the critics/fans get far too carried away with pushing the negative.

You have the nerve to view any discussion as "pushing the negative". You must have missed my evidence-based praise of the WOIIFTM 2008 remix. Alos, I think you divert the discussion away from topic. RE_ Buffalo: Compare TTR and Buffalo. Nothing left to discuss about original tapes.

But interestingly, you are saying that in 1984 the digital instruments caused over compression in the original recordings? (And that the over compression on all Trance Fusion's non-1984 tracks was just done to follow suit?)

_________________
"Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself" - FZ
http://www.myspace.com/kirnehness


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 3:29 am
Posts: 5039
HJ wrote:
Trendmonger wrote:
Some fans have the nerve to fit it all into some CD mastering war giving little to no credence of
the history of similar tape sources. There is nothing wrong with criticizing some problems that may exist with anything
but the critics/fans get far too carried away with pushing the negative.


1)You have the nerve to view any discussion as "pushing the negative".
You must have missed my evidence-based praise of the WOIIFTM 2008 remix. Alos, I think you divert the discussion away from topic.

RE_ Buffalo: Compare TTR and Buffalo. Nothing left to discuss about original tapes.

2) But interestingly, you are saying that in 1984 the digital instruments caused over compression in the original recordings? (And that the over compression on all Trance Fusion's non-1984 tracks was just done to follow suit?)


I hope you don't mind I inserted a 1) and 2) into your text as to make the quote one instead of the nesting variety.
Now let's get down to it.

1) On the first part it's not as if I am specifically isolating you or that I am opposed to anyone talking about the
Audio Mastering Loudness War. What I am more so getting at is this so called Loudness War that quite a few fans
are gathering around a campfire focusing on is that they seem to give little to no consideration on a sum of issues
regarding overall audio fidelity of the projects from beginning to end. I am going to isolate one such internet published comment.
Andrew Greenway who runs the Idiot Bastard Website.

I happen to appreciate a fair portion of what Andrew reports on his site,
Ironically he fished out something that I commented on
recently where I had absolutely no inside information on.
I just happened to comment on a given band where at the time in 1978 FZ never represented
on an official live album.
FZ put out live performances of December 1977 before Fall 76 with Bianca Odin.
Things are so ironic sometimes. So if you or anyone is looking for 2007 ZPZ before 2008 well excuse me,
did not FZ already set this precedence. Some fans have the nerve to dig deep where no such criticism is deserved.
They even invent time lines of Ray Whites departure from ZPZ that do not exist so as to only further improperly push an
agenda of spin doctored negativity. Investigate that it s well worth it.

Anyhow when Andrew published his latest news blog with isolating a specific comment out of context
I really think that form of News Reporting tends to spin
the thought process of the community in a certain direction
even if he does directly link to the topic. My god
the isolated comment can ring in ones mind like learning math.

Here we go Andrew writes:
If you don’t like the loud sound of Buffalo, the Vaultmeister says to blame Frank Filipetti,
at viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17588&p=426792#p426792

Now The Vaultmeister quoted and stated the following

vaultmeister wrote:
Thinman wrote:
In the case you care about things like that, watch this: http://www.dynamicrange.de.
And if you are interested where recent CDs from our beloved composer's work suffer from this, just listen to Buffalo or Trance-Fusion. I suffer physically when listening to productions of that kind.
Th.



well critics, here's the deal. In the case of "Trance-Fusion"- we sent the album master to Bob Ludwig to do final tweeks, but the level on that title was already maxed out by Spence Chrislu. FZ was alive & authorized a final CD ref (I listened to it with him during his last days). So, in other words, FZ knew about it.
In the case of "Buffalo", Frank Filipetti sent us a finished mix already mastered that way. That is how he works & so there was no additional mastering after the fact. If you don't like how that sounds, blame it on him.
I always pay special attention to these types of details on every release. Mastering engineers we work with are chosen on a project basis. In other words, depending on what the program material is or sounds like, determines who we work with. I happen to think we work with some of the best mastering engineers in the biz.
I'm well aware that mastering has become a level war, loud is not always better. Hope this makes ya feel better.


I think it is more important to take a look at things a little deeper
as opposed to putting out a blanket comment where Loudness War and Frank Fillipetti are Synonymous.
Fortunately Joe's Commentary is a bit deeper than how Andrew presented it.
It's as if from some fanatical perspectives, some may be extremely unhappy with a given ZFT title
fitting into this Industry Loudness War Quotient and fans want to piss all over the ZFT and their employees
and Blanket News Blog Reporting in a one sentence swoop says the blame is on Fillipetti.
It's not as if Andrew's short news blog is the designed theater piss but it certainly seems to fit
the piss quotient that fans of extreme negativity need to isolate and focus of for their agenda.
Long after the dialog of any reasoning stops I could see where what is remembered is Blame Blame Blame
it's mastered all too loud instead of what good goddamn it is in these recordings.
Additionally when some fans do talk when I see a fan stating the ZFT are doing projects on the cheap that is
ridiculous. It's as if some fans want to push some grass roots reasoning as to why the music industry is faced
with consumers who steal instead of buying based on any given price point.

Well not all fans are unhappy with Buffalo. Lots are quite happy with it.
I have lots of respect for Frank Fillipetti and as we can see some fans, the operative keywords are some fans,
may now want to fit his engineering skills into a bx of Loudness Mastering just as easily as they were unhappy with the ZFT.
I think the first thought of blame on the ZFT and any extreme negativity towards Frank Fillipetti would be totally ridiculous.
Fans should heed the the liner and what Joe says. Yes we need to understand how Frank Fillipetti engineered this
but one needs to investigate all his engineering processed on the project.

Buffalo is different than TTR . TTR is a project which came out on different formats and different MIXes.
Additionally TTR is quite an overall different listening experience that is from different concerts,
different tours and even has some studio material, so some given forum user here
that questions why I am raising or focused on 1984 material when as he said only 6 songs on Trance Fusion
was from the 1984 I think this is well enough to show the differences of arrangement
and hall sonics that the engineer has to deal with. When a new project of similar material gets released
as with Trance Fusion i comparison to anything previously from 1984 what stands out in a very positive way
is the dynamic density of 1984 digital instrumentation that was so much a part of the overall mix.
The overall listening experience has gone from a cold sound as to having life.

Ironically I believe TTR has 8 of 15 tracks being recorded early Dec 1980
that most closely is of the band configuration on Buffalo which is October 1980 but venue sonics and performance
between Berkeley Community Theater and Memorial Auditorium, Buffalo are quite different even if the band configuration is the same.

Buffalo is from one show so that inherent fabric landscape
that changes from venue to venue is not there. Yes when a project is created from different venues,
different tours and even including studio material all sorts of tools are used to help balance that all out
but when sources naturally have a different acoustic palate that change is evident sometimes in a eye awaking
way that some may very like as having ambient acoustic contrast . My point is so many different textures reside in a live tape performances
from show to show and tour to tour. Even if some dynamics are removed with all this compression I think sometimes what is there
is still worth discussing more than isolating the Loudness War.


2) I am not saying Digitial Instruments Caused Over Compression on the original source recordings.
What I am saying is the digital recording technology was new where different source recording standards may have been used.
As far as the instrumentation the digital instruments themselves lacked dynamic density. COLD.
I am so much more interested in discussing how the digital instruments performed on in 1984 are sounding better
on Trance Fusion as compared to YCDTOSA and Guitar. The first time I heard Trance Fusion I told myself
wow those drums and keyboards have more life. Not that they have become my favorati of textures
in FZ canon but they are sounding vibrant as ever. Do I wish I could have seen 13 1978 shows instead of 13 1984 shows
hell yeah but in looking at the mass quantities of live 1984 material that exist in Official Projects
finally there are actually some notable dynamics
to the attack and decay of any given digital sample and patch performed on keyboards and drums in Trance Fusion
that is missing on YCDTOSA and Guitar. In regards to Trance Fusion for those that have the pre-Bob Ludwig work
that seems to have been hijacked from an early FZ work in progress cassette. Is there any evidence
in that Bootleg that shows that on the Official Release Bob Ludwig is not to be saluted for his work. I don't think so.

But no, here we are focused on Loudness War.

_________________
Trendmonger's Moment Of Clarity

FZ "Read It And Weep"
April 17,1981

Frank Zappa left the ZFT in Control of his Vaults and Artistic rights.
We the fans are not in control. We have a choice to use our eyes and ears or read it and weep.


Last edited by Trendmonger on Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 1261
Location: Ohio
Trendmonger wrote:
I am so much more interested in discussing how the digital instruments performed on in 1984 are sounding better on Trance Fusion as compared to YCDTOSA and Guitar.


So you should have started another thread to discuss this viewpoint. But instead, you interjected here and shot another good thread to hell.

_________________
Good writing is clear writing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 3:29 am
Posts: 5039
FalseDichotomy wrote:
Trendmonger wrote:
I am so much more interested in discussing how the digital instruments performed on in 1984 are sounding better on Trance Fusion as compared to YCDTOSA and Guitar.


So you should have started another thread to discuss this viewpoint.
But instead, you interjected here and shot another good thread to hell.


I don't think the Loudness War in the Industry and the two titles
is something that needs to be trudged across the fanatical negative tundra.

These Official CDs that are in question are very good projects that deserve attention more so
on the good aspects than on how they may fit into some Audio Mastering Loudness War.
Before I ever got involved in this topic I let the critics go on and on
long before and after the Valtmeister's reply several pages ago.

Joe Travers commented . I like how he specifically replied to the critics.
Let's keep that in perspective of what the projects are as opposed
to how some critics need to isolate any given blame, blame, blame for their Loudness War Agenda.

I felt it was important to come here and raise many good issues about some very good aspects
about these projects. You call my commentary shooting a good thread to hell,
Well from a given perspective I am ever so much more an individual that upholds diplomatic sovereignty
than derailing and shooting something to hell.

It's time to move on.

_________________
Trendmonger's Moment Of Clarity

FZ "Read It And Weep"
April 17,1981

Frank Zappa left the ZFT in Control of his Vaults and Artistic rights.
We the fans are not in control. We have a choice to use our eyes and ears or read it and weep.


Last edited by Trendmonger on Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group