| Author | Message | ||
     kevin Unregistered guest |
Is it just my dodgy ears or do some of the tracks(especially the latter ones) sound a bit distorted? almost as if they have been badly mastered - its not my stereo cos it sounds the same in the car. maybe I have a dodgy CD but I doubt this kind of problem would be isolated to one CD | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 52 Registered: 10-2004 |
i happened to hear good quality mp3s of 'darlinghurst nights' and 'lavender,' and heard very noticeable distortion during sections when the songs got louder. i chalked this up to being either intentional, if a bit misguided, or else something wrong with the mp3s i heard. but it sounds like maybe it's a shoddy mastering job? too much compression? or maybe the levels were too hot for the compression to handle properly? either way, it was definitely not subtle. a really stupid mastering trend, which has become rampant over the past several years, is to squash the levels with tons of compression, so you flatten everything out, and then raise the volume as loud as possible. sometimes this results in audible distortion. the go-betweens post-reunion albums have so far steared clear of that, but i'm wondering if they gave in this time around. | ||
| kevin Unregistered guest |
interesting reply jeff, thanks. I have also noticed this kind of distortion on the album by Low called The Great Destroyer. What bugs me is you pay good money for music and getting shoddy goods in return - surely the band, record company, engineer or whoever must hear this as well? | ||
| Peter Matthews Unregistered guest |
Yes, I just read on an audiophile Web site that the sound of Oceans Apart is extremely compressed and maximized. No dynamic range at all. Which means an unpleasant listening experience for those of us with good stereos and/or picky ears. This compression/loudness trend that Jeff mentioned is one of the most disturbing trends in the music industry in the past several years and I have passed on buying numerous CDs (eg, the recent Red Hot Chili Peppers compilation) because of it. I'll be buying Oceans Apart nonetheless, in part so I can familiarize myself with the band's new material before attending their NYC show in June, but if future G-B releases are similarly badly mastered and compressed, I probably won't buy 'em. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 53 Registered: 10-2004 |
peter, do you, by chance, have a link to that audiophile website? curious to hear what's being said. i really can't judge at this point, as i've only heard a few songs from the album, but it seems sad that the band would go to mark wallis for what seems like the kind of lush, full production their post-reunion albums have been screaming for, only to have it pissed on by an inappropriate mastering job. | ||
| Peter Matthews Unregistered guest |
Sure. The Website is www.SteveHoffman.tv (Hoffman is a mastering engineer.) The current G-B thread is here: www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=51509 Most of the first page focuses on the recent remasters of the 80s albums, but discussion of Oceans Apart begins with post #19. Again, I haven't heard the new album yet, so I can't offer my own opinion on the sound. I'm still greatly looking forward to picking up a copy next week, but the mastering concerns have tempered my enthusiasm a wee bit... | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 54 Registered: 10-2004 |
thanks for the link, peter. interesting - i laughed at the comment about it being a shame that we'll have to wait 20 years for a reissue that remedies the crappy mastering. i'm still very much looking forward to hearing it, but yeah, the relentless compression is a bit of a let down. | ||
| Lardass Unregistered guest |
Good God, I thought the MP3s I downloaded were dodgy, and was looking forward to hearing the tracks properly. The second last track in particular sounds atrocious. | ||
| Peter Azzopardi Member Username: Pete Post Number: 92 Registered: 09-2004 |
A friend recently sent me a copy of OA which he downloaded (don't worry Go-Bs management, I'm sure I'll buy the album at least twice) and I too put the distortion down to mp3 compression. I've been looking forward to buying the album proper when it comes out in AUS next week so I could hear the songs in full dynamic, super-lush glory. Sad to hear this dream might not come true. Who mastered the album, by the way? This vital piece of information isn't included on Jonathan's page of OA details. | ||
| button down Member Username: Buttondown Post Number: 16 Registered: 09-2004 |
Will there be a vinyl version released? That requires a different type of mastering, so maybe the LP (if there is one) will escape this problem. | ||
| Duncan H Unregistered guest |
I assumed the distortion was intentional - something to make the critics think that "art" was involved, and it was modern. And therefore get the great reviews. I don't like it, especially on the last two songs. Is there any chance of finding a non-distorted version of the album? | ||
| Graham Twyford Unregistered guest |
I'd just like to say that I've got Oceans Apart and an excellent stereo and it sounds bloody great. | ||
| James Unregistered guest |
I got a promo of the album a couple of months ago and assumed that the distortion was down to something dodgy that would be remedied on the official release (the promo also starts with two instances of Here Comes A City, replete with count in). I bought the album on Monday and apart from a slight hint of distortion during the chorus of This Night's For You it seems to be a lot better. | ||
| kevin Unregistered guest |
if i was grant and robert i would be pretty angry about this. after all, for such gifted songwriters their legacy has been poorly presented - some of the mid 80s albums are sonically dreadful, my vinyl copy of tallulah in particular. the last 2 albums sounded good though. | ||
| kevin Unregistered guest |
graham - maybe you should listen on headphones and you will see what i mean. trust me, its sounds dreadful, especially this nights for you. maybe you are lucky and have a good copy. if so, whats the chances of a CD R copy? i would do you something in return. | ||
| Pointy Bird Unregistered guest |
Glad I looked here as I was all ready to trek back to the shop to demand a replacement copy. The distortion on the last two songs is appalling, but particularly on TNFY, probably the worst I have heard on a proper cd. Reminds me of old vinyl recordings I had that had been played to bu99ery with a weight on the tonearm to stop it skating. | ||
| Dusty Unregistered guest |
I e-mailed Lomax shortly afetr I received my copy saying that I was posting it back to them and wanted a refund (due to the distortion obviously). I'm not going to do that now as I realize that the distortion is intentional. I must admit it's not THAT bad, although mildly irritating. I feel it detriments 'This night's for you' and 'Finding you' most(the former I don't mind because it's the one song I'll skip on the album, the latter is quite annoying though). I don't think it affects 'Mountains near delray' that much although I can't see why thay they should bother to distort this one as it's hardly likely to be played on FM much. It's a lovely song but not a single! (he says 3 months before it reached no.1 in America, UK, France, Germany, Australia & Chad). | ||
| Cichli Suite Member Username: Cichli_suite Post Number: 47 Registered: 08-2004 |
Hi all, forgive my ignorance about this! Typically, who carries out the mastering for a band - the producer? And what exactly does it achieve when it is done right? I haven't received my copy of 'Oceans Apart' yet so I am interested to hear what people are taking about. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 55 Registered: 10-2004 |
cichli - the mastering is just about always done in a seperate facility, set up specifically for mastering, and by a different person, who specialized in mastering - so it's never going to be the producer, unless it's a really low-budget job. any mastering mishaps are usually totally out of the producer's hands, unless the producer fucked-up and recorded the levels too hot, which with some of mark wallis' calliber, it seems highly unlikely in this case. when it's done right, matering is supposed to do a number of things: from setting the spacing between songs, the sequencing of each song, to more complex sonic stuff, like gently applying compression to everything to sort of "tighten" up the mixes and overall sound of the album, and adjusting the volume of each song so that they are all at the same level. you know, subtle stuff that is supposed to *prevent* things like unwanted distortion. but as is mentioned above, mastering people have been taking upon themselves in recent years (or at the behest of record company execs) to sometimes radically alter mixes to make them loud, totally un-dynamic, and sometimes a bit distorted. | ||
| kevin Unregistered guest |
excuse my ignorance here but why would anybody want to distort the sound? i could almost see a punk band wanting to, but surely not a band as refined as the Go Betweens. Dusty - What makes you think the distortion is intentional? I just think its a shabby mastering job and in no way intentional. | ||
| G Unregistered guest |
The album really is massively over compressed, which is a particular shame as it's their most sonically interesting album in a long while - perhaps ever. There are hints of digital distortion on a lot of the vocals too, which surely can't be intentional. It's not a warm, constant distortion, but peaks 'cracking'. Still enjoying the album of course, but would have been better if the production had some room to breathe. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 56 Registered: 10-2004 |
i have a hunch someone fucked up, somewhere in the post-production chain. i mean, yeah, if you're NIN or radiohead or broken social scene, or whoever, distort away! that's what their fans presumably want. but usually with stuff like the go-betweens, bad mastering will make a recording sound very harsh, loud, and un-dynamic, but you might not hear actual distortion. just hints of it. take interpol albums, for example; i get a headache listening to those because (at least the US editions) are over-compressed and mastered so freaking loud. but when you hear the sound of hot levels peaking, creating audible distortion, it's more than likely that someone screwed up. | ||
| Dusty Unregistered guest |
Kevin - you may well be right - I was just going on what some other posts had assumed i.e. that it was intentionally done as part of some recent trend in mastering. But I guess it could equally be a cock-up. Either way am I being hugely naive in hoping that Lomax rectify it at some stage in the near future or would it be hugely expensive to rectify this sort of thing? In addition I would love to hear Lomax's position on this. | ||
| Walter Sear Unregistered guest |
Dusty - It's doubtful Lomax would rectify something like this, especially if they've already printed up thousands of copies. A product recall would present a serious financial burden for an indie label. | ||
| kevin Unregistered guest |
Walter , surely Lomax would hear a test pressing of this before printing them up, or is that nieve? This stinks all round in my opinion. | ||
| Wayne H Unregistered guest |
I got the album today, and I was shocked at the sound of the first few tracks. "What's going on here?" I was thinking. It sounds really clipped and distorted on the opening couple of tracks. Still, it didn't take the smile off my face - the music and lyrics are up there with their best. It's great to hear the band trying un-GB-ish things like brass, woodwind and - gasp - synths! | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 57 Registered: 10-2004 |
Uh, wayne - you're joking about the "un-GB-ish things like brass, woodwind and synths" right? i mean, take slow slow music for starters. ;) i'm *so* anxious to hear this album in its entirety. sadly, being in the US, i have to wait another week 'til it's in the shops. | ||
| Peter Azzopardi Member Username: Pete Post Number: 93 Registered: 09-2004 |
Button-down, US vinyl release date is May 17. It's a 180 gram job too. The release date came in late because the label weren't considering it at first. You still can't pre-order it from the Yep Roc website, BTW. Interesting you think this may rectify the mastering problem. I've always wanted to know the modern day process for vinyl mastering. I couldn't imagine most indies who allow vanity vinyl pressings forking out the extra for a proper mastering from the mix down tapes, or DAT or whatever. I fear that most would simply take the CD master to the plant and maybe adjust a couple of frequencies. Interesting to note that this Go-Bs album was recorded fully in digital. A lot of vinyl plants now accept masters in 24-bit, as oppossed to standard 16-bit of CD and DAT. As all multi-track digital is recorded in 24, in reality this could mean a vast improvement in quality for the vinyl release of OA if supplied with a high definition pre-master. But I doubt this will happen. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 58 Registered: 10-2004 |
It's very possibly unlikely that the vinyl version will sound any different from the CD. The reason being that most vinyl that comes out today is still cut from the digital master. So, even though you think you're getting something that's purely analog (and which technically is, in a way), you're really hearing the same digital master. This was the case with Brian Wilson's 'Smile,' when released on vinyl, not to mention the Nick Drake's vinyl reissues (so I'm told). | ||
| Cichli Suite Member Username: Cichli_suite Post Number: 48 Registered: 08-2004 |
Jeff - thanks for your explanation of the mastering process. Maybe, Robert and Grant directed the mastering process themselves to get a more immediate radio friendly sound? I haven't got the album yet, but has anyone tried blasting it out through a crappy pair of speakers (or a pair of cheap pc speakers)? Also, it occurred to me that as record companies increasingly sell music in mp3 format, the style of mastering used is going to change - to the detriment of people with high end audio systems. | ||
| Graham Twyford Unregistered guest |
I've had the album for 4 days. Yes 'Finding You' crackles but in an atmospheric 'crickets in the evening' type way that works very well. Similar to 'You Are the Everything' by REM. I would use the word atmospheric rather than distorted and I don't find it a problem at all. To me it sounds wholly intentional. It's certainly not 'Sparklehorse' territory!! | ||
| kevin Unregistered guest |
graham - i would get your ears checked out mate!! this cd sounds crap and its not intentional. as for sparklehorse - i love that band and their albums sound intentionally distorted and it sounds great | ||
| Graham Twyford Unregistered guest |
I love Sparklehorse too. I don't know. Maybe I'm just luckily deaf!! But the fact that only some of 'Finding You' has atmospherics/distortion sounds to me like it's intentional. It kicks in to time exactly with lead up to the chorus and then ends after the final vocals. Doesn't sound like an accident... | ||
| Lardass Unregistered guest |
Graham, do you think the sound on 'This Night's For You' is intentional? | ||
| kevin Unregistered guest |
graham - the last 3 tracks on OA sound crap too! | ||
| Graham Twyford Unregistered guest |
OK OK! What can I say? They sound fine to me!! And people who had the album for weeks never mentioned it... Maybe I got a good copy. (Or I'm just deaf...!) | ||
| The original Michael. Unregistered guest |
Threads like this almost make me give up the will to live. 10 sensational songs by the two finest songwriters in the world and people griping endlessly over whether there's a crackle 2.35 into the 5th track. GET A LIFE! | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 60 Registered: 10-2004 |
mr. original michael - if you'd actually *read* the thread, rather than skip over everything and type this knee-jerk response, you'd realize you have no idea what you're talking about (or what we've been talking about for that matter). | ||
| kevin Unregistered guest |
dont do it michael, dont kill yourself - how could we exist without your wit warmth and charm! sorry for starting this thread and expressing an opinion, thought thats what these forum thingys were for? anyway, much as i love the go betweens these are not 10 sensational songs(although better than most of the crap out there) and im sure even g and r would admit they are nowhere close to the finest songwriters in the world. anyway, im off to further enrich my wonderfully fulfilled life | ||
| Maximiliane Unregistered guest |
oh, kevin, I wouldn't be too sure of that. I've read in many interviews that Grant and Robert are extremely proud of the record and indeed consider it to contain some of the finest songwriting ever. I think I read Grant saying something like that now with "Oceans Apart", he could be in a room with Elton John, Michael Stipe and the like and he would be on equal level with them in terms of songwriting. I think he said that he had some issues with BYBO, and that he is not fully content with it, but it's quite a different story with the new album: he meets journalists with a grin from ear to ear, greeting them:" Don't you also think this is a great album?" and in the booklet Jon Astley at Close To The Edge Studios in London is listed for mastering. | ||
| Lardass Unregistered guest |
I wonder was John Astley listening to The Stooges remastered Raw Power while mastering OA? | ||
| Nigel Lowe Member Username: Lowenr Post Number: 1 Registered: 04-2005 |
I think it's a great record, but there's definitely something funny going on with the mastering. Having ripped (my own copy of) the CD to my mp3 player, I have to listen to it at a volume level of 14, as opposed to the normal level of 22, which is a big difference. On the plus side, if you ever find it on a pub jukebox, it'll probably sound louder than all the competition. It sounds like a similar technique was used as on the first Oasis album (to make everything sound louder), but I think it generally has a detrimental effect to the songs on Oceans Apart. Still a great record though. | ||
| ttd Unregistered guest |
To my ears OA sounds simply awful - compressed, hard, with no sense of depth or dynamics at all. This is a major dissappointment as the previous two reunion albums had such a natural, warm sound on both vinyl and cd. I'm sometimes astonished listening to albums from the sixties - The Byrds, Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel (all on CBS, by the way) - how fresh they sound, clear and spacious and extremely pleasing to the ear. They're not very loud or "assertive", though, and maybe that's what modern producers/companies want. By the way, I was surprised to read that GB recorded digitally for this one, as Robert especially has been more or less a spokesman for oldfashioned "groovy" (as he says) recording studios. As to the songs, it usually takes a while to adjust to new material even from artists you really appreciate. I must say, though, that I'm not very impressed with OA. A lot of the lyrics are OK but I simple miss the good tunes. There's very little in the way of melody and yet Grant and Robert used to write such great tunes - most of 16LL for instance, or take one of Roberts solo songs, Atlanta Lie Low or Is This What You Call Change. Sorry to be negative, but this album just doesn't move me very much. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 17 Registered: 03-2005 |
I love Atlanta Lie Low. But can you credit it with having a significant melody? Robert's singing the most obvious minimal notes that go along with the chords he's playing. It's not a melodic achievement. I'm still looking forward to finally hearing the new album. | ||
| Andrew Kerr Member Username: Andrew_k Post Number: 1 Registered: 04-2005 |
Been living with OA for a few days now. I find it an enormous shame that the sound is as awful! I am not some audio/hi-fi buff and enjoy music for its own sake (Dylan's Basement Tapes being an example of a definite lo-fi fave), but I find OA actually unpleasant to my ears. Especially on a decent system. Has there been any official comment from the band/record label? On a cheerier note, liked Robert's intro to the live 'People Say'. I remember one time it was 'This is one of the greatest 10 songs ever written' (Pause for effect) 'And I wrote it' | ||
| candy Unregistered guest |
I think it´s time to close this thread. I am convinced the album sounds exactly like the band, the producer, the mastering engineer, the management, the various record companies etc. think it should sound. If you have a different opinion - accepted. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 62 Registered: 10-2004 |
candy - is trying to shut people up when you disagree with them a fun thing to do? if it sounds as appallingly bad as people say it does (and i'll find out today once i've bought it), i think you'd better just pretend this thread doesn't exist so you stop getting your panties in a bunch. i mean, since you seem to be the only person who doesn't mind the crappy mastering job, it only makes sense.. | ||
| candy Unregistered guest |
@jeff: Probably 10 people are active in this thread and complain. Their ears seem to be the official ears for the world. At this time probably 10 or more thousand people have bought the album. 99% of them seem to have no problem with the soundquality, but I am sure they do accept other opinions - I just don´t see any sense to continue this discussion, because I am pretty sure that there have been various levels of quality control before the master went into pressing and sometimes you just have to accept. Further on I did not try to shut people up, I only wanted to express my feeling that this thread goes in circles. I don´t think that aa remastered version will be out soon just because you think the sound is crap. I do enjoy the album a lot. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 63 Registered: 10-2004 |
asking to have threads locked or closed, regardless of whether or not you're being serious, is essentially expressing a desire for the discussion to end. and that basically means you'd like everyone to shut up about it, case closed. and that's just poor form, candy. if 10 people on this board want to beat this subject into the ground, that's 9 more people than you. so again, simply ignoring the thread that irks you is probably more tactful than asking for its closure. and what's this about remastering the record?? i don't think anyone truly expects that to happen. clearly, the gist of this discussion is that regardless of whether or not the crappy mastering was deliberate, it still sounds like shit! even if all parties involved *wanted* it to sound that way, which i'm suspecting they did, it still sounds like shit. basically, a number of us are confused that the band/labels/etc.. would concede to give the album an overall sound that's normally geared towards teenagers. and given that teenagers are well outside the go-betweens' demographic, a few people had to scratch their heads and wonder if this was some kind of screw-up. | ||
| Duncan H Unregistered guest |
I'd say the sound is a fairly big deal to me. I noticed it enough to wonder if I'd got a bad CD. It puts me off listening to the last song in particular, as it's so distorted (to my ears, at least). And that's a shame, as I want to be able to enjoy these songs without the distortion getting in the way. I loved the sound on 16LL, and was looking forward to that clarity again, but much of the record sounds like the tape copies I used to make in the 1980s when I put the recording level too high. It doesn't *ruin* the record of course, but it is audibly annoying, and I wish it wasn't there. I do wonder if what I hear is the same as everyone else. Are we sure there's just not a bad batch of CDs? | ||
| Andrew Kerr Member Username: Andrew_k Post Number: 2 Registered: 04-2005 |
Sorry that Candy thinks that it is such a trivial issue. But I honestly find it terrible to listen to. And they are probably my favourite band of all time. I wonder along similar lines as Duncan H and will try and contact the record company. Did Dusty ever get a reply to his/her mail (24/4)? And look forward to Jeff's views. | ||
| tired'n'emotional Unregistered guest |
Jeff, baby, sounds like your own panties are a little bunched. Loosen up, lighten up, take a cold shower (just like Spring Rain!). Anyone got anything interesting to say about the songs themselves? | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 64 Registered: 10-2004 |
tired, baby, stop obsessing about my underwear - i don't own any. ;) and in case you haven't noticed, there's an entire thread called "Oceans Apart really is astonishingly great" with 50 something posts full of things said about the songs themselves. i'm just sayin'... but yeah, i've picked up the yep roc version, have listened to it, and can confirm the whole thing sounds pretty bad. geez.. very audible distortion, regardless of whether or not the songs are "peaking." horribly over-compressed and very harsh sounding. really loud too. everything is really insanely "hot," and it does detract from what is an otherwise gorgeous, top-notch album. something much more lush, pastoral even, would've been more appropriate for songs like these. that's how imagine it sounded before mastering. the distortion almost seems too over-the-top to be deliberate. i mean, take either interpol record, for example; those have a very loud, harsh, over-compressed sound, like a lot of contemporary pop albums. but oceans apart goes way beyond that. i mean, there's distortion all over the place. if a record came out sounding this way 10 or 20 years ago, somebody would've gotten fired. this is the kind of distortion one would expect when listening to NIN or skinny puppy or something. it's truly baffling. if this was deliberate, i'd actually be surprised. on the otherhand, the harsh sound does kind of fit, oddly enough, with the monochramatic album cover art. | ||
| shaq Unregistered guest |
candy, et al: the mastering is BAD. sorry to confirm, but it is without a doubt distorted in parts, especially on "this night's for you", but IMHO that song sucks anyways. | ||
| Mark Leydon Unregistered guest |
I'm loving the new album - right up there with Spring Hill Fair and Liberty Belle in my opinion. But I have to agree with the criticism of the sound quality. I think it is the victim of modern scourge of over-compression during mastering. A lot of CD's these days are being butchered at the mastering stage by being over-compressed to make them as loud as possible. Its a ploy to make the music more radio-friendly by making it as loud as possible - 'hot' to use the mastering jargon. This squeezes the dynamic range out of the music, which somehow makes the music less involving. They sound loud when played at low levels, but when you turn up the volume the relentlessness of the sound, the total lack of dynamic light'n'shade, have you turning it down again. I find this with a number of tracks on OA - especially when played on good equipment. Over-compression has been a contentious issue in the industry for some time now, and there are lots of interesting articles/forums about it on the internet - e.g.: http://www.geocities.com/mjareviews/rant7.html | ||
| gareth Unregistered guest |
I've just played it for the first time...some of it sounds downright awful. Where there should be warmth and depth there's just this tinny cold sound. Such a dissapoinment. It's hard to get through to the songs at times, the sound is so in-your-face. For a band who are as conventional and traditional as they are i'm finding it hard to belive this is intentional. It's not even consistent. | ||
| Pádraig Collins Unregistered guest |
Duncan H, it can't just be a bad batch as the EMI copy I bought in Sydney would not have come from the same batch as the Lo-Max copy others bought in Ireland and the UK. Jeff is right, 20 years ago someone would have been fired for this kind of mastering. It is baffling. I still love seven of the 10 songs and I hope the sound quality will not ruin that for me. | ||
| Cichli Suite Member Username: Cichli_suite Post Number: 49 Registered: 08-2004 |
Mark Leydon - thanks for the link to that article on compression during the mastering process. I've just received Ocean's Apart in the post and will be listening carefully. | ||
| maximiliane Unregistered guest |
that is also why I'm looking forward to the live concerts so much. I feel that the songs could sound even greater than they actually do on the album. also, I prefer them a bit rockier, faster. | ||
| Dusty Unregistered guest |
Andrew - I haven't received a reply from Lomax no. I guess they're a bit busy. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 6 Registered: 02-2005 |
I'm with the sonic naysayers here and would like to agree with Jeff W that the sound is too over-the-top to be deliberate. But with the album coming out on four different labels internationally, it seems that somebody somewhere would have said something! 'This Night's For You' is unbelievably distorted, like a multigenerational cassette made from an LP with a booger-sized wad of dust on the needle and the dubs copied with the VU meter glued in the RED. And yet... were the powers that be right? This album has been getting smashing reviews throughout Europe. I picture the critics listening on their PC speakers while doing Expense Reports. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 7 Registered: 02-2005 |
The compression issue should have hit critical mass in the industry, but it seems to be getting worse. The link Mark L posted above was interesting; the fact is, modern mastering techniques are stress-inducing. I tinker with SouindForge on our PC and out of curiosity I just uploaded 'This Night's For You.' The .WAV file is displayed as a "wave" graphic and when you pan back to see the full 4:25 it appears as a solid blue bar with continuous peaks at -0.0dB! I have never seen such a saturated wave file. What happens with compression is that as the volume is increased the normal peaks are shaved off as saturated plateaus and this track is just an endless series of plateaus. The mastering compression was probably done on top of compression applied during the recording process, which compounds itself in the distortion. I must say though, listening to 'This Night' on the PC as I type (something I never do) it sounds cool coming out of the el cheapo cheapo speakers… just as engineers in the sixties would master for transistor and car radios. The recent ENO remasters were so refreshing because there was no compression or clipping whatsoever, they were beautifully crisp and spacious. I like 'Oceans Apart' a lot, but I haven't been listening compulsively because the album just doesn't invite me in, and I think that's down to the mastering. | ||
| The original Michael Unregistered guest |
In response to you, Jeff, I did read all of the posts.Hence my faltering spirit. Anyhow, I've got no problem with you expressing your views; I just find it hard to believe you really get The Go-Betweens, with all of your concentration on the tehnical. 'These people are excited by their stereos, I want surprises, just like spring rain...'. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. | ||
| holly wood Unregistered guest |
To further beat this horse: listening to 'OA' on analog headphones on my home stereo, the distortion was noticeable, but didn't ruin the songs for me. Through the speakers, it wasn't a problem, although if I'd concentrated on it I would have noticed it. But this morning, I ripped the CD to iTunes than transferred it to my iPod (sorry, but it was a gift). Listening through the iPod bud earphones...oh the pain...please make it stop! As some have said earlier in the thread, the distortion makes some of the CD borderline unlistenable...although the tracks that seemed the worst to me (other than "This Night's for You") were "Boundary Rider" and "Lavender." I don't think this thread is a "concentration on the technical"--it's merely pointing out a seriously disappointing audio defect. If I had heard the CD without reading any of this thread, I'd have assumed my copy was defective, or something was suddenly wrong with my headphones. I would love to hear what the folks at Lo-Max, Yep Rock, etc., have to say about this. Or, for that matter, Robert V's thoughts on it because he's the technical issues more than most of us. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 68 Registered: 10-2004 |
michael - why you'd assume that is beyond me, when you can find posts from me all over this board proclaiming my love for that which is the essence of the go-betweens. anyway - i do a fair amount of recording. not a professional by any stretch of the imagination (i mainly record my own songs, as well as friends' projects), but over the years i've become pretty passionate about this particular realm. so yes, as a musician and recording-hobbyist, my ears are trained to focus on specific details in the sound of any given record. no, this doesn't detract from my listening experience; if anything, it enhances it. given my interest, i'm aware of the on-going debate about mastering, and this album is a prime example of what most recording/mastering people say is wrong with mastering trends today. i'd actually go a step further and say that it sounds like somebody fucked up here. the problem here is that the sound of OA is appallingly bad. i've already played this record to a few people who *aren't* into (nor very knowledgable about) the recording process, and they all found the harsh, distorted sound off-putting (and stylistically inappropriate) too. i mean, this isn't nit-picking. the distortion is glaring, and noticing it requires *zero* concentration or focus on the technical. and i think a lot of other contributers to this thread agree with me. at any rate, perhaps the casual listener (like you, perhaps?) isn't going to care about harsh, distorted levels. and perhaps the cruddy sound will appeal to all the kiddies who are into xiu xiu and NIN, or whatever. it's still a great album, and some of the songs are giving me goosebumps. | ||
| Andrew Kerr Member Username: Andrew_k Post Number: 3 Registered: 04-2005 |
Seconding Jeff on this. And on the goosebumps. Extreme rudeness from Michael. Quite a pathetic suggestion that because we criticise the sound quality 'we don't get the G-B's'. I don't want to pull rank (sonny), but I bought the Postcard single when it came out, have seen the band live in 3 continents , interviewed GMcL in person, shook RF's hand and blagged my way backstage in Melbourne in 1986 . But to be serious, the band appear to have always been interested in the sound of their recordings and in experimenting with getting the best settings for their songs and this time it has gone horribly wrong. Perhaps beyond their control? But I think someone in the know needs to come clean? | ||
| Mark Leydon Unregistered guest |
Anyone notice how the over-compression/distortion seems to get worse as the CD goes on? I first notice it on the sublime middle-eight in 'Finding You' - but it kinda works there, in a wall-of-sound sorta way. But as the CD goes on it just gets random and irritating. For the last two tracks its like the guy at the mastering desk decided 'fuck it', turned up all the knobs to 11 and went down the pub for a few pints. | ||
| Peter Azzopardi Member Username: Pete Post Number: 99 Registered: 09-2004 |
I agree with Jeff and Andrew. For Michael to proclaim that by mentioning the problems with the mastering we "don't get" the Go-Bs is not only insulting, but reveals an attitude of cultural snobbery not fitting the intentions of this specific thread or the music of the band. What, I ask of you Michael, is there to get? They're a pop band, not a bloody Pollack painting. And if they were, you can't exclude my methods of inquiry. It's no use trying to express your appreciation of the band in platitudes here (well, maybe that's all we can do, but I believe this is a perfectly legit thread). I can see what candy is saying when looking at the length of this thread: yeah, the mastering is a bit shoddy, and it's a shame. The album is great or sub-par, as people are asserting here and elsewhere on the MB. It isn't ruining my enjoyment of OA, but even my partner, who doesn't particularly care about the Go-Bs or the state of contemporary music mastering, noticed and commented on the distortion. It could sound better, that's all we're saying. | ||
| Stuart Unregistered guest |
"Also, it occurred to me that as record companies increasingly sell music in mp3 format, the style of mastering used is going to change - to the detriment of people with high end audio systems." - Cichli Suite. A scary thought! The first thing I noticed when I put my recently-purchased OA CD in last night was how loud it sounded - my stereo was on my 'comfortable listening' volume, yet it was blaring at me. I didn't really notice the distortion/compression until I read this forum. Thanks guys!! But anyway, does anyone know if the band members are aware of this issue...do they read this message board? I'd think that they'd be interested to read what we're talking about on this matter. | ||
| Lardass Unregistered guest |
My ltd ed CD arrived from play.com yesterday, and if anything the extra presence makes the CD sound worse than the MP3 versions. This episode has to be the biggest boob I've ever come across CD-wise. And I think the least the band or label could do is make some comment about it on this board? | ||
| holly wood Unregistered guest |
Agree about your last comment, Lardass (it's odd to type that when I'm agreeing with someone!). It seems like a major screwup that's not being owned up to. I wonder if this were a big-selling release by a major artist, would there have been enough of an outcry that the problem have been acknowledged and corrected, as in the CDs recalled and replaced with correctly mastered ones? Would buyers of the faulty discs be able to get replacements free of charge? Maybe. But because it's the poor little cult band the Go-Betweens, I guess the record label doesn't see it as a problem. Thing is, people here are such big fans that I bet if the mastering job was fixed and a new CD pressing was issued with good quality sound, most of us would pay money for it, even after being ripped off by the screwed-up original disc. The thing I wonder is: are record reviewers getting the same crappy master we are? If so, why isn't it mentioned in reviews? Do they have tin ears? No, wait...if they criticize the product, they stop getting freebies from the label. I bet that's it. And we, the buyers, lose out again. It's just a damn shame this sort of music-industry snafu always seems to happen to the GoBs. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 70 Registered: 10-2004 |
holly wood - i've wondered the same thing, re - why this hasn't been mentioned in reviews. and yeah, it'd be nice if someone, anyone, in-the-know could at least comment on this. if this whole thing was, in fact, a screw-up, maybe the label could make a correctly mastered version freely (or cheaply) availabe online. | ||
| Boo Radley Unregistered guest |
I sent an email to the US label, Yep Roc, and they tell me the Go-Betweens management company is aware of the complaints, but claims that the producer and band have approved the master. I've been involved in the mastering of albums, and the distortion on OA is not the kind of intentional distortion used for artistic purposes. The fact that it begins halfway through the album, gets worse as it progresses and seems to really undermine the production values of the album suggests to me a mistake has been made--perhaps _after_ the band heard the master? It'd be nice if someone could play This Night's For You to the band or producer and see if they really intended the distortion. All that said, I really adore the album and i'm glad that the sonic issues haven't turned up as negative comments in the reviews. I'm not sure how these small labels could rectify the problem. Perhaps by pressing up new copies of the disc (sans artwork, etc.) and having interested parties send in their "defective" discs as trade? That way, folks who aren't bothered by it won't feel obligated to buy it again and those of us who can get picky about audiophile issues will feel vindicated! xoxo, B | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 11 Registered: 02-2005 |
When there was a mastering defect on ENO's 'Another Green World' they did just that; offered replacement copies to anyone who asked. I waited months and figured I'd missed the opportunity, but a friend gave me the email address to ask for a replacement and they sent it, without my sending in the defective copy. This album is getting the best reviews of the band's career, so one can only assume that most reviewers listen with less attentiveness than we'd like to assume. I too wonder if the band has actually listened to the finished disc all the way through, on a good system or headphones. If the album is remastered and corrected copies are offered to those who ask, it would probably be a small number of fans asking (how many of us are there here?). I mentioned the distortion on an 'Oceans Apart' thread on another music forum and nobody else commented. | ||
| Jerry Clark Member Username: Jerry Post Number: 67 Registered: 08-2004 |
Heard the whole album for the first time Tuesday night. There is some distortion, no doubt about that, but I can't get worked up about it. A good song is a good song, the production or mastering are peripheral when it comes to songwriting. Those who are upset at the sound quality are entitled to have a pop about it, though. When you've paid for it you have a right to dispute if standards are not to your expectations. At least "The Lost Album" came with a kind of disclaimer regarding the sound. I've probably mentioned it before but I prefer TLA to SMAL. | ||
| Richard Lim Member Username: Re17 Post Number: 2 Registered: 05-2005 |
For a variety of accidental reasons I haven't actually got hold of Oceans Apart yet, which is the first time in over 15 years that I haven't bought a Go-B's album in the first week of release. So my first exposure to quite a few of the songs was listening to their appearance on Gary Crowley's show on BBC London (digital) radio this evening. And I must say I was horrified at the sound quality on a couple of songs. Even allowing for the fact that British DAB radio uses data compression, and the fact that most radio stations implement some audio compression on the signal, what I was hearing wasn't just a lack of headroom in the sound or slight fuzziness - it was plain distortion. It was not unlike playing a dusty vinyl record and having a load of fluff accumulate on the needle, that's how fuzzy it was. I was looking forward to the album but I'm actually having second thoughts now. Oh well, I guess I'll make a decision after Shepherd's Bush... Richard | ||
| Greg Wadley Member Username: Gregw Post Number: 1 Registered: 05-2005 |
Dave Nichols pointed me to this interesting discussion because I do some cd mastering and recently got a copy of OA. I read the comments here, then had a close listen to the album through my good speakers. It seems to me that what you have said here is true: the songs are extremely loud, they sound overly compressed and/or limited, and there is audible distortion here and there, which gets especially noticable in the last two songs "This Night's for You" and "Mountains Near Dellray". I loaded these two songs into a sound editor program on my computer. Judging by the picture on the screen, there certainly is distortion on Nights. Every wave peak is chopped off flat. There is a little less of this in Mountains. While you could describe Mountains as "very enthusiastic use of a limiter", I think most people would agree that Nights is unreasonably distorted. It's well known that record companies are fearful of releasing a cd that is quieter than the competition - presumbly that is the fundamental reason OA is limited so loud. You can get away with over-compressing music that contains guitars or vocals that are already distorted. On music containing acoustic guitars it seems out of place. I have a reviewer version of OA, which seems to have an extra track at the start of the album, so I guess it's possible that the retail version was mastered quieter. I feel a little guilty buying into an anti-compression discussion, as last weekend I mastered a new album where we used a compressor quite heavily. But, we did this because the mixes really needed it, for musical reasons rather than to boost loudness, and we didn't cut the wave peaks off like on the OA tracks. It's interesting that I only noticed distortion on OA after reading this thread and listening carefully to the album through good speakers. My first listen was through a cheap ghetto blaster at a noisy party, the second was on a cheap cd player at home. Perhaps record companies really are mastering albums to be heard on crap stereos :-) It has occured to me before, while microscopically examining songs during mastering, that actually not many people listen to music in this way, but usually listen in the car, as background music, while doing the housework or homework or whatever. Getting away from the distortion discussion, I reckon the OA it's a good album. One poster here pointed to a thread on a different discussion board. It was interesting to see that Robert Vickers has posted information there about how they recorded Liberty Belle. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=51509&page=3&pp=20 -Greg | ||
| Justin Lane Member Username: Dusty Post Number: 1 Registered: 05-2005 |
Has anyone got a copy of the vinyl version of this album. From a previous thread it appears that the mastering process for vinyl is different so I am interested to know whether the mastering may be "softer" here. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 2 Registered: 05-2005 |
At last, a review that mentions how bad this album has been mastered. the reviewer states "The only pox on such a masterful album is the distorted mastering, heard most audibly on McLennan’s songs." Full review is at http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=3009 | ||
| Karl Heinz Member Username: Karl_heinz Post Number: 1 Registered: 05-2005 |
I noticed the sound quality problem as soon as I played the CD for the first time. I've been listening to Oceans Apart for a couple of weeks now on a variety of equipment and although I'm really enjoying the album, the problem with the mastering has certainly taken the edge off. I have discussed this with several other people who have the album and share my love of the band and they all say the same thing about the distortion of the sound. It's not the end of the world but it is a great shame - I'd love to have a cleaner copy. | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 1 Registered: 05-2005 |
I've been a fan of the group ever since SMAL. Living in Oklahoma, I've never had a chance to express my feelings about the Go-B's, so I truly appreciate threads like this one. I don't mean to sound like a snob but I think the band owe us long-time fans an explanation about the sound quality. I too agree that it's atrocious. Robert and Grant have every right to make a recording that is modern sounding and geared toward today's marketplace, and if this was intentional then so be it, I can live with that. What bothers me is if OA turns out to be their most successful album ever then they may continue making recordings with the same sound quality. I'm glad I'm not alone here in thinking that Oa sounds like crap. I actually cringe every time I think about playing it and have resorted to putting it in my car player so I can turn the bass way down, which does help the distortion problem somewhat. If, however, the mastering was someone's screw up, they need to own up to it and make it right. I would be happy to purchase another copy that was properly mastered. Count me among those who hope the next album is analog but I'm not holding my breath. | ||
| spencer roberts Member Username: Spence Post Number: 2 Registered: 05-2005 |
I agree. Totally. I am also impressed by the amount of knowledgeable technical responses re mastering on this thread, this style of mastering does add an edge that retains an urgency everytime you play the track, but having tried to re master something recently for my record label, it ended up sounding a bit like this album, I abandoned the idea, although on a much smaller level than the Lomax mastering budget?. On a happier note, I have fallen totally in love with these songs, it is the best album they have done in my opinion and I have been a fan since '82, and I never thought they would top my favourite's Liberty Belle and Tallulah, and esp tyhe wonderful rock n roll thumb bass playing of Mr Vickers, but this album quotes me happy! and Christ knows we all need uplifting a bit and this so does the trick.  Its nearly Summer too, its cloudy outside! PS I's buy another more subtly remastered disc too, we all would I guess! | ||
| Andrew Kerr Member Username: Andrew_k Post Number: 6 Registered: 04-2005 |
Just a note to say that after almost 2 weeks there is still no response from Lomax, whom I e-mailed with questions about the mastering of the new release. I asked whether they were aware of this issue and pointed them to this board if they needed further comments. | ||
| Jerry Clark Member Username: Jerry Post Number: 70 Registered: 08-2004 |
I feel the matter could well be closed, there has already been a post on this board declaring that the sound was pre-approved by Robert and Grant was pleased with it. Who's to say this has been a bad thing, if reports of sales being the highest ever are true then the modern approach to mastering is a successful one. | ||
| Lard Ass Member Username: Lardass Post Number: 4 Registered: 05-2005 |
That's just rubbish, Jerry. The fact is, it's a botch job. No-one can realistically think the distortion on 'This Night's For You' is intentional. Maybe this thread would close if someone in-the-know (band or label) had the courtesy to answer people's emails, or post something on the subject on this messageboard. | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 3 Registered: 05-2005 |
Sorry to belabor the point and I may be alone here but I listen to music as much for the feeling and ambience as I do for the songwriting. The Go-B's have always had alot of passion and feeling in their music that makes up for the occasional weak song. Their's not much of that left in music these days IMHO and the sound of OA blanches the warmth right out of the songs. I'm not saying that it's not a good album, it's just that it doesn't have that special atmosphere that drew me to them in the first place. If this were a new band I don't even think I would give them a second thought. | ||
| Kurt Stephan Member Username: Slothbert Post Number: 12 Registered: 04-2005 |
I wouldn't go so far as to say I would totally dismiss 'OA' for its sound problems if I weren't already a fan of the band, but I agree it does compromise my enjoyment of the album. It forces me to listen to it on systems that deemphasize the distortion...and I expect more from a Go-Betweens album. The thing is, if the music on the album were meant to be distorted--say like industrial, thrash-metal, "White Light/White Heat," etc.--that would be one thing. But there's a lushness to most of the arrangements on 'OA' that is not at all served by distortion and overcompression. If they wanted to make an insanely loud album, why didn't they just turn up the electric guitars? So I can't believe what we're hearing is deliberate or chosen because it serves the music. Putting Ministry-level distortion on a song like "Lavender" is just crazy. If Robert and Grant heard that (or especially "This Night's for You") and thought it was OK, their judgment isn't quite what I'd thought it was. Would anyone here have the nerve to ask one of them face to face about it if they meet them after a gig? I'm seeing them in Seattle next month and have certainly wondered if I'd ask, given the chance. | ||
| Jerry Clark Member Username: Jerry Post Number: 71 Registered: 08-2004 |
It may well be rubbish, but the facts point towards a successful album, promotion and tour. I can't be the only one to notice a lot of new fans on this board, whether they are actually recent converts or old timers adding their two cents into the mix, just couldn't say. It has certainly got a lot of people posting, here and on the Tallullah list and opinions are divided. Distortion or not, it isn't unlistenable, IMHO. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 3 Registered: 05-2005 |
the more i think about this, the more i think it may have been a botched job at the manufacturing stage - when the CDs are made (pressed?). i have read many reviews of the album, but only one has mentioned the crap sound- does this mean the promo copies were fine? also, the silence from lomax is significant here, they have paid for these discs to be made, if they keep schtum they wont lose any money. maybe if somebody would reply to us we could put this matter to rest, to me though the silence is incriminating | ||
| Michael Leach Member Username: Mike_l Post Number: 3 Registered: 05-2005 |
All this is true, I also noticed it first time I played the CD - but to mount a potential semi-defence of the mastering: has anyone heard the same tracks on radio? It is sometimes the case that mastering that sounds odd on CD will come up a treat on radio. | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 5 Registered: 05-2005 |
Sorry Jerry, but here's another two cents worth. I guess I'm being extremely naive in thinking anyone involved with the record company or the band gives a damn about what a few people think. I'm definitely not a recent convert but this issue made me mad enough to want to vent. I mean, how many people is this really upsetting? 20? 100? If the record companies were getting thousands of complaints you know they would probably respond. So a few fans are unhappy, they won't lose anything by just ignoring it. Maybe Robert and Grant are just happy to finally get the success they deserve. If they don't care and say they approve of the mastering, for whatever reasons, then I guess I'll respect that and move on. | ||
| Graham Twyford Member Username: Graham_twyford Post Number: 10 Registered: 05-2005 |
I'm seeing the GBs in Freiburg tomorrow night. I have been thinking about asking them about the sound quality for a few days now. I wonder whether I'll muster up the courage. After a great gig, it's always nice to speak with Robert and Grant and it would probably ruin my evening to piss them off! | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 4 Registered: 05-2005 |
come on graham, you can do it!! | ||
| Richard Higgins Member Username: Richard Post Number: 2 Registered: 05-2005 |
I bumped into Adele at Shepherds Bush gig but chickened out from quizzing her over the atrocious sound on "O/A". The silence from Lo-Max speaks volumes I think(can't beat a good contradiction!). My copy of "O/A" is unplayable, simple as that. I've emailed Lo-Max twice to no avail.I'm more than happy to buy another copy if it was guarenteed distortion free - it's not my hi-fi, it's not my ears, the things shound crap!! Has anyone compared with a vinyl version? | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 5 Registered: 05-2005 |
i just checked out the music download site called emusic. have a look at what this subscriber says about oceans apart after he downloaded it from them (they are a legal download site by the way) "On the last few tracks, especially "This Nights For You" the whole sound is horribly distorted. I thought this was an emusic problem, but amazingly the actual CD is just as bad. Still a great release though." i have also emailed lomax - guess what, no reply i think we should all email them- they probably hope this will go away, but if we unite we can break them!! :o) | ||
| Richard Higgins Member Username: Richard Post Number: 3 Registered: 05-2005 |
With you Kevin Strength in numbers and all that. The most annoying thing is not getting a response , y'know? I emailed Matt at Simbiotic (where I ordered my copy) and he sympathised and offered to pass on my comments to Lo-Max but still not a dicky bird...that was 9 days ago. It's a great album, I love it, I just can't bear to play it - how daft is that? | ||
| B. Rider Member Username: Boundary_rider Post Number: 4 Registered: 05-2005 |
Graham, don't do it, unless you're fond of tumbleweed. You get a chance to ask The Go-Betweens a question and you ask...what? Whether they like the sound of their new album? 'Grant, you wrote one of the best songs of all time, and your band sound great, but what about the distortion on 'This Night's For You'? Apparently, and this the real killer, Richard Higgins can't bear to play it. He loves it though...yeah, I know, it's ridiculous. But what you gonna do about it? Whoah, put that bottle down...' I mean for fuck's sake... | ||
| Richard Higgins Member Username: Richard Post Number: 4 Registered: 05-2005 |
No distortion on your copy then? | ||
| basil pieroni Member Username: Bez Post Number: 1 Registered: 05-2005 |
Well said B.Rider. Some sense spoken at last on this topic. Richard H - the last three songs are distorted and the entire album is mastered too loud but it doesn't take away from the quality of the songs. Doesn't stop me from singing along in the car. I've found that turning the volume down a little sorts it out. It has to be the way the band wanted it? And I'd rather have the album that way than nothing at all (a communal groan would be welcome at this point). The album's getting airplay, the band is getting lots of coverage in the media. Lomax seem to know what their doing with regard to getting a great band to a wider audience and are helping to ensure that we keep getting to hear Grant & Robert's latest songs and seeing the band play live. Probably, in ten years time, the back catalogue will be re-re-issued and you'll get a nice clean copy then.... Something to look forward to. And think how great your hi fi will be in 2015. It'll make your current model sound like two tin cans joined with string. And Kevin - don't ask that question! Just shake their hands and thanks them for what you've had from them. | ||
| Jerry Clark Member Username: Jerry Post Number: 72 Registered: 08-2004 |
... and when Oceans Apart is re-issued in 2015, this will give it the boost to overtake Rumours, Thriller and Hotel California in all time record sales. Or by then ringtone LP's | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 19 Registered: 02-2005 |
I'll be seeing them three weeks from tonight and again three weeks from tomorrow. Robert usually mills about after their shows in NYC, but I wouldn't spoil a positive mood with a barbed question about CD mastering. I just sent an email to Mark Wallis production site... I would think that he'd be concerned about his own reputation with this credit on is CV. In the era of King George II I've come to expect "silence" in response to unwelcome questions, but not from The Go-Betweens. | ||
| Lard Ass Member Username: Lardass Post Number: 5 Registered: 05-2005 |
The 'Yes Men' - pieroni, B Rider, Jerry Clark - are out in force. If Robert or Grant told them to jump off a tall building they'd probably think it was a great idea. Open your ears you fools! | ||
| Jerry Clark Member Username: Jerry Post Number: 73 Registered: 08-2004 |
Tell me, is it Lard by name, ass by nature. Ears are open, as is my mind. | ||
| B. Rider Member Username: Boundary_rider Post Number: 5 Registered: 05-2005 |
If opening my ears means coming out with tripe like that, mine are staying resolutely closed. You can't label people who like the album and don't mind the sound issues 'Yes men.' We haven't labelled you grumblers ''whingeing fucking nerdy geeky maggot-brained fools'' have we? That would be well out of order. Let's keep it civilised eh? | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 6 Registered: 05-2005 |
Has anyone tried e-mailing Robert or Grant directly? Seems like I saw addresses for both of them somewhere. By the way, I'm not a wfngm-bf. Well, definitely not a m-b. | ||
| Lard Ass Member Username: Lardass Post Number: 6 Registered: 05-2005 |
Yeah, that's very civilised, Rider. And Jerry, you're just hilarious. | ||
| Graham Twyford Member Username: Graham_twyford Post Number: 12 Registered: 05-2005 |
Lard Ass I hereby entitle you a 'No Man'. The record is brilliant but 'This Night's for You' could sound better. It's a shame but I've decided I'll live with it, especially when I think of how bad something like 'Cut it Out' sounds as a 'good' recording. | ||
| spencer roberts Member Username: Spence Post Number: 5 Registered: 05-2005 |
Oh I love (not really) chatrooms and message boards, its a great place innit for people to congregate and be all civilised with one another, for god's sake you lot, the album is great, nuff said, if not then go and pick up the G4 album at ASDA or go outside the lawn needs a trim! | ||
| Michelle M Member Username: Michelle Post Number: 1 Registered: 09-2004 |
I was a bit worried about purchasing the cd after reading all the above. How bad could it be? I wondered. I bought it and played it on the car cd player on the 70klm drive home. I do not know if I would have noticed anything amiss if I hadn't read the details above. However!! The first couple of times it was on the stereo at home (as background music) I found that I was getting up from the computer to look out the front window. I kept thinking that I could hear a loaded semi trailer going up the road or, worse, coming down our track (sometimes I am still in pjs until mid morning). After a while I realised my 'truckspotting' was happening sometime during the chorus of 'This nights for you'. There is a definite rumbling going on and I am still hearing it so maybe when habituation kicks in it will be ok. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 26 Registered: 03-2005 |
I have no argument with the complaints about the sound. To my amazement, I had to turn it down in my CAR STEREO because it was overdriving the speakers even worse than the big set at home. But I love the album (except "Born to a Family") and I've decided to just pretend that I'm listening to an old piece of 60's vinyl. For those of you who remember those, remember how the sound would get really distorted on the last song closest to the label? And most pop records of that era were compressed to the nth degree to make sure they leapt out of the speakers of the cheap picnic spinners we all had. I actually think this approach is suitable for "Here Comes a City" and "This Night's for You" and probably also for the unloved-by-me "Born to a Family." If I actually overcome my pathologically shy nature enough to meet either Robert or Grant after the Troubadour set in LA, there is no way I'm going to pester them about the sound of the album. I'm going to thank them for coming to play in my town. If I'm really feeling up to it I'll also thank them for ending my midlife crisis. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 6 Registered: 05-2005 |
randy, thats whats wrong with people nowadays - dont settle for second best. you (and all of us) paid good money for this and we are being treated shamefully here. by this i mean that this massive thread is being ignored by band,label and management (yes, you bet they DO know about this!!), i and others have emailed lomax, the producer and the people responsible for the mastering, guess what - a big fat zero. i could put up with the poor sound if we had an explananation, but we are being pissed all over here, and i, for one, expected more from the go betweens family | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 7 Registered: 05-2005 |
Randy brings up a good point. Alot of the old vinyl records sounded like crap. Desire comes to mind. I remember buying that in 75 and I believe there was alot of talk about distortion, with most people just accepting it as part of the charm. Could Robert and Grant have been that calculating? Paring digital technology with the sound of an old cheap vinyl record? That would even add another layer to the band's name and, come to think of it, the title of the album as well. Even if this is true, I don't think they were successful in pulling it off, unlike an album like Desire, where the type of music lends itself more to a "cheap" sound. | ||
| John Flood Member Username: Floodjo Post Number: 1 Registered: 05-2005 |
Have to admit, I noticed nothing! The music sounds great to my ears though no GoBetweens album is ever crystal clear compared to say Al Stewart - "Year of the Cat", "Modern Times", Past Present Future" albums have aged incredibly well to my ears - just amazing production on top of bloody great songs | ||
| graeme jon pearson Member Username: Gjpearson Post Number: 4 Registered: 05-2005 |
Whatever the intentions behind the sound of the new album, the end result is pretty charmless. Agreed? We've been here before ... "Liberty Belle" wasn't exactly a state-of-the-art recording, but has anyone of us consigned it to the trashcan? It's just ironic that music that was supposed to have a "big" sound has to be played at quite a low volume level in order to enjoy it. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 7 Registered: 05-2005 |
still no reply from lo-max etc | ||
| fsh Member Username: Fsh Post Number: 12 Registered: 05-2005 |
Yeah, nobody has much to say about making the 2CD Barbican set available to members of this board either. There was a time when this website wasn't an official GB's site. Record company and management kept to themselves and people could organise trees of concert recordings and all that kind of thing. I don't know that this site becoming the 'official' GB's presence on the net is of any benefit to the individuals who have contributed to it over the years. No more 'illegal' trading allowed, yet no interest in making legal recordings available either. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 21 Registered: 02-2005 |
I wrote the following letter to the production company… Dear Mr. Wallis, '16 Lovers Lane' has always been one of my favorite albums and I was heartened when I read that you'd produced the Go-Betweens latest, Ocean's Apart. I have to ask, was the heavily-compressed sound and distortion truly intentional? I love the production "approach" and the richness of the arrangements, but the aggressiveness and booger-sized-wad-of-dust-on-the-needle sonics are a bit shocking. I've posed this question to YepRoc and they responded by putting me on their email promo list. I know that "silence" is a very popular response to unwelcome questions in the era of King George II, but if somebody f'd up, shouldn't the powers that be come clean? and got the following response from “the office”… Actually, I think you'll find that there was a problem with the mastering, rather than the production. Thanks for your comments, I'll make sure that Mark doesn't get to hear them. | ||
| Enrico Bongiovanni Member Username: Boil Post Number: 4 Registered: 05-2005 |
I complained to yeproc and lomax, i got back a reply from Red Eye Usa: "We have heard from a couple of people about the issue you mentioned. We checked with the band's management and when they reviewed the master they said those sounds were supposed to be there. We are going to contact them again. I let you know if we find a way to resolve this." | ||
| R Heath Member Username: Dreamlifeof Post Number: 1 Registered: 05-2005 |
Just to add my view (and introduce myself to the board): Like many people here I noticed and was very disappointed by the sound quality, most noticeably the terrible distortion, on OA. I too wondered if I had a faulty CD. Well at least now I know that's not the case. I don't believe this distortion was intended, despite the comments from the record companies. None of the songs lend themselves to that kind of overdriven sound, and nothing in the production otherwise suggests anyone was going for that effect. Besides, our ears can tell us it wasn't intended: deliberate, produced distortion sounds quite different from this kind of levels-turned-too-high blow-out kind of sound. I am sure this was a mastering error. They set the levels too high! This is pretty much the loudest CD I've ever heard - I have to turn my amp down very low in order not to get a deafening blast. The levels of distorion are also highly variable throughout the album, with, as many have noted, THIS NIGHT'S FOR YOU being the worst offender. But none of the tracks is entirely free from excessive clipping. I think extreme compression, musically undesirable though it may be, is not entirely the problem. There are plenty of heavily compressed, loud albums out there, but none that I've heard which distort the signal like this. (Rick Rubin's a modern master of loud, compressed productions, but you won't hear anything like this on a Red Hot Chili Peppers album.) I am not an audiophile trainspotter, and I never thought in 2005 to have to complain about the sound quality of anything, least of all after the sonic perfection of the GB's last two records. I can only assume that someone took their eye off the ball at Lo-Max or wherever, and now they are unwilling to admit the mistake, or simply cannot afford to put it right. Regarding review copies: I bet most of these came from an earler, better-mastered batch. I can't believe that even the least hi-fi orientated reviewer could have ignored the dull, murky sound and distortion on this otherwise brilliant album. The copy of the master heard by McLennan and Forster may also have come from a pre-release batch, which would explain why they signed off on it. I doubt we can expect much of a response from the band for the time being, since I am sure they're totally focussed on the tour. But I hope and expect they care too much about their fans to let this issue remain unresolved indefinitely. To say nothing of their own quality control. This is one of the best records of their career, and it is deeply ironic that it should be undercut by shoddy mastering in an audiophilia-for-all age. | ||
| Kurt Stephan Member Username: Slothbert Post Number: 15 Registered: 04-2005 |
Really good post, R Heath. So, here's a couple of questions for the people here with knowledge of the record biz. Let's say that 'Oceans Apart' was accidentally botched in the mastering of the release copies of the album (and had been OK in the version Robert and Grant signed off on). How huge of a financial hit is it to the record company to go back to the pre-mastered album, remaster it with proper quality control in place, and then press a new batch of CDs? I guess I'm asking how much the mastering process costs. Is the expense of it so great that it's the reason the record company won't admit a mistake? Also, if they do finally admit the mistake, is it feasible they'd be willing/able to press replacement CDs? I don't really know how distribution works--have they already pressed all the copies of 'Oceans Apart' that they intend to (given the GoB's standard low sales), or was the initial pressing of 'OA' low enough that they'd have to repress the CD eventually anyway to keep up with eventual demand, so there's a chance future pressings would have the mastering fixed (assuming it's not massively expensive to do so)? I don't know if that made any sense. I guess I'm just trying to figure out if the mistake would ever get fixed, whether acknowledged or not. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 9 Registered: 05-2005 |
dont hold your breath kurt that this will be fixed, given the scandalous,shameful,rude beyond belief disrespect shown by Lo-Max so far in totally ignoring emails sent by myself and other contributors to this forum. even a reply from Lo-Max saying sod off would be better than nothing. i was always a great champion of indies vs "the man", now i feel sorrow more than anger cos I bet EMI, CBS etc would at least reply even if it was almost polito speak - ie waffling round the subject. | ||
| Duncan Hurwood Member Username: Duncan_h Post Number: 5 Registered: 05-2005 |
It's a pity, because I'd pay for a decent copy of the album, if only there was one to get. I've bought almost every Gobs album more than once, and so it wouldn't be a major shock to do it for this one. | ||
| R Heath Member Username: Dreamlifeof Post Number: 4 Registered: 05-2005 |
The sheer sales success of the album may encourage the powers-that-be to dismiss all of us here as a gang of trainspotters - a kind of 'well the album must be fine otherwise it wouldn't have done so well' sort of thing. But if the album is selling well, it's clearly *despite* not *because of* the way it was mastered. What Yep Roc is saying, about all the personnel being present at the mastering, may be technically true - I can't say at precisely what stage in the process the fuck up occurred, all I can say is that it did. Maybe the mastering engineer snuck up the levels after everyone else went home? (Crossposted) | ||
| William Member Username: Weesam Post Number: 11 Registered: 05-2005 |
It costs fuck all the re-press a CD. The artwork and printing is a major cost - that doesn't need to change. Re-pressing the CDs would cost literally, pence in the pound. It will happen. Later rather than sooner, but there will be a "remastered" version of this. BTW - the mastering of the Live In London CD is the worst I have heard in years. I've got better audience recordings than that. It's flat, doesn't sound live, and has pauses between the tracks. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 24 Registered: 02-2005 |
Are you telling me that there are 2-sec gaps between the songs like on a CDR of a live album burned by a half-wit who doesn't know how to change the settings on their burner program? Please, no. I can upload the music and fix that on my SoundForge program, but it's inconceivable to me that a legitimate release could be handled as amateurishly as that. | ||
| William Member Username: Weesam Post Number: 13 Registered: 05-2005 |
it's sad but true. | ||
| fsh Member Username: Fsh Post Number: 13 Registered: 05-2005 |
All this stuff is stranger than fiction - you just couldn't make it up. The phrase 'gubu' was coined by one Charles J. Haughey to describe a situation that is grostesque, unbelieveable, bizzare and unprecedented. What next - fans sue band for damaging their speakers? | ||
| Jerry Clark Member Username: Jerry Post Number: 77 Registered: 08-2004 |
No, not pauses. Life's to short to worry about pauses. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 26 Registered: 02-2005 |
Well Jerry, maybe you've never gotten an f'd up live CDR in trade (when you sent off quality goods in return) but those infernal 2-sec gaps really separate the men from the half-wits, I assure you. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 27 Registered: 02-2005 |
...and need I say, really disrupt the flow of a "live" album listening experience. | ||
| Barrett Whitener Member Username: Bsw Post Number: 1 Registered: 05-2005 |
This thread has been an eye-opener. I had assumed that the harsh sound of the CD -- which startled me the first time I played it, and continues to do so -- was the result of a production choice, not a mastering one. It's a relief to think there may be a less grating, remastered edition available eventually. But in the meantime, though I'll continue to play the disc (which is surely one of the band's best), because of the annoying mix I can't unreservedly recommend it to others. What a shame. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 12 Registered: 05-2005 |
ok - after several emails sent to Lo-max about the distortion (which were not given the courtesy of a reply) I consider myself (and everyone else) to have been sold shoddy goods and as such have made Trading Standards aware of this. This is the first time I have ever went down this route and do not enjoy doing so, however I stress the main reason for doing this is the blatant disregard Lo -max have shown to myself and others by totally ignoring the complaints. | ||
| R Heath Member Username: Dreamlifeof Post Number: 5 Registered: 05-2005 |
Kevin, don't you think it might be better to wait until the GOBs, and/or their management, have given us a more definitive answer on whether a mistake was made or not? Trading Standards can't very well do anything if the band claim that the album sounds exactly as intended - you can't make a quality judgment on art. If the tour finishes, and we get no word from the band about the problem, and what they intend to do to fix it, then maybe you (or all of us) should go to the TS authority. But I'd like the GOBs to get a chance to put matters right, even if Lo-Max are hiding their heads in the sand at present. Apart from anything else, as Barrett rightly says above, this issue isn't just spoiling things for hardcore fans, it's also preventing the band from getting the kind of audience they deserve. Joe Public may accept hot recordings, but he won't tolerate this kind of levels-too-high distorted gubbins. Still a brilliant album, by the way. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 13 Registered: 05-2005 |
R Heath - as I say I do not enjoy doing this. However, I can never remember being so annoyed about something ,which to a lot of people, might be fairly insignificant. Just to stress, it is the sheer gall of Lo-max in the way they are just completely ignoring me and others correspondance to them on this matter which is hacking me off the most. And thinking about it, it is perhaps because it is the GOBs, and not some other band, that makes me feel this way. Who do Lo-max think they are to treat people like something on the sole of their shoe? As I have stated before, any reply from Lo-max, even if it was not satisfactory might have been enough to placate me and just write it off to (bad) experience | ||
| Cichli Suite Member Username: Cichli_suite Post Number: 56 Registered: 08-2004 |
Kevin, if the songs were absolute shite but the mastering job was A+, would you still be contacting the trading standards organisation? And if not, why not? I'm sympathetic to the general view here - but there also seems to be a lot of self-indulgent hand-wringing going on in this thread. The album is fantastic. I like it more every time I play it. I wish there was even half the number of posts discussing the 'song quality on Oceans Apart'. It's strange that there hasn't been. For my part, I reckon the mastering on certain tracks on Oceans Apart was an ill-judged artistic decision rather than a technical glitch. I don't like it - but there it is and I'm going to live with it. | ||
| spencer roberts Member Username: Spence Post Number: 13 Registered: 05-2005 |
Well, I think you all need to go out and get a life, its a fantastic album, cease the trainspotting, as Mr Verlaine once sang "this case is closed". (At least it should be) Spence | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 14 Registered: 05-2005 |
cichli,spencer - points taken. i wish i had your ability to be so laid back about this. i wish i had just accepted this album for the flawed masterpiece it is, but if marquee moon had sounded as crap as this it would not be as highly regarded. i normally just accept shoddy goods (a british trait?), however this time i thought, no, time to speak out. dont think Lo-max can be allowed to get away with this shameful contempt of their customers | ||
| R Heath Member Username: Dreamlifeof Post Number: 6 Registered: 05-2005 |
Happy to go out and get a life - and will do so just as soon as they release a decent recording of OCEANS APART. | ||
| Jerry Clark Member Username: Jerry Post Number: 78 Registered: 08-2004 |
That's quite a sacrifice R, what's happened to the life you had before you heard the album? | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 30 Registered: 03-2005 |
Eventually we'll get a better-mastered version of OA. Life's too short to keep bitching about this. I am looking forward to getting the Barbican Center set (if they still have any by the time they get to LA). I can't imagine complaining about two second gaps in the recording. Some of us, specifically including me, begged them to release the recordings and to complain about them now because they didn't shell out some shekels on an editor seems like the height of insanity. | ||
| William Member Username: Weesam Post Number: 14 Registered: 05-2005 |
"Some of us, specifically including me, begged them to release the recordings and to complain about them now because they didn't shell out some shekels on an editor seems like the height of insanity." Well, it takes NO extra effort to get it right! If a jobs worth doing, it's worth doing properly. Gaps between tracks on a live album is a no-no. And I know of people that would have been happy to enginneer the sound gratis. If you are a musician, your recordings are your legacy. Such a lackadaisical attitude is astounding. It makes me wonder if the running order has been re-arranged. Anybody know what the original set list was? | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 28 Registered: 02-2005 |
"If a jobs worth doing, it's worth doing properly." Thank you. In recent years I've been doing live tape transfers of cassettes and analog transfers of OOP LP's and if I'd thrown in the towel the first time I hit a frustrating problem, I'd have 2-sec gaps and ear-splitting POPS between every track. But I didn't throw in the towel, I pressed-on and figured out what the problem was... and we're talking about a hobbiest who's making limited editions of 001! I mean, I like the fact that I have stereo versions of 'Beatles For Sale' and 'A Hard Days Night' mastered from vinyl that sound a LOT better than the official EMI CD's that have sold millions, but that doesn't make it right. | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 10 Registered: 05-2005 |
I thought the whole point of these message boards was to have dialog with other people about similar interests. This would all be very boring and hardly worth the time if everyone had the same thoughts. For those of you who think it's a great album (which I do) and don't really care about the sound quality, that's fine. But there are quite a few of us, judging by these posts, that are hacked off. I would say that as fans of the Go-B's it's a given that we have "a life" since we're probably not listening to alot of the vacant crap that's out there. I'm a college graduate who has had a very fulfilling and rewarding life so far and this little pop band has had a special place in it for a long time. To paraphrase a line from a recent movie,"How many things that you cared about twenty years ago still have meaning?" I,for one, am not going to let this go until there is a satisfactory explanation, preferably from the band. | ||
| Alfredo L Soto Member Username: Alfred_soto Post Number: 6 Registered: 05-2005 |
"Vacant crap"? It was ever thus. | ||
| tbowed Member Username: Chameleonz Post Number: 4 Registered: 05-2005 |
hey if the band approved it or whatever it is what it is! there are loads of "classic" albums with imperfections all over the place like"Who's Next" ANY beatle record and so on and so forth. You think OA is bad because of the mix the band liked??? "there are no mistakes in art" someone said that, I am sure lol | ||
| Enrico Bongiovanni Member Username: Boil Post Number: 5 Registered: 05-2005 |
I received this mail from Lomax, a couple of days ago: "Thank you for your e-mail. I am sorry to hear that you are unhappy with your purchase of Oceans Apart. I will pass this e-mail on to our project manager for The Go-Betweens who is back in the office on Tuesday and will mark it for his urgent attention." | ||
| Cichli Suite Member Username: Cichli_suite Post Number: 57 Registered: 08-2004 |
Kevin, I just noticed the following on the Lo-Max site. Have you tried contacting the address below? Lo-Max E-mail It's been brought to our attention that e-mail sent to info@lomaxrecords.com is not arriving. Until this problem is remedied, send your correspondance to admin@lomaxrecords.com . | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 16 Registered: 05-2005 |
yes cichli i got an email yesterday from a guy pointing this out,maybe they werent ignoring us after all. will be interesting to hear what the party line is on this | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 17 Registered: 05-2005 |
Got this email from Bernard the A&R man at Lo-Max "Thank you for passing on your concerns regarding the audio of Oceans Apart. The band generates the finished master for all their new releases and whatever we manufacture has been approved by them. Nevertheless I have been looking into this matter very closely and will be meeting with their manager this week. Will let you know the outcome." | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 32 Registered: 03-2005 |
Re the set list for the Barbican show, I definitely cannot recall the order except that "Sound of Rain" was the first song and the first part of the show used only Robert, Grant and Glenn with Adele coming out briefly to play keys on "People Say." Does anybody else know? | ||
| Jerry Clark Member Username: Jerry Post Number: 79 Registered: 08-2004 |
It started with the sound of rain and ended in the core of a flame, all in between was subject to pauses. Poetry! | ||
| Stephen Harris Member Username: Smh Post Number: 13 Registered: 05-2005 |
I could check the other/audience recording (so kindly provided before "intrinsically illegal posts were removed"), but I'm sure the gig is exactly as played and the sound on the cd is far better than I heard on the night. I hadn't noticed pauses between tracks, they may be there but they don't spoil a fantastic recording. Certainly the pauses between songs have been edited out, but how often would you want to listen to the wait for the oboe player to sort out his sound problems? | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 30 Registered: 02-2005 |
"Certainly the pauses between songs have been edited out, but how often would you want to listen to the wait for the oboe player to sort out his sound problems?" You guys crack me up. Obviously the broken-string-changing, tuning-up and other dead space should be edited out, but it should be cross-faded for a smooth listening experience as has been done on every live album issued since the introduction of the long-playing phonograph record in 1949. If The Go-Betweens couldn't justify spending $500 on an afternoon in the studio to do a proper job then I'll spend an evening doing it myself, but to me this is like having a poorly transcribed lyric sheet; it's just not professional. (This is assuming that my understanding of the Barbican CD's is correct; that there's an abrupt 'audio verite' cut at the end of each song, followed by 2-seconds of silence and then the abrupt re-entry of audience noise leading into the next song. If I'm head-shaking over a misunderstanding, please correct me). | ||
| William Member Username: Weesam Post Number: 15 Registered: 05-2005 |
no, there are gaps between the tracks (not all tracks, just most). A professional engineer is quite capable of removing between song banter/bullshit/string tuning and keep the recording flowing. As said before, it's routine when producing a live album. I've double checked the set list - it is the same as the running order of the CD. (BTW David Bowie's 1978 live album Stage has been reissued with the correct running order and fade-outs removed. AFTER 27 YEARS. So there is hope with this one. We just might not be alive to hear it) | ||
| R Heath Member Username: Dreamlifeof Post Number: 7 Registered: 05-2005 |
The life I had before? Oh yeah, that hollow sham! Meanwhile I simply count my toes over and over until either my bits are fried, or a clean copy of OA drops on the front door mat. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 18 Registered: 05-2005 |
The email from Bernard says "The band generates the finished master for all their new releases and whatever we manufacture has been approved by them." Just had a thought. If the band approved master sounded good, is there still a possibilty of a balls up after this? Or, more likely, is what the band heard the same as we are hearing? If so, time for a doctors appointment for Robert and Grant!! | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 75 Registered: 10-2004 |
kevin, you know what strikes me as odd about that statement is that typically the *label* has the final say over the sound of the albums it releases, not the artist. i've been in band situations where we had to submit the album to the label after we were finished recording and mastering, and the labels would always tweak it with more mastering, even if just a little bit, in subtle ways imperciptible to the untrained ear. almost like a control-freak kind of thing. but this is definitely common. so, for a label to give the final say to a band, even a band of the go-betweens stature (which, let's face it, isn't exactly huge, in the grand scheme of things) seems a bit strange to me. maybe they had something written into the contract granting them that final word, but even a contract allowing that much control over the sound of the "finished" product is not common practice, even in the indie world. but then, maybe the label had no qualms about the distortion? maybe they dug it? or maybe kevin's hunch is right, and something screwy happened after the go-betweens approved the master? i still don't feel like we're getting very clear or helpful answers. i'd just to love to hear a straightforward, "yes, that totally distorted sound you hear, particularly on the last two songs, was entirely deliberate, exactly what the band was going for," or "somebody somewhere screwed up." This somewhat odd and evasive response of "the band approves the final master," just isn't really shedding much light on what happened. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 31 Registered: 02-2005 |
I haven’t re-read this entire thread, but can anybody shed some light on the steps taken in the mastering and production process? We all burn CDR’s at home, but my understanding is that for production purposes they make something called a “glass master” that houses additional data needed to “talk” to the various production machinery. Is it possible to listen to a “glass master” or is that a final transfer made by a technician? Could a wage-earning engineer have messed up the sound of 'Oceans Apart' without the band ever hearing the result? Do they typically make test pressings of CD’s for final artistic review? | ||
| Kurt Stephan Member Username: Slothbert Post Number: 21 Registered: 04-2005 |
Or maybe they didn't really listen to the final master at all, just approved it on faith? After all, they've seemed pretty cavalier about the final sound of their recordings in the past; per David Nichols's book, they chose not be around for the mixing of 'Friends of Rachel Worth' and Grant did the same thing with 'In Your Bright Ray.' Now that the mastering has turned out to be (we believe) screwed up, could it be that nobody wants to own up to the mistake of not adequately checking the master? I agree with Jeff, though--if they would just say, "yes, it's distorted--and that's exactly how we wanted it" that would close the matter and most of us would drop it. We might not like it, but we could choose to accept 'OA' for what it is...or reject it and listen to '16LL' or whatever. | ||
| R Heath Member Username: Dreamlifeof Post Number: 8 Registered: 05-2005 |
I could well believe that the process of approving the master is not that structured within a small label, and I can easily imagine these kinds of mistakes (which I still assume the distorted sounds to be) creeping in without record company approval. However I really don't buy the idea that no one at Lo-Max had a pair of ears, and listened to the CD, and could hear that there was something screwy about the sound. They didn't need us to tell them. So somewhere down the line there's been some deception. A cover up! | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 32 Registered: 02-2005 |
There is something amusing about The Go-Betweens being responsible for the LOUDEST CD EVER! Megadeath, Motorhead, Spinal Tap… eat your hearts out! | ||
| AS Member Username: Labelguy Post Number: 4 Registered: 05-2005 |
@jeff whiteaker. Please do not get paranoid here. The record sounds exactly as the band wanted it to sound!! The master was approved by the band and the various record companies.The CDs you all (hopefully) have bought are technically okay. If some sounds spoil your listening pleasure, all we can say is SORRY!, but still it´s what the band wanted. Please take this as an official statement. Thank you very much Andreas from tuition | ||
| cosmo vitelli Member Username: Cosmo Post Number: 9 Registered: 05-2005 |
cue another 500 postings about the band allowing the master to go out in its present form (interspersed with more technobabble and the occasional conspiracy theory) | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 33 Registered: 02-2005 |
Cue Conspiracy Theory, indeed: "The master was approved by the band and the various record companies." Ya see, there's the problem. Lo-Max and YepRoc have both taken a "we don't know nothing" attitude towards enquiries about the compression and distortion, but have assured concerned customers that they will "look into the matter with the group's management." | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 76 Registered: 10-2004 |
wow, so if andreas is right, now we have only to wait 10+ years for a reissue that includes a limited run bonus disk containing an alternate re-mastering of OA in its entirety "for the fans." | ||
| Kurt Stephan Member Username: Slothbert Post Number: 23 Registered: 04-2005 |
Or ten or fifteen years down the road, we just look back at 'OA' as an unfortunate victim of the production/mastering values of the time, just like some bemoan the late '80s production on 'Tallulah': "If you can hear past the irritating, dated 2005-style sound quality, the album is a fine batch of Go-Betweens songs." | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 77 Registered: 10-2004 |
ha!! that's so true! | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 34 Registered: 02-2005 |
Hey, The Heartbreakers L.A.M.F. was finally reissued with a proper mastering job... there's hope. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 20 Registered: 05-2005 |
Keep up Guy!! If you believe the guff we are being fed the band approved the master, why would they want to change it lol ??!! | ||
| Lard Ass Member Username: Lardass Post Number: 7 Registered: 05-2005 |
OA is not a victim of production/mastering values of the time, it's a victim of someone fucking up the mastering, and of negligence by many others in not noticing the fuck up before release. If as Andreas says, the record sounds exactly as the band want it to sound, they need to have their ears checked out immediately. | ||
| Rob Robinson Member Username: Rsub8 Post Number: 9 Registered: 05-2005 |
from the book, "Vinyl Junkies," by Brett Milano: "The first record I remember... [on the AM radio]... was "She Loves You" by the Beatles, and it came out with that AM-radio sound: those harmonies at the start of the song sounded like a jet taking off. ...when I later heard the same song... on the reissue - it never had that compressed, unnatural sound that I always took for part of the recording." This just struck me as pertinent. Must STOP listening NOW. Else, the reissue will be what sounds... odd? Unfortunately, I must keep listening to what I got now, 'cause it's too late. Love the songs too much. And given Guy's good point, I will be on the prowl for that CD that is LOUDER! - | ||
| Kurt Stephan Member Username: Slothbert Post Number: 24 Registered: 04-2005 |
I think someone mentioned earlier that Sleater-Kinney's new 'The Woods' also has prominent distortion, much like 'OA.' I bought it today, and on first listen, it's really true--in fact, it seems worse than on 'OA'. This too, I presume, is a deliberate decision on the part of the artists. What a stupid, stupid trend. | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 11 Registered: 05-2005 |
Kurt brings up a good point. It was mentioned earlier that this kind of distortion is a popular trend. I think that i'm just having a hard time accepting that the Go-Bs are participating in this, since I feel it is inappropriate for their music. As an aside, the local college radio station has been playing Caroline and I ever since it came out but when I requested Here comes a city I was told that they weren't playing it because it didn't pass the "acceptance dept.", whatever that means. Interesting. | ||
| Robert Vickers Member Username: Robert_vickers Post Number: 8 Registered: 05-2005 |
That might not be a sound issue. College stations review ablums when they come in and decide if they are going to add them to their playlists. It's all pretty informal and arbitary and is mostly about what a particular kid or group of kids think is hip right now. History is not a factor. In College Radio pre-Strokes might as well be the ice-age. I see OA is stalled at #17 on the college charts at the moment. That's a little disappointing as it sounds like a college record and FORW was #2 and even BYBO made the top ten I think. Certainly requesting it at your local station could help it move up. | ||
| alex lackner Member Username: Seagull Post Number: 1 Registered: 05-2005 |
it might be disappointing, but i actually agree that OA is weaker than the 2 preceding albums, especially in comparison to BYBO which not only had great songs from start to finish but a very full and mellow sound that enhanced the guitars and went perfectly with the songs. i thought concentrating on the guitar sound and paying less attention to violins and other background stuff really paid off. but i have to say that OA lacks both, good songs as well as a decent sound. a bit disappointing to see them take a step back again. i am not an audio buff and in the beginning i thought the tincan sound on the last songs on OA was intentionally, but i definitly found it unpleasant to the ear. it was very interesting for me to read that thread shortly afterwards. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 80 Registered: 10-2004 |
couldn't leave this thread hanging on the above bum note. i'm liking the album even more with each listen. for me, it's unquestionably their best comeback album. mountains near delray is just insanely beautiful, one of the prettiest songs they've done since 16LL. the delicate, melodic guitar interplay is just gorgeous. plus, there's a lot of noodly melodic stuff going on in the verses of this night's for you that the distortion (ahem) masks, but if you listen for it, it's quite pretty. i agree with kurt, above, about what an incredibly stupid trend the distorted matering is, especially when it works to the detriment of what is an otherwise great song. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 36 Registered: 02-2005 |
I’m in agreement – the album is getting further under my skin with every play. I’m going to see them at the Mercury Lounge on Friday and I’ll be curious to see if they jam a drumstick into Adele’s bass amp halfway through the set to achieve that authentic ‘Ocean’s Apart’ sound ;) | ||
| Phil Obbard Member Username: Pobbard Post Number: 3 Registered: 06-2005 |
Anyone know if the mastering is "improved" on this promo? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=307&item=4743583020&rd=1 --Phil | ||
| William Member Username: Weesam Post Number: 26 Registered: 05-2005 |
Can't see why it would be from a different master. I view these promos with suspision, most are phony | ||
| James Member Username: James Post Number: 26 Registered: 05-2005 |
No the promo doesn't sound any different | ||
| Dusty Member Username: Dusty Post Number: 6 Registered: 05-2005 |
I remain disappointed about the (non) response to the sound quality of the new album. I e-mailed Lo-Max a few moths back but heard nothing until I heard there was an e-mail problem at their end. I then retried and did get a response stating there was going to be a meeting about it with the bands management at the weekend and they would get back to me. That was at least a month possibly two months ago but I've heard nothing since. It just seems a shame that no official word has been given or looks likely to be given - nor it seems, anything done about it. I understand people who believe it's a bit anal to waste time even thinking about things like this but it is a shame to listen to an otherwise excellent album being ruined by awful sound production. and basically it is - I am not at all techy about things like this but the sound problem is obvious to me and sounds worse than listening to it on an old mono radio. The live albums nice though (actually I don't mind the two second gap as it affords me the chance to make a cup of tea, wash up etc...) | ||
| Eke Member Username: Ekewebb Post Number: 9 Registered: 05-2005 |
I agree Dusty - I'm not an audiophile either; I'm quite happy to listen to CDs burned from mp3s for example, I never feel the need to repurchase CDs that I have from the dawn of CD technology just because they've been remastered (extra tracks now, that's another matter...), but Ocean's Apart I simply can't listen to. Even during the first few tracks I find myself gritting my teeth in preparation for the awful noise at the end. If I got a chance to replace it with something decent I'd jump at it - even to the extent of shelling out again if I had to. It seems like a great Go-Betweens album but I haven't been able to get into it. | ||
| William Member Username: Weesam Post Number: 27 Registered: 05-2005 |
wash up? in two seconds? that's a small dish | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 22 Registered: 05-2005 |
latest communication from lo max regarding this subject is as follows: Thanks for your message. I can only agree with you about the delay - but with a number of geographically disparate groups of people involved, working towards a resolution of this issue has taken much longer than any of us would have liked. We are awaiting final agreement from the band & their management on our proposed course of action. We will let you know as soon as this is confirmed, which we expect to be within the next week. Thank you for your patience on this. | ||
| Duncan Hurwood Member Username: Duncan_h Post Number: 10 Registered: 05-2005 |
After all the comments on here, I wonder if they will make a "special edition" for fans (for a price, of course. And I'd pay). But probably they'll say it sounds as they wanted. It's a pity as I can't bear to listen to "Mountains near Delray", and those who can have said it's a wonderful track. I just can't see the melody for the distortion. | ||
| Phil Obbard Member Username: Pobbard Post Number: 6 Registered: 06-2005 |
"We are awaiting final agreement from the band & their management on our proposed course of action." Sounds like they've acknowledged a problem, which is a sign of progress. I'll keep my fingers crossed... CDs do get mis-mastered, and labels do occasionally perform large-scale replacements. Collector's Choice replaced the reissue of Tom Verlaine's debut three years ago when it became clear they had used the wrong "master" tape in producing the disc. Demon UK replaced my copy of a recent Only Ones compilation when I noted that they had omitted one track and repeated another by mistake. I realize LoMax is a small label, but it's still possible they'll offer properly-mastered replacements, too. The label knows full well that even if they offer replacements (at their own cost), only a small fraction of purchasers will ever both to exchange their discs - meaning it won't cost the label that much financially, but will keep the artist & the fans happy by demonstrating their commitment to the final product. --Phil | ||
| Eke Member Username: Ekewebb Post Number: 10 Registered: 05-2005 |
Hey, I'll have to contact Demon then as I have that Only Ones CD too. Thanks for the tip! | ||
| Kurt Stephan Member Username: Slothbert Post Number: 49 Registered: 04-2005 |
Fingers crossed that they make a distortion-free 'Oceans Apart' available. Then I can finally play it for other people without having to apologize for the sound (previous sample exchange: "This sounds like a third-generation copy of a bootleg.") And not to hijack the thread, but: Phil and Eke, what recent Only Ones compilation? I thought I had everything by the band; have they dug anything new out of the vaults? | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 98 Registered: 10-2004 |
kevin, thanks for the update. i truly hope they make a corrected version available. | ||
| Eke Member Username: Ekewebb Post Number: 11 Registered: 05-2005 |
The Only Ones - Why Don't You Kill Yourself? (The CBS Recordings) 2CD set - Three albums, Peter & The Pets single, couple of B-sides and remixes. Nothing new although I think it's the first time "This Ain't All (It's Made Out To Be)" has been released on CD. | ||
| Phil Obbard Member Username: Pobbard Post Number: 7 Registered: 06-2005 |
Yup - I think it's the first time for "This Ain't All" and "As My Wife Says" on CD (studio versions, anyhow). It also collects various remixes of the CBS-era material that have emerged on other comps over the years. --Phil | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 24 Registered: 05-2005 |
still waiting - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz come on lo max!! | ||
| Mark Leydon Member Username: Mark_leydon Post Number: 15 Registered: 05-2005 |
Hate to keep this gigantic thread going, but the review below has just been published on the NoRipcord site. It's a kinda dumb review...but it does nail the sound quality issues quite well. http://www.noripcord.com/reviews/G/thegobetweensalbum.html The Go-Betweens "Oceans Apart" (Lo-max) Apparently, the Go-Betweens are legends. That’s news to me since I never heard of them, but hey, I work for a living. But I think this explains some of the ecstatic reviews I’ve seen for their new album, Oceans Apart, and why my take on it, while favorable, is a lot less, er, sticky. If a band that helped me through puberty came back after a long hiatus and started a healthy second wind to their career with a strong album and a nostalgic sound, I’d probably be ecstatic too. Just watching Floyd run through a few old tunes at Live 8 was enough to put a smile on my face that lasted hours. But this review, for better or worse, is free of such baggage and is therefore more objective and/or clueless. Put in the digitally encoded disc and you are transported back to 1986 and the birth of the CD as a popular medium. Here Comes the City recalls classic Talking Heads, with trebley bass, jittery vocals and a production sheen which is pure mid 80s vinyl (Disclaimer – Me no like the 80s very much, but the Heads were a highlight). But this isn’t going to be all leather ties and Hughes movie highlights. These are grown ups at work. There is a tone of world-weariness throughout, a consistency I find remarkable given the presence of two distinctive songwriters. McLennan and Forster kick the song ball back and forth and, while their writing voices remain distinguishable, they blend seamlessly thanks to the effort in crafting the group sound. Again, I find this level of cooperation and unity of purpose astounding for two talented songwriters with so much history behind them. But here’s where I have a problem. I just don’t really dig the whole English (I know, they’re Aussies, yada, yada, yada), 80’s, new wave sound. I don’t mean to sound like Beavis and Butthead who, while watching some 80’s Britband video, surmised that “all English people are gay” (I may be paraphrasing here). But with the cheesy reverb cranked to 11, the dynamics compressed to 0, and a less than ballsy bottom end, the resulting wash of sound is just, I don’t know, weak. For instance, Simple Minds could have been playing their brains out on Don’t You Forget About Me, but in the end they come off sounding like a bunch of wussies. Great song, great performance, baaaaaaaad sound. Someone could write a dissertation on the importance of sound and sound alone in the history of rock music. It often gets ignored, but sometimes it’s the whole point. So that brings us back to Oceans Apart. As far as the songs go, there’s not a bad apple in the bunch. And some, like Lavender and its wonderful one-note melody, or No Reason to Cry and its breezy vocals, are really terrific. But oooooh, the cheese in that sound. What to do? I have to give a qualified rating here so that those who think I’m way off base on my aural criticism can add a point or so. I think it’s a great album, I just don’t like to listen to it. 7/10 Reviewed By Alan Shulman August 10th, 2005 | ||
| david nichols Member Username: David Post Number: 72 Registered: 09-2004 |
Sound quality critique aside, this is pretty much the dumbest review of the GoBetweens I have ever read. It would be just as stupid if he liked the record BECAUSE it had an 80s sound. It doesn't have an 80s sound, and they never did have an 80s sound, except for the two or three times they tried to have a hit record in the 80s. And the English - Australian 'yada yada yada' shit is just the icing on the cake of this idiocy. | ||
| mister fusspot Member Username: Mister_fusspot Post Number: 2 Registered: 06-2005 |
PART ONE Greetings - I have followed this thread with great interest, as it is now twice the length of any other on this website, and showing no signs of abating. Since there is still no official word from anyone involved in the production of this recording, I'd like to add some comments based on my own professional experience. At the risk of appearing long-winded, I hope my remarks will shed more light on the recording/mastering/replication process, and answer some of the questions that you have been grappling with. I'm a former employee of Seattle-based Sub Pop Records, where I oversaw various aspects of production and manufacturing on a worldwide basis for a few hundred titles in the 1990s. I was intimately involved in the mastering process, getting band approvals, sending masters to other territories, etc. In short, my perspective is quite germane to the Ocean's Apart scenario. First, I'd like to say a few words about mastering, which is one of the least understood or appreciated aspects of the manufacturing of sound recordings. At its core, mastering is the process by which an engineer takes the finished output from a band's studio session and prepares it for the manufacturing process. Typically, that's a matter of bumping it from audio format A to audio format B. In the process, the mastering engineer will tweak little things such as the the space between cuts, balancing the relative sound volume from cut to cut (normalization), and setting the overall volume and compression levels appropriately for a given replication medium (CDs, vinyl etc). Done correctly, it is largely a sonically neutral process. By that I mean that it shouldn't go out the door sounding different than in came in. Specifically, the manufactured product that results from the mastering engineer's work should sound like it sounded to the band's ears in the recording studio at the end of mixdown. In short, the mastering session is a day in which all the perfectionism brought to bear in the recording process can fly right out the window. Usually it doesn't. But it can and does happen. Ideally, a mastering session is attended by the artist and/or producer/engineer, because who could possibly better say what the record is supposed to sound like. Just taking the master recording from one room and set of equipment to another makes a vast difference in how it sounds to the ear. More often than not though, attendance does not happen. Sometimes the absence is a function of tight indie label budgets. Many times the artist doesn't even want to attend because they are so sick to death of hearing the songs already that the thought of another day in another studio is tantamount to a self-inflicted hammer to the skull. Also, there are a lot of mastering engineers who feel the need to add their $0.02 to a project by tweaking the sound to their own liking. This problem is becoming more of an issue in the computer era, where anybody with a $500 software package can call themselves a mastering engineer. Believe me, it's a bit of a black art, and to see/hear it done properly is pretty awesome if you care about that sort of thing. I had the privilege of sitting in many sessions with John Golden, a long-time mastering engineer who can listen to a song for ten seconds and tell you what kind of amps were in the studio and what mics were used to capture them. WIth all due respect, there are a lot of computer jockeys out there that should leave this work to a seasoned pro like John. And while I'm pre-ambling, I want to also refute the argument some have made that a fan caring about production and sonic value of a recording is the equivalent of being a shut-in loser. That's ridiculous. Artists obsess about choice of producer, studio "feel," analog -vs- digital tape, vintage gear etc etc etc. Why shouldn't the listener? A sound recording is not live performance, it is a reproduction of a performance and therefore the technical production is paramount to the quality and enjoyability of an album. The music and technical aspects are inseparable. And while the notion of whether a record sounds good or bad is wholly subjective, that does not exclude the simple fact that it is possible to introduce technical mistakes which can only be described as WRONG. It is that very itch that I think you all are scratching. You have a record that you very much want to like, the sound is getting in the way of that enjoyment, and therefore you are trying to see if a mistake has been made. Can something be corrected so as to make the record "better." (To be continued next post...) | ||
| mister fusspot Member Username: Mister_fusspot Post Number: 3 Registered: 06-2005 |
PART TWO Well, without access to the tapes at every stage of production, we can only speculate. The band has stated in interviews that they were going for a more aggressive sound in the studio, and that they wanted a very "current" kind of digital recording sound. So right from the start we know we're in for a different sounding record, be it good or bad to any of our individual ears. I would certainly hope that an experienced producer like Mark Wallis would be competent enough to prevent intentional digital distortion in the tracking or mixing process, which is what many of you are saying you hear. So let's assume that the finished mixdown was actually alright. Louder, more aggresive, but not technically distorted or otherwise deficient. Then what happened? I'm not privy to the band's recording contract, so I can't say exactly what the chain of custody would be on the master tapes. If the band paid for the recording and mastering sessions itself and is licensing the sound recordings to the label(s), then they would likely have had complete control of the tapes up until the point of manufacturing. Far more likely, though, is that a label paid for the sessions in exchange for ownership of the sound recordings. In that scenario, the band would typically deliver the recording studio output to the label, which would in turn oversee the subsequent steps of mastering and manufacturing. Following the latter train of thought... once the label had received the tapes and "approved" them, a production manager (such as my former self) would have booked a mastering session for the project. I get the distinct impression from this thread that the band or producer were probably not present for mastering. In that case a note may have been sent along either from the band or label that would say some generic things like "this record should sound LOUDER THAN GOD," or "match "Boundary Rider" to the EQ on the other nine tracks." Imagine what could happen in the hands of an overzealous mastering engineer. Upon completion at the mastering lab, the production manager would typically forward a reference copy to the artist for approval. Here again, things could go horribly awry depending on how carefully the artist checks things out. In my experience, that could range from saying "don't bother me" to "aw shit, we've got to remix two songs." Or the artist might give it the proverbial "car test"... let's find out if it's rockin' on the streets of Brisbane-- that's great for the ego, but not great if you want to compare it as an approximation of the original in-studio intent. Once approved by the artist, the label would put the album into manufacture, after which point there aren't any quality control checkpoints. At least not from an aesthetic standpoint. Depending on the medium that the mastered album is sent to the plant on, the plant may notice if there is digital distortion or other errors. It's becoming very typical to send these masters on a CD-R, which is inexpensive but in my opinion bloody stupid. The CD-R is not a robust enough medium to be trusted with a master recording. I took a different route, choosing to always send the much bulkier and more expensive 1630 digital audio cassette. (The 1630 was a Japanese video format that lost out to some other format and got relegated to audio production where it proved to be rather useful.) When a mastering engineer dumped a finished project on to a 1630, it was a highly "verifiable" digital format and was checked there and at that manufacturing plant. In my experience, it was more reliable and received a more stringent once-over at the plant than the lowly CD-R. Beyond that, there are other things that can go wrong. For example, when there are multiple record labels releasing in the various territories, each has to have a master to reproduce. How those sub masters are produced, and on what format, can also protect against or introduce errors. Early in my production days I noticed that some of the discs released by our German licensee sounded different than the domestic, as if someone had pushed the loudness button on a cheap stereo. When I confronted the label, they explained that yes, they sent my master to a mastering lab and tweaked it before manufacture, because it "sounded better for the German audience." I put a halt to that practice, and it was what led me to start sending 1630s. In fact, I sent 1630s to every territory so that they couldn't even play the thing in the office or be tempted to mess about. Apart from boring you to completely to death, the above should give you some insights as to the production process and the multitude of ways in which quality control can go astray. Pick your conspiracy theory. Bringing it back to Oceans Apart, you're wondering what can be done in the event of a mastering error. Well, that's a two-fold question. There's the technical aspect, and the business aspect. On the technical side, we may eventually learn that the band wants the record exactly this way and that will be that. Or we may witness an elaborate game of Blame Shifter, in which the pain gets directed at a machine or a person. Or better still, a lawyer! If there are technical deficiencies that were introduced in mastering, it's easy to fix. The band can go in and see to it the job is done right, and then forward to the new master to the label(s). But what about the label(s)? They certainly won't want to recall product, or interfere with the distribution pipeline, nor should they. It would only cost the band sales. That said, there's really no problem with replacing the disc alone for subsequent pressings of the title. Typically a label will manufacture many times the needed quantity of the print elements of the CD, because it's cheap to do so. Those booklets and tray cards will sit at the CD manufacturer, and be used incrementally as new batches of the disc are pressed and assembled, as warranted by sales. Therefore you can make the switch at any time. As for the small number of existing owners who would become aware of the situation and want a replacement copy, it is a small expense for the label to mail the new disc only. It is not a bank buster, and is absolutely the right thing to do because it restores the fans' faith in the band and the label. The few of you who are patient enough to have made it this far may be wondering what I think. Well, I've listened to it a number of times on various systems, and I don't think it's a mastering issue at all. I'm hard pressed to hear any actual digital distortion. And believe me, that's hard to miss... unlike analog distortion, which can have a pleasing effect, digital noise is a nasty, rash sound that you would not easily forget. To my ear, Oceans Apart is just a really, really misguided studio recording and mix. The compression is massive, rendering the whole thing void of any atmosphere or dynamics. Some instruments/vox are dripping with echo and reverb, while others are bone dry. And all in the same song! There certainly is a trend toward this time of sound, and it's a bad one. The production simply gets in the way of the songs. "This Night's For You" is positively laughable, what with it's rumbling bottom in the chorus. I think someone else here said something along the lines of "the loudest record you can't play loud." And that's really it. When you squeeze the life out of a recording like this, the only place it might sound good is blasting on a car stereo with lots of road noise to compete with. Which beings us back to the streets of Australia... I think the fact there has been such a delay getting an official response would support my contention that it isn't a mastering issue. If that were the case, it would be easy to acknowledge the problem and get on with correcting the matter. What is more likely true, is that the band are now having the opportunity to live with the recording away from the studio and the sessions, and it may (or may not) be settling in that some poor decisions were made in the interest of making a different sounding record. And frankly, there's very little to be done about it now. Oh, some remixes of songs could be done, but the basis of this sound probably extends right back to the tracking of instruments in which case there's really little that can be done except for starting from scratch. I trust that many (most?) listeners won't be bothered, and that's fine. The hue and cry will no doubt give the band something to think about next time around. But at day's end, they can choose to record any way they wish. Just as I can choose to make this the last Go-Betweens record I would ever choose to listen to, despite the very many great songs. Thankfully, I had the pleasure of seeing them play a superb show this June and my love for the band is utterly undiminished. That is all. | ||
| cosmo vitelli Member Username: Cosmo Post Number: 12 Registered: 05-2005 |
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz | ||
| B. Rider Member Username: Boundary_rider Post Number: 10 Registered: 05-2005 |
'I had the privilege of sitting in many sessions with John Golden, a long-time mastering engineer who can listen to a song for ten seconds and tell you what kind of amps were in the studio and what mics were used to capture them.' Bet he goes down a storm at parties. | ||
| Dusty Member Username: Dusty Post Number: 8 Registered: 05-2005 |
Don't be so harsh - thanks for the information 'M.F'. | ||
| mister fusspot Member Username: Mister_fusspot Post Number: 4 Registered: 06-2005 |
"Let's be civilised eh?" wrote B. Rider on 5-20. Indeed. Fortunately, the world is not filled with people who only find value in the things that interest them personally. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 26 Registered: 05-2005 |
yeah, thanks mr fusspot hopefully we hear something positive soon about this debacle | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 100 Registered: 10-2004 |
mister fusspot - thanks so much for articulately detailing much of what we've been trying to convey and conjecture with this beastly thread. with your insider's view of the process you've surely hit the nail on the head with most, if not all, of these issues. however, my assumption about the song "this night's for you" unlistenable, laughably distorted sound being due to mastering (as opposed to tracking), was based on the fact (well, to my ears, at least) that the whole song seems to distort. it's not like a hot guitar or vocal track, with a clean signal pinning the needles (or digital rendering of such) into the red, thus becoming distorted. it's the entire song or mix as a whole. and while that can clearly be done during mixing, it just seems a bit odd, especially since none of the other songs (save for "mountains near delray") distort like that. the other tunes are just examples of songs having the life beaten out of them by massive overcompression (which, to my knowledge, is also something people have been doing, misguidedly, during the mastering stage), but "this night's for you" takes things to a whole new level of distorted, choked, claustrophic, and LOUD listening. i guess it just seems entirely possible to me for the band to have said, before handing in the tapes for mastering, "look - 'this night's for you' isn't quite rocking enough - we want it blistering," to which the mastering guy, said, "sure," and proceeded to take said instructions entirely too literally. but i could be way off. maybe we'll find out what really happened when david nichols' go-betweens biography goes into its third (and updated) edition. ;) | ||
| wiebrand Member Username: Wiebrand Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2005 |
hoi go betweens fans, the only reason for my (first) visit to this site is to see if anybody else has the same problems with this cd as i have, before going to the shop to bring it back coz it just sounds kut as the dutch say. glas im not alone in my misery, coz the songs itself are truly great. esp. lavender, my favourite, and this nights for you. | ||
| Donat Member Username: Donat Post Number: 70 Registered: 11-2004 |
I really hate this thread, but when I spoke to Robert about this for my article - this is what he said (hate to blow my own trumpet, but heck - I can't really play trumpet anyway) - The vinyl sounds fine to my ears! You don't get a lyric sheet with the LP though - that's the only down-side. Oceans Apart marks The Go-Betweens’ first real foray into the digital age and Forster explains why the album sounds much louder than previous outings. “I think that’s part of London. That’s what they do there. And it’s something, especially with ‘Here Comes A City’, we were shooting for, and it’s the way Mark Wallis records,” he says. “Our last two albums before that have been funky and analogue. This is the digital album… We thought we were getting into too much of a comfort zone [and wanted to push ourselves]. London was part of that. Working with Mark and going digital was all part of that. “The consideration is not even going more commercial: it’s different. It’s a new environment, those sort of things coming out on what we do.” | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 103 Registered: 10-2004 |
yeah, robert said something similar in another article someone here linked us to in a thread a while back. maybe robert needs his ears checked! ;) but things aren't entirely cleared up here. i mean, 'here comes a city,' which he references, is certainly loud, with the life squashed out of it via compression. but the last two songs on the album (which he doesn't mention here), are in a whole different ballpark of totally fried, distorted, LOUD sound. if it all does, in fact, sound fine to robert's ears (implying that's how they wanted 'this night's for you'), i'd agree with mr. fusspot's opinion that this was a horribly misguided, ill-advised approach. i can't help but think someone's going to look back on this 15 years later and wonder what the hell they were thinking. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 27 Registered: 05-2005 |
donat - why do you hate this thread? its a valid discussion about how a fine, fine album is tarnished by unbelievably bad sound (which nobody as yet is willing to explain). if you went to the cinema, or watched a dvd in which the picture went all fuzzy, or the dialogue became distorted would you not want a refund at the cinema, or a playable dvd? | ||
| AS Member Username: Labelguy Post Number: 13 Registered: 05-2005 |
The tuition Vinyl comes with a 4c Innersleeve. Lyrics printed on the back of the sleeve. Robert, it seems, mentioned the american YepRoc Pressing. | ||
| Donat Member Username: Donat Post Number: 71 Registered: 11-2004 |
Kevin you're absolutely right. After hearing the advance CD, I immediately bought the vinyl (Yep Roc version) and have simply not worried about playing the CD. It's a solution, even if it's not the best one. I know people these days don't buy new vinyl, but I always buy CDs as a last resort option. I agree that the (current) CD sounds awful, despite the music being five-star. | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 31 Registered: 05-2005 |
Donat, does the vinyl really sound fine? Others have said that the exact same problems are there. If the vinyl sounds fine I will buy it, but at the moment I am contiuing to play OA only on the kitchen boombox because that is the only way its awful sound is bearable. | ||
| Donat Member Username: Donat Post Number: 72 Registered: 11-2004 |
Pádraig, if you keep in mind that the album is intentionally loud, it's fine. Kind of reminds me of the loudess of Deniz Tek's 'Take It To The Vertical' where it's just on the cusp of it all sounding like BRRRRRRRRRZZZZZZZTTTTTTTT. I play it through my mixer with the VU level peaking at no more than 0dB. I'm warming to Greg Wadley's comment regarding the CD, where he says "perhaps record companies really are mastering albums to be heard on crap stereos :-) It has occured to me before, while microscopically examining songs during mastering, that actually not many people listen to music in this way, but usually listen in the car, as background music, while doing the housework or homework or whatever." I have the Yep Roc pressing as that was the only one available to me at Rocking Horse and I can't fault it - perhaps due to the fact that I set the levels - but I usually do that as a rule with all of my vinyl as VU levels on records are all over the shop. | ||
| Phil Obbard Member Username: Pobbard Post Number: 8 Registered: 06-2005 |
Mister Fusspot - thank you so much for the analysis and explanation. I'm sorry to hear that you suspect the recording is simply "bad" and can't be corrected with a proper mastering... but that would certainly explain the official silence on the issue, as you note. I'll cross my fingers that Robert and Grant pull an Alanis in ten years and acoustically re-record what is arguably their finest set of songs! That way, I'll be able to listen to it without feeling like someone is dragging their fingernails across a chalkboard... --Phil | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 105 Registered: 10-2004 |
padraig, seriously, i wouldn't say the vinyl sounds "fine," but it does sound slightly better due to the quality of sound inherent in the medium. less harsh high frequencies overall, slightly less intense bass rumble, and the overall volume is a little lower, but 'this night's for you' and 'mountains near delray' still distort pretty much the same as the cd. a casual listener probably wouldn't notice a difference between the two. i mean, it still sounds like crap in the end. | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 33 Registered: 05-2005 |
Thanks Donat and Jeff. I think I'll save myself the cost of the import vinyl, continue to play OA only on the boombox and wait for the inevitable remastering job in a few years. I still think OA's songs are great by the way. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 50 Registered: 02-2005 |
Not to be stubbornly anal about this, but with the staggeringly innept 2-second gap snafu on the 'Live In London' set that was issued concurrently, I still believe this album may sound the way it does due to a dimwitted and cloth-eared mastering job. There are no credits on either disc so its all conjecture. Also, I did get an email response from Mark Wallis' production company and they said, I quote, "I think you'll find the problem is in the mastering." As good as I know it is underneath, I've hardly listened to the album... a cryin' shame. | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 34 Registered: 05-2005 |
I think the Live In London album sounds fine Guyu. I really don't notice their being any gaps between the songs. It's a great album, up there with Live At Leeds, Live And Dangerous, The Tigers Have Spoken and Stop Making Sense as far as I'm concerned. Most live albums suck though. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 63 Registered: 03-2005 |
I concur with Padraig's assessment of Live in London. | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 19 Registered: 05-2005 |
Someone at Mark Wallis' production company used the words "problem" and "mastering" in the same sentence? Is this not an admission of a screw-up? | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 51 Registered: 02-2005 |
I love 'Live In London' too and think the recorded sound is fine; the "bad" sound I was referring to is on 'Oceans Apart' - the album under discussion here - which was mastered (more or less) concurrently with 'Live In London.' But people, if you trade CDR's with friends and strangers and blindly add-in those infernal 2-sec gaps on your home PC, you're considered a neophyte dipshit. To do so on a live album will earn you heaps of abuse from your trading peers. For a quasi-professional to make this mistake on a commercial release that is pressed in the thousands is incomprehesible. (Luckily, the audience noise goes down to almost zero between most songs). | ||
| Richard Higgins Member Username: Richard Post Number: 6 Registered: 05-2005 |
any developments on this, anyone? | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 58 Registered: 02-2005 |
I listened to the album again recently and was wondering the same thing. Time has not been kind to the technical deficiencies of Ocean's Apart... if anything I found the compressed distortion more distracting and annoying than I did a couple months ago. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 125 Registered: 10-2004 |
It definitely takes a little adjusting each time I put it on. Like having to get used to old, badly (or hotly) recorded comp tapes people used to make years ago. At any rate, I think at this point it's safe to assume that the distortion was completely intentional (if horribly ill-advised), or that someone somewhere screwed up and no one cares enough to do anything about it. I guess that means we're no better off than we were 6 months ago, as far as getting to the bottom of this. But the non-response from more or less anybody involved seems to indicate it's simply not an issue for them. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 28 Registered: 05-2005 |
well, i didnt think that when i started this thread 6 months and 221 posts ago that i would be the bearer of good news. there is a new improved version out there. if you are browsing your local record shop and see "oceans apart" with some stickers on the front including things like 5 star Mojo rating and Q magazine album of the year, this it it. For confirmation check the back page of the CD booklet. If it has some notes written by Andrew Male of Mojo (could be the album review from Mojo) you are in business, my original version was just a plain black page. The sound quality is so much better. As well has being quieter and softer sounding(eg not loud and harsh) I was also able to hear sounds and instruments I had not heard before. Good luck everybody. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 82 Registered: 03-2005 |
Wow. A sneaky confession of error. And a way to get us to buy a second copy, which I'll do. Thanks for the info, Kevin. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 29 Registered: 05-2005 |
let us know what you think when you hear it randy. im sure you will :o) | ||
| Richard Higgins Member Username: Richard Post Number: 7 Registered: 05-2005 |
Hmm...wonder if Lo-Max would be kind enough to trade my old copy for a new one... | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 126 Registered: 10-2004 |
kevin, so you're dead serious about this then? were you able to compare the two, side by side? which label released this copy you found? hopefully it's available in the states! | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 30 Registered: 05-2005 |
jeff, I compared the 2 versions. the most pleasing aspect for me was being able to play This Nights For You and not rush to take it off. The improvements are best heard with headphones on. My copy, like my original is on Lo-Max from the UK. Is your version on YepRoc? Hopefully they have an improved version too. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 83 Registered: 03-2005 |
I'll go for the UK version if need be. I originally discounted people's complaints about the sound on this thread but the truth is it sounds like shit and I seldom listen to this otherwise wonderful album because of it. | ||
| Kurt Stephan Member Username: Slothbert Post Number: 74 Registered: 04-2005 |
Wow, this is big news. I'd buy an improved "Oceans Apart" in a second. If anyone gets word that YepRoc has released the fixed version of the album in the States, please let us know! But like Randy said, I'll go for the import if I have to. | ||
| Jerry Clark Member Username: Jerry Post Number: 108 Registered: 08-2004 |
You see, it doesn't always take 10 years for a remaster to come out. 7 months on and it's re-released without any acknowledgement of error, with improved sound. Proof that there was no need to get worked up about it in the first place. | ||
| Dusty Member Username: Dusty Post Number: 10 Registered: 05-2005 |
Perhaps mentioning the bad sound here helped though Jerry. Can anyone else confirm the sound on this? It's not that I don't believe you Kevin, it's just that I don't want to buy a third copy of the cd only to find it's the same. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 127 Registered: 10-2004 |
i suppose i'm with dusty in terms of being a bit hesitant to run out and buy a third copy. it'd be nice if we had somewhere to post some 30 second mp3 samples of a few songs, to compare and contrast. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 31 Registered: 05-2005 |
jerry, if you see the copy i described in your local record store ask them to play This Nights For You. you should notice the difference, then buy it | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 63 Registered: 05-2005 |
I'll wait until there is official confirmation from the various labels. We really should put what pressure we can through this forum onto the labels to do the decent thing and just swap the new edition for the old. It's only going to be a couple of hundred geeks like us that will want the new version anyway (if it really exists - not that I doubt your word Kevin, but I've been too disappointed in the past with how the record companies have ignored our complaints to get my hopes too high yet). There is precedent for this. In 1990-ish James (awful band) only agreed to a quick re-release of an album to feature a hit single if the fans who had already bought the album were allowed to swap it for free for the new edition. And as Randy, Rob and the other lawyers on this forum know, precedent is important! If there is an open forum to ask questions at the show in Sydney in January I intend to ask them how they could take their eye off the ball and allow that awful mix of the album out. | ||
| Dusty Member Username: Dusty Post Number: 11 Registered: 05-2005 |
Kevin, Is it an all-round improvement i.e. does the whole album sound as if it's been remastered, or has it just been touched up on 'This Night's for You'? I ask because the general concensus is that the whole album suffers from a very tinny, compressed sound. It sounds a bit of a subtle difference if you can only make it out on headphones. Sorry to be picky. | ||
| fsh Member Username: Fsh Post Number: 40 Registered: 05-2005 |
A missed mixing mix up. | ||
| Richard Lim Member Username: Re17 Post Number: 15 Registered: 05-2005 |
I admit upfront I have not heard the allegedly fixed new pressing of the album, but the iTunes download of Finding You (the 7" edit) to my ears shows slight but definite signs of distortion during the bridge in particular. Perhaps the source for this track was mastered same time as the first pressing of the album, hence the distortion, but I'm inclined to think the problem is in the mix itself. I don't particularly care about the compression (which is one of those things you either like or don't, and not material to this discussions), it's the fact that something has become distorted and brittle/rough-sounding that I really dislike. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 32 Registered: 05-2005 |
dusty , im no sonic expert, but in my opinion the whole album sounds better. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 84 Registered: 03-2005 |
Kevin, do you have both the Beggars Banquet and the new remastered CD versions of "Tallulah?" If so, is the difference between the old bad issue of "Oceans Apart" and the new one as great as the difference between the old version of "Tallulah" and the new one? This might help people evaluate whether or not to get their hopes up. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 33 Registered: 05-2005 |
Randy, sorry cant help you there. I have the remastered Tallulah but can only compare it to the original vinyl copy i got in 86(?) I wouldnt say the difference between both versions of OA are night and day - it justs sounds less of a chore to listen to. The main difference can be found on the last few tracks which to my ears dont sound distorted anymore. Unfortunately its one of these situations that until you hear it yourself you wont know the difference. | ||
| Cichli Suite Member Username: Cichli_suite Post Number: 69 Registered: 08-2004 |
On this subject, one of my favourite albums of the eighties was the much scorned (at the time) Dexys's album "Don't stand me down". The Director's Cut of this recording was released a few years ago and it sounds great. In the sleeve notes , Kevin Rowland describes the "awful sonic mistake" that was made for the first re-mastered re-release: "During the mastering sessions, we had made sure the tapes sounded good and tweaked it so that the natural dynamics that were intended to be there when the music was written, shone through. Then the engineer said to me right at the end of the whole process: "Kevin, my final suggestion is to put a bit of this stereo enhancer on to finish it off". "What's a stereo enhancer ?" I asked. "Oh, its just something that makes it louder, nothing else." Well, let me hear it, " I said. On listening to it, I suspected that the music had been subtly altered, and said so to the engineer. "No," he said. "Trust me on this one Kevin. All it will do is make your record louder. Every modern record has this on it now. In fact, if you don't have it, your record will sound quieter than everyone else's." I trusted Him. But even when I got the test copy home and suspected strongly that the stereo enhancer had affected the music unfavourably, I put it down to my own sometimes obsessive over-pickiness. I lived to regret not speaking up. It gently gnawed away at me and I continued to doubt my own judgement until a few weeks after it had been released. Pete Schwier (the sound genius behing My Beauty and the man who mixed DSMD) phoned me up and said: "I've just heard it - is that a stereo enhancer on there?" I was so disappointed.... That effect had ruined the dynamics. It sounded OK, but not nearly as effective as it should have done, no where near as good as the record we made, and I felt bad about that. Stereo enhancers create a wash of sound but destroy subtlety. If your aim is to hit the listener over the head then a stereo enhancer is the thing. Groups such as Oasis use them to better effect, but such treatment is very wrong for my Famous Dixons." Rerading this I can't help feeling that a similar thing must have happened during the mastering of Ocean's Apart. I wish the band management would acknowledge it. If a better sounding version is now available so soon after the original release, then I think those of us who have the first version should be able to exchange it, for free. Otherwise, I can't help but think that the loyalty of Go-Between fans is being exploited in a very cynical way. Cichli | ||
| Richard Higgins Member Username: Richard Post Number: 8 Registered: 05-2005 |
Well said I know it's still early days but i emailed Lo-max yesterday re a replacement..no reply as yet..I ordered my original copy via Simbiotic in March and as has been noted, it's probably only a few 100 obsessives who will be seeking a replacement... | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 65 Registered: 05-2005 |
Cichli, I love Stand Me Down also. I originally bought a Brazilian import cassette version of it in Dublin for 99 pence! (Best 99p I ever spent on music). When the first CD remaster came out I bought it and loved it and then later could not understand what Kevin Rowland was on about when he disowned that version. But just a few weeks ago I listened to it on the iPod and I could see what he meant. It does lose the subtlety (though nowhere near as bad as on Oceans Apart). I'm just going to have to get the director's cut version. Damn, yet another album that I am doomed to buy over and over again in different versions. | ||
| Cichli Suite Member Username: Cichli_suite Post Number: 70 Registered: 08-2004 |
Hi Pádraig, I also bought for it about 99p on cassette in a Dolphin Discs on Talbot street, Dublin. 4 weeks after it was released it was already in the bargain bin! I couldn't believe how great it was. The lyrics rage at all forms of pretentiousness personal dishonesty yet at the same time the melodies and arrangements are often hauntingly sad. I think it was panned on release because Kevin Rowland had managed to insult possibly every music journalist in the UK press at that stage. They just hated him. Like I said, the Director's Cut does sound good and has an extra track but I wouldn't rush out and buy it if you have been fairly satisfied with the first re-master. If there is a newly mastered version of Ocean's Apart out there, my copy will be in a padded envelope back to Lo-Max straight away. I'm not into buying re-mastered versions a few month's after the original release. Cichli | ||
| jerry hann Member Username: Jerry_h Post Number: 21 Registered: 07-2005 |
My local HMV has got the original version of Oceans Apart. I managed to get through the security tape to find a plain black page on the black cover. At least I didn't have the dificult decision of whether to buy it or not. I Probably would have done. I managed to listen to the album via my Ipod and some bose speakers last night and it sounded ok. But the last few songs on the album were unlistenable. In fact it didn't take long to realise it's impossible to listen to it via the Ipod and headphones as all the songs sound awful. In fact worse than any other album I've got on the Ipod. Born to a family-that always seems to sound good. Probably my favourite on the album. | ||
| Paul Charter Member Username: Spirit_of_a_vampyre Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2005 |
Lomax have confirmed the following:- "This recording has been pulled down by 2db and sounds way better" I'm buying another copy, but you never know the old "loud" version may be collectible in a years hence. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 34 Registered: 05-2005 |
Lomax have confirmed the following:- "This recording has been pulled down by 2db and sounds way better" This seems to back up what I said in my post on Wednesdaywhen trying to describe how it sounded - "As well has being quieter and softer sounding(eg not loud and harsh)" | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 128 Registered: 10-2004 |
wow, great! so that confirms it. it only took them, um, 6 months to figure it out and rectify the problem. i hope yep roc re-releases it with the -2db, 'cause if not i'll have to shell out for a pricey lo max import, which i confess i would gladly do just to get a decent sounding copy of this record. | ||
| Geoff Holmes Member Username: Geoff Post Number: 26 Registered: 05-2005 |
I have read and agreed with most posts about the sound of Oceans Apart. This night's for you is criminal!!!!!!! I'll be buying a second copy....but all those people who have bought or about to buy it since the ARIAS will only get the old version...in which case they'll think the sound of it sux too. What a pity the record company and the band didn't listen to us fans when this was first raised 6 months ago!!! The re-release will HAVE to have some hoopla AND a single with it. Any takers???????......This night's for you, Darlinghurst years, Delray or Finding you??? | ||
| Cichli Suite Member Username: Cichli_suite Post Number: 71 Registered: 08-2004 |
Hang on! If the original version was defective, why are we shelling out again to buy the fixed version? If this was any other product, the company would be forced to allow consumers to return the defective product. (Isn't there a consumer right's charter in the UK? What about elsewhere?) I don't need a a new sleeve notes - just a replacement disc, one that I can listen to on my fairly modest sound system without grimacing. A mistake has been made here. This has been acknowledged by the manaufacturers. Why does the consumer have to suffer? If we all go out buy replacemment copies, the people who made this mistake get to laugh their heads off. In future, why not issue a defective first release every time and exploit the mugs who will buy a second copy when you issue a re-mastered version a few months later. If Lo-Max and the GBs do not offer an opportunity to replace the defective originals, I call that exploitation - cynical, money-grubbing exploitation of fan loyalty. I won't be buying a replacement copy. I already have multiple copies already of every GB release. Did I get up on the wrong side of the bed or what this morning! | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 27 Registered: 05-2005 |
C'mon,let's all be realistic here. Ok. You're the Go-B's mgt. and you realize you have a defective product but only a few people on an obscure (sorry) website are griping about it. Would you bring it to everyone else's attention? A few people wanting replacement copies is one thing but... Isn't it ironic, given their history with record companies and botched promotions that the most successful recording of their career is somehow screwed up? We ought to be used to this by now. | ||
| Cichli Suite Member Username: Cichli_suite Post Number: 72 Registered: 08-2004 |
Hi M. Mark B., I'm not sure of your point. If I was the band's management I'd be a lot more careful about their fan base than they appear to be. This might be an obscure website but it's the official website of a relatively obscure band. It's the web site where people who have supported the band (and their 'products') congregate and effectively promote the music for free in forums like this. It's the web site that the band management clearly want new fans to go to because the address is printed on the Cd sleevenotes. When there is a new CD or tour, the band management is very active in making use of this web site. When there is a problem, they do absolutely nothing. They don't even acknowledge it. And the problem is not a minor one. It's not a question of a few typos in the sleeve notes! There's really no excuse for f*cking up the sound so badly on an 'audio product' (I would love to know who is at fault here). Is it reasonable for the fans to pay double simply because the band or its record label couldn't get its act together? Are they gambling on the fact that, if they get a new version of the CD out and keep mum about it, they might alienate a few of the gripers here but in the grand scheme of things relatively little damage will be done? It seems like a horribly smug position to take. | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 28 Registered: 05-2005 |
That's my point. I'm just playing devil's advocate by what I speculated. If this is true, I don't like it either. I would expect that there are alot of new fans now, especially with the Aria award. Most of them might never see this site or this thread. I'm thinking that everyone involved with the band is willing to gamble on this to preserve profit and future income. Perhaps I'm not articulating my thoughts very well but like a few others here, I've become jaded over the years. Maybe this is just a personality problem on my part. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 86 Registered: 03-2005 |
I thought Mark was maybe referring to the comedy of bad luck that chased the Gobees from the collapse of Beserkley Records through their various record label hassles and failures throughout the 1980s. It would fit in with that history for their most commercially successful album to be sunk by a mastering error. I understand Cichli's position but I don't really think that Grant, Robert & Co. make all that fantastic an amount of money doing what they are doing. I seriously doubt that they'll be able to go out and buy yuppie luxo cars with what they're earning after they pay the expenses and take care of their own basic cost of living. I strongly suspect that they are touring so much now not only to grab onto this moment and promote themselves but also to simply support the band, i.e., Glenn and Adele. If I am right about this I am not interested in insisting that they eat the whole cost of this unfortunate mistake, even if it might be partially their own fault. I just want to get a better copy to listen to, which I am willing to pay for again, and I want them to keep on making records and doing shows as long as they enjoy it and still find the creative juices flowing. | ||
| fsh Member Username: Fsh Post Number: 41 Registered: 05-2005 |
I don't know what the law is elsewhere but Lomax are imho legally liable to the consumer in the scenario outlined. They should uncondictionally offer a replacement copy to anyone who is unhappy with the product. If they don't then all it takes is one person to take a legal claim against them (where I live lodging a claim in the Small Claims Court costs a meagre €9 which is somewhat cheaper than buying a replacement copy of the CD). The fact that a new mix has been issued makes the position that there was nothing wrong with the original mix untenable imho. So Lomax should extract their head from their arse and take the initiative on this one. I don't think a lot of people will request a replacement copy (still got your original receipt, anyone? or maybe you paid by credit card!). Of course Lomax may sue whoever approved the mix that was initially released to recover any expense they incur in this process .... the band themselves I'd be inclined to think!!! | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 66 Registered: 05-2005 |
I agree with Cichli. I intend to take this up with EMI, who released the album in Australia. | ||
| Michelle M Member Username: Michelle Post Number: 4 Registered: 09-2004 |
I would like to put my 2 cents in here too. Somewhere above, I have said that after purchasing the cd in May (despite the warnings on this board) I didn't notice too much on the drive home using the car's cd. But on my stereo there was a very distracting rumbling in 'This Nights for you'. At first I thought it was trucks labouring up the nearby road. And, once when my cat was asleep on my lap, he was startled awake by the chorus of the same song. Now my concern is that people here in Australia who may be curious to buy the Aria award winning cd will think "wtf". Also I am concerned because a month or so after I bought mine at Sanity for $29.99 I saw it in WOW for $20. Yesterday I was in WOW and it is now $29.99 again. Hmm. One wonders who will get the extra $10. The cd was sealed in shrink wrap so I couldn't take a peek at the back page but there wasn't any Mojo stickers as mentioned above and I suspect it is the same cd as mine. And, like M. Mark B., I think that it is very unfortunate that when a mainstream accolade has been awarded to them against a field of quite strong contenders, the product the public will be buying is dodgy. | ||
| fsh Member Username: Fsh Post Number: 42 Registered: 05-2005 |
Another angle I didn't think of above but which I think I mentioned previously is that if the initial mix was sufficiently distorted to damage your equipment (in my case) Mission 780 speakers, then Lomax might also be liable for any consequential loss arising from the use of a product of lower than merchantable quality (the initial pressing of the CD). That exposure could amount to significantly more than replacing a few CD's. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 35 Registered: 05-2005 |
fsh - what are you babbling on about? the cd might have sounded crap but as far as i am aware is incapable of destroying stereo equipment!! | ||
| Dusty Member Username: Dusty Post Number: 12 Registered: 05-2005 |
OK - I managed to get a copy of the new verson cd (it is available now on the Lomax website @ £8.50). The distortion has indeed gone and it's definately a bit warmer and softer and just better sounding allround. There's still a hint of brittleness but generally speaking it sounds like you'd expect and if this was how it was originally released I doubt if anyone would have noticed any problems with the sound. My initial fear was that the really bad songs would just be tarted up (i.e. the last two) and the rest would sound the same but it's definately an improved all over sound. A clear example is on the chorus of 'No Reason to Cry' where once existed a sort of bassy rumble now there are clear chiming acoustic guitars - much better!! So in my opinion it's definately worth replacing. I don't think I'll bother to insist on replacing the cd - I don't think there was anything intentional in terms of being a ripoff. I'd imagine it was a bit of a headache for them to deal with and they did it in the most painless way possible. It would have been nice to offer replacements but.....the main thing is that it's been done - I'm just very pleased to have a perfectly acceptable quality sounding LP - frankly the extra tenner is nothing compared to the hours of pleasure it'll give over the years. Having said all that, 'This Night's for you' is still pretty crumby, even without the distortion. | ||
| Dusty Member Username: Dusty Post Number: 13 Registered: 05-2005 |
There's now an update on the Lomax website inviting you to return the old cd for a free replacement of the new pressing. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 129 Registered: 10-2004 |
This is amazing news! As I'm in the US, I've just written Yep Roc to see if they will be offering the same thing. | ||
| Cichli Suite Member Username: Cichli_suite Post Number: 73 Registered: 08-2004 |
That's completely sound of them. Well done Lo-max and the Go-Betweens. | ||
| Lard Ass Member Username: Lardass Post Number: 11 Registered: 05-2005 |
Guess us "whingers" had a point after all. | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 29 Registered: 05-2005 |
Hmm,I might have to retract my "obscure" comment. Very smooth, no outright admission of a screw-up but I think it rectifies the situation to everyone's satisfaction. Perhaps this thread was the catalyst? | ||
| gareth w Member Username: Gareth Post Number: 10 Registered: 05-2005 |
It’s great news. I think the band/management/label/whomever think they’ll get a good placing in some critic’s end of year charts and want to pick up some extra sales with a decent sounding cd on the shelves. This thread must have had some influence if only to force someone with some influence in these things to listen to the album again. As for a poor quality cd damaging the stereo equipment that actually happened to me a number of years ago. I threw a cushion at my stereo in disgust at Robert’s piss poor ‘Warm Nights’ version of ‘Rock and Roll Friend’ which resulted in a damaged needle on the record player. Felt better for having done it though. | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 69 Registered: 05-2005 |
Gareth, this thread had more than just some influence. I guarantee you it is the sole reason they have done so. The awful sound was not mentioned in any major review (and only one minor review that I am aware of). | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 36 Registered: 05-2005 |
power to the people padraig | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 70 Registered: 05-2005 |
Yes, and I hope that the union protest I have just attended in Sydney (and which is being observed across the continent) also leads to people's views being listened to. | ||
| Richard Lim Member Username: Re17 Post Number: 16 Registered: 05-2005 |
By the way the correct box number for Lomax is 46052, not 4605 as was on the website's front page last night. Richard | ||
| B. Rider Member Username: Boundary_rider Post Number: 12 Registered: 05-2005 |
Yes, Lard Ass, you 'whingers' probably did have a point. No one said you didn't. The last three songs on the album are palpably distorted, the whole thing mastered too loud, yadda yadda yadda. For some of us, that did no detract from the quality of the songs or make the whole album 'unlistenable'. Nor did it prevent some comments on this thread being insufferably smug and self-righteous. I'm utterly delighted that Lomax have seen fit to do this. If only to finally, at last, I hope, put an end to this fucking thread... | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 37 Registered: 05-2005 |
b.rider, theres only one guy whinging on here as far as i can see. your last post for me was "self-righteous" in the extreme - wouldnt want someone so smug as you to have the last word on this wonderful thread | ||
| surfingmagazines Member Username: Surfingmagazines Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2005 |
Don't worry. This thread isn't over yet... Good news from Lomax though. Will be digging out my old copy shortly! | ||
| B. Rider Member Username: Boundary_rider Post Number: 13 Registered: 05-2005 |
Hmm. Kevin, your response proves my point a bit. I quoted the word 'whingers' from Lard Ass's post. At least try and inject a bit of humour in your barbs, then maybe these exchanges might be a bit more light-hearted, and less serious and po-faced. By the way, Kevin, have you informed Trading Standards about the re-release and withdrawn your complaint about Oceans Apart? They're busy lads you know, what with Christmas coming up and all those toys with small parts that children can choke on to uncover. | ||
| fsh Member Username: Fsh Post Number: 43 Registered: 05-2005 |
B. Rider wrote: By the way, Kevin, have you informed Trading Standards about the re-release and withdrawn your complaint about Oceans Apart? fsh writes: why do you ask? | ||
| B. Rider Member Username: Boundary_rider Post Number: 16 Registered: 05-2005 |
B.Rider responds: Further up the thread, Kevin said he had complained to trading standards about the album on the basis we had been sold shoddy goods (Oceans Apart). I'm sure they took his request seriously, and would hate for him to be done for wasting their time. | ||
| fsh Member Username: Fsh Post Number: 44 Registered: 05-2005 |
Oh ok, I'm very sorry about that. I wasn't aware you had a legitimate interest in the work of the Trading Standards Authority or Kevin's welfare when I made my posting. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your interest. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 38 Registered: 05-2005 |
Dear Mr B.Rider. Not that it concerns you but Trading Standards were treating my query seriously. I asked them to stop going any further when Lomax finally decided to respond to my emails. Regarding your point about the sound quality not being an issue for you - maybe thats because some of us actually sat down to listen to it, where as you perhaps listened to it whilst doing the dishes or catching up with your ironing. Nice to see you have plenty of time on your hands to go trawling through this thread to be able to make sarcy comments about others - presumably you had finished your household chores for the day? I presume you will not be taking Lomax up on their offer of the improved CD? Whilst this fault might have been rectified eventually, be in no doubt that there are a few people who posted on here that made it happen,and happen quicker. | ||
| B. Rider Member Username: Boundary_rider Post Number: 17 Registered: 05-2005 |
No problem fsh. Kevin, I give up... | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 39 Registered: 05-2005 |
B.Rider - I would expect nothing less from you | ||
| Duncan Hurwood Member Username: Duncan_h Post Number: 16 Registered: 05-2005 |
Looks to me like everything has ended well. I can't wait to hear the "new" album! All this time people have been going on about how great "Mountains near Dellray" is, and I've not been to listen to it due to the distortion: to me it just sounded awful, but now I can give it another go. Good work everyone! | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 89 Registered: 03-2005 |
"Mountains Near Dellray" is magic. I too look forward to hearing the album properly. And, yes, I think it cannot be credibly disputed that folks on this board who are less accommodating than me made it happen. So thanks to you all. | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 32 Registered: 05-2005 |
Being stuck here in the U.S., does anyone know if amazon u.k. or any other website has the new version? No response from Yep Roc. It's nice to be a little smug and self-righteous sometimes. Where would the Go-B's be without that in their lyrics? | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 130 Registered: 10-2004 |
Mark - I haven't heard back from Yep Roc either, however, I did write to Lo Max, and they responded saying that "in the spirit of the holidays," they would exchange Yep Roc versions for the new Lo Max version if you just send it to them with a self-addressed envelope. | ||
| Kurt Stephan Member Username: Slothbert Post Number: 76 Registered: 04-2005 |
Thanks for that update, Jeff. I've been ignored by Yep Roc so far too regarding the new version of the CD. They're probably sick of being badgered by the four or five "squeaky wheel" GoBs fans in the U.S.! | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 60 Registered: 02-2005 |
I emailed Yeproc and got a response from: Dave Jackson Manufacturing Coordinator Redeye Distribution 449-A Trollingwood Road Haw River, NC 27258 877.733.3931 x 221 ph 336.578.7388 fax davidj@redeyeusa.com http://www.redeyeusa.com He was very polite, asked for my address and said LO-MAX would send me a copy... it doesn't sound like Yeproc are planning to do anything domestically. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 61 Registered: 02-2005 |
B. Rider wrote: "Yes, Lard Ass, you 'whingers' probably did have a point. No one said you didn't. The last three songs on the album are palpably distorted, the whole thing mastered too loud, yadda yadda yadda. For some of us, that did no detract from the quality of the songs or make the whole album 'unlistenable'. Nor did it prevent some comments on this thread being insufferably smug and self-righteous. I'm utterly delighted that Lomax have seen fit to do this. If only to finally, at last, I hope, put an end to this fucking thread..." Advice from Guy Ewald to B. Rider: If you're married, or ever plan to get married, I strongly suggest that you learn how to admit you are wrong with a bit more graciousness than you have demonstrated above... just a thought. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 91 Registered: 03-2005 |
I'm amazed that Lo-Max is going to take responsibility for the American release. I suppose Yep Roc must be compensating them in some way. Does anyone know, should I send in my disc only or the whole package including jewel case and cover art? | ||
| Kurt Stephan Member Username: Slothbert Post Number: 77 Registered: 04-2005 |
Randy, the Lo-Max Web site says disc only. However, I emailed Lo-Max and will await a response before I send mine off just to be sure. | ||
| Paul B. Member Username: Paul_b Post Number: 10 Registered: 10-2004 |
Has anyone contaced EMI Australia? | ||
| fsh Member Username: Fsh Post Number: 45 Registered: 05-2005 |
I'm sure somebody contacted them at least once over the years, it would be a very odd organisation otherwise. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 131 Registered: 10-2004 |
Kurt, let us know what they say. I'll admit that Lo Max's response to me, although helpful and generous, did seem a bit 'off-the-cuff.' I'm kind of waiting around a bit myself before I send my copy off to Lo Max. | ||
| B. Rider Member Username: Boundary_rider Post Number: 18 Registered: 05-2005 |
Guy, I've been married four times. Hang on.... | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 62 Registered: 02-2005 |
One 'McBoasten' posted the following on the stevehoffman.tv forum regarding the remastered Oceans Apart: "The corrected version was done by Bill Inglot. I've heard it, and it is several billion times better than the Astley version." Sounds good to me. I certainly hope that Yeproc eventually correct the mastering here in the US, but it may be that the album never goes into a second pressing. I am heartened that LO-MAX have done the right thing (I hope the Go-Betweens themselves applied some pressure) but they were also frugal, waiting until they sold-out the initial pressing. I'm guessing they felt they had little choice in the matter. I'll say, "All's well that ends well" when my copy arrives in the mail. | ||
| Matthias Treml Member Username: Matthias Post Number: 46 Registered: 05-2005 |
OK. I've been waiting patiently to purchase Oceans Apart since I've found this thread. I'm in the U.S. and it sounds like Yep-Roc is not releasing the better mastered version. So my question is where is the best place to get the Lo-Max version and make sure I get the new pressing? I have an account with Amazon and have used some other music sites to purchase CDs in the past but I'm afraid of getting the older off the shelf version instead of the new pressing. It sounds like my only sure option is to order directly from the Lo-Max on-line store if there is one. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 40 Registered: 05-2005 |
Guy - McBoasten is going over the top as I am sure you are aware. the original version is not night and day compared with the new one, it is now acceptable. Matthias - link to shop to purchase the new version of Lomax copy http://www.simbioticstore.com/lomaxrecords/ When you are ordering there is a section where you can select United States, so there is no problem with it being UK only orders | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 63 Registered: 02-2005 |
I am so eager to hear for myself. The LO-MAX statement sounds like they just dropped the digital transfer by -2.0 dB to mitigate the excessive distortion. But this guy on the Steve Hoffman forum - and they talk about mastering engineers like most fans talk about their favorite artists - states that Bill Inglot has remastered it. I do recognize his name, so... Maybe it was a "wind up" post, but it doesn't read like one. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 92 Registered: 03-2005 |
Bill Inglot made his name doing high quality digital remixes and remasters of old analog recordings from the 1960s and 1970s, particularly for Rhino Records. He transformed many of the releases he touched. I regard him quite highly. If it's true that he fixed OA, the sound will probably have a lot more than just a 2db drop to distinguish itself. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 93 Registered: 03-2005 |
When I returned home from dinner and two margaritas last night I found the following message in my email box: "Dear Randy Your enquiry from the Go-Betweens website was passed on to me and in answer to your question – just send the disc only over with an addressed envelope and I’ll mail a replacement disc back to you. In answer to your other question – we are not being compensated for doing this – we have no involvement with the USA release of Oceans Apart. It’s just a little transatlantic goodwill – I wouldn’t have a label if it wasn’t for American rock & roll. Your very nice comments on the internet were much appreciated and I hope you have a great Christmas. Best Wishes" This is from Bernard MacMahon of Lo-Max Records. I was stunned by the graciousness of this message and Lo-Max' decision and I still am. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 41 Registered: 05-2005 |
Randy, I would not be stunned if I were you. I have been in contact with Bernard many times recently and he is a straight up, A1, top guy. Regards Bill Inglot, I could be wrong but I dont think he is credited on the new CD. I will check when I get home from work. Crikey, just realized this is post 300 on this subject - do I win a prize? | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 42 Registered: 05-2005 |
nope, i was right - just checked the CD and it still credits Mr Astley!! | ||
| David Matheson Member Username: David_matheson Post Number: 30 Registered: 12-2004 |
Paul B., I have emailed EMI, but not heard back yet. | ||
| Kurt Stephan Member Username: Slothbert Post Number: 79 Registered: 04-2005 |
I heard from Bernard as well yesterday--unsolicited. He must have contacted me after someone at Lo-Max saw my posts here, because the email account I use here is not the same one that I sent Lo-Max an inquiry from. Kudos to Bernard for being a true friend of Go-Betweens fans! I'd suggest all people outside of the UK who take Bernard up on the CD exchange offer buy something from the Lo-Max website at a later date to reciprocate. | ||
| Peter Azzopardi Member Username: Pete Post Number: 126 Registered: 09-2004 |
I asked Bernard about the remastering and he said that Bill Inglot did NOT do it, just to clear that up. And yes, Bernard is a stand-up kinda guy. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 133 Registered: 10-2004 |
so i got my lo-max reissue disc of 'oceans apart' in the mail yesterday. i made a copy of the first version so that i could compare and contrast the two. "this night's for you" and "mountains near delray" definitely sound better. they managed to eliminate the gritty distortion for the most part. those two songs, however, still sound like the rest of the album, obviously, which retains that fried, over-compressed, loud sound. and "this night's for you" still kind of hints at that nasty grit on the choruses, and some of the lower end stuff on "delray," particularly the bass, still distort a little bit. but on the whole, it is an improvement. i would say that songs 1-8 probably still sound a wee bit better on the vinyl release. basically, if this version had been released last spring instead of that messy 1st version, i think we still would have had this thread about the crappy sound, albeit not nearly as epic and without all the questions about it being a shoddy or defective product. and i hope that however many years down the road, when they give the album some fancy re-release, that they get somebody who knows what they're doing to radically remaster it! at any rate, many thanks to lo-max for letting us with yep roc copies exchange them. | ||
| Kurt Stephan Member Username: Slothbert Post Number: 83 Registered: 04-2005 |
Glad to hear Lo-Max came through with your replacement copy, Jeff--I trust mine is soon to follow. I appreciate your candid report on the sound. Any improvement is a plus but it's good to be warned in advance not to expect a miracle...we're still not talking "16LL" fidelity. It'll be especially nice to hear "Mountains Near Delray" properly. The last two tracks and "Lavender" were the only ones I found unlistenable because of the distortion. I find it odd that "The Statue" sits in between those three tracks but seems the least affected by distortion on the entire album. | ||
| Duncan Hurwood Member Username: Duncan_h Post Number: 22 Registered: 05-2005 |
The 'new' album is a definite improvement from my point of view. The whole thing still sounds a bit fuzzy, as was probably the plan, but it's certainly not the disaster it was before. I can listen to the whole of the album without a problem (well, maybe with "Lavender" and "This Night's for you" - but that's a another story). | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 38 Registered: 05-2005 |
There is definitely some improvement on the new Lo-max pressing. On my original Yep Roc disc at the beginning of Here Comes a City there is a count off on the drumsticks that is not on the new Lo-max disc. Not a big deal, just thought I'd point it out. | ||
| Richard Lim Member Username: Re17 Post Number: 18 Registered: 05-2005 |
Two weekends ago I listened to the old and new versions of This Night's For you back to back, more times than is healthy, to persuade myself that the new master is a substantial improvement. It is an improvement, but it merely better disguises flaws that must be inherent in the mix. The blatant distortion of the first pressing isn't there but distortion there definitely still is - listen to the *fade* of Darlinghurst Nights and you'll see/hear what I mean. The new master has slightly lower levels and is perhaps fractionally crisper but underneath it's still so gritty, like the whole mix has got a frog in its throat. For my money this is the second time the band's collaboration with Mark Wallis has been somewhat imperfect - 16LL was way too lush and echoey, whereas Worlds Apart takes into compression to hitherto unknown (and unfortunate) territory. I have posted earlier that I really don't have a big issue with compression, and a week ago I deliberately dug up a well-known example of the art, Elvis Costello's Imperial Bedroom (produced by Beatles engineer Geoff Emerick) to remind myself how it ought to be done - it's as compressed as hell and yet you can everything so clearly. It's a pity that World's Apart will go down as an object lesson in how not to do it. Richard | ||
| Kurt Stephan Member Username: Slothbert Post Number: 87 Registered: 04-2005 |
Sorry to extend the life of The Thread That Will Not Die, but I do want to go on record to thank Bernard and Katherine at Lo-Max for taking care of U.S. fans who exchanged their original pressings of "OA." Not to call out Yep Roc, but it's disappointing that they haven't responded to recent inquiries about this issue. To be fair, they may never have call to issue a new pressing; I don't doubt that "OA" sales in the U.S. have been miniscule. The new pressing is definitely an improvement and I'm very glad to have it. I can hear details (especially keyboards) in most of the songs that were muddied before and the acoustic guitars sound lusher and more shimmery, which adds a lot to several tracks. As many have said, the terminal distortion on the last few songs has been banished--but that's not to say the songs sound pristine. "Lavender" in particular still sounds unpleasant because the overboosted levels are so ill-suited to it. I'm inclined to agree with Richard that the GoBs need to stay away from Wallis and his studio next time. Let's just hope Robert and Grant don't get it in their heads to work with David Fridman, a producer who's never met a band he couldn't distort. | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 40 Registered: 05-2005 |
Yes,but since this album has been so successful,it's quite likely they won't want to mess with a winning formula and who can blame them? If this keeps them going for several more years then it was definitely worth it and I would still be happy to get ten more poor sounding albums from them than none at all. It really seems like this was a make or break album financially. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 136 Registered: 10-2004 |
yeah, but i'd like to think of that success as being a result of good, solid song-writing and *not* attributable in any way to the atrocious production. i'm convinced OA would've sold just as well had it been given an appropriately lush, organic, and NON-overcompressed/distorted sound. maybe even better? | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 43 Registered: 05-2005 |
Well if the next album is produced by David Fridman we're up sh*t creek without a paddle. that guy has ruined many great CDs - Low, Sleater Kinney, Flaming Lips | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 100 Registered: 03-2005 |
I also want to go on record as thankful to Bernard and Katherine at Lo-Max. I still think their considerate support of fans in a territory not normally theirs is above and beyond in every conceivable way. I agree the new master is better. The decision to use heavy compression settings is obviously one that the band made or ratified and it actually sounds appropriate to my ears on radio-targeted things like "This Night's for You" and "Here Comes a City." The same approach does not make sonic sense on songs like "Finding You." But, oh well, it's hardly the first album I like that has sub-ideal sound. For example, I'm hoping the re-release of "Born Sandy Devotional" includes a thorough remix. I am not really critical of Wallis' influence. "Oceans Apart" is a vastly more detailed album than either of its predecessors and I actually like the incorporation of the synth sounds. There will continue to be more little surprises yielded up by this set on future listenings than "Rachel Worth" or "BYBO." "Oceans Apart" exhibits much more of a pop sensibility than its two predecessors which is an essential part of the Go Bees' brew. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 137 Registered: 10-2004 |
i agree with randy in terms of wallis' attention to detail. nasty compression and distortion aside, the arrangements contain a lot of flourishes that for me help make OA a much better album than the two previous records. you've got nice, melodic bits of mandolin, piano, and other stuff, not to mention a more layered, rich approach to arranging the guitar parts. i think in that regard, wallis did a great job. but that only makes the nasty over-compressed sound that much more of a crime! | ||
| Kurt Stephan Member Username: Slothbert Post Number: 90 Registered: 04-2005 |
FYI (and to give credit where it's due), I heard from Yep Roc today, which will soon be making replacement pressings of "OA" available to any North American buyers Lo-Max hasn't already taken care of. Send the CD only with a stamped, self-addressed return CD mailer to the Yep Roc main address. | ||
| mingus Member Username: Mingus Post Number: 13 Registered: 06-2005 |
Anyone heard any update from EMI Australia on the replacement "OA" CDs ? Thanks. | ||
| Joachim Steffens Member Username: Jsteffens Post Number: 1 Registered: 12-2005 |
I emailed Tuition records who distribute OA in Germany. The person responsible, an Andreas Schaffer, answered I should contact Bernard at Lomax.When I asked if he seriously asked to send their faulty product overseas he replied that it was not faulty, repressing a newly mastered (not remastered as he pointed out) was only a decision of Lomax. I'l buy the Lomax import next time round and suggest other European buyers follow | ||
| AS Member Username: Labelguy Post Number: 20 Registered: 05-2005 |
The person quoted above, an Andreas Schaffer, actually answered Mr. Steffens the following (in-short): no remastering was undertaken, the master is just -2db reduced in volume. There is no faulty product (which was said enough times before), the band & management delievered the music exactly as it was pressed on CD and vinyl. The announcement that exchange copies are available was and still is a decicison made by Lo-Max only. Thanks! | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 46 Registered: 05-2005 |
So I guess we have our answer. The reduction in decibels was done to appease us whiners, possibly? I'm assuming since this is a new pressing that this didn't cost them anything. That's fine but this sounds like a smooth evasion of the problem. | ||
| cosmo vitelli Member Username: Cosmo Post Number: 16 Registered: 05-2005 |
i havent been on this message board in a while and i cant believe this thread is still running.doctors will soon be issuing prescriptions of 'sound quality of ocean's apart' instead of mogadon. | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 49 Registered: 05-2005 |
Sweet dreams.... | ||
| fsh Member Username: Fsh Post Number: 58 Registered: 05-2005 |
AS - label guy above wrote or quoted someone else: "There is no faulty product (which was said enough times before), the band & management delievered the music exactly as it was pressed on CD and vinyl." IMHO, this is just a cynical exercise by Lomax, the band, whoever ... legally trying to cover their ass. There couldn't possibly be anything faulty about the product because the ramifications of that would be too far reaching to contemplate. We're in the realm of the Emporer's New Clothes here - except we've got extra liner notes to explain the refined tastes of conniseurs of the form. A little thinly thread on credibility, I'd say: but an exercise of which Alister Cambell would be proud. Seasons greetings. FSH (please excuse spelling) | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 144 Registered: 05-2005 |
I'm just been listening to the second edition of Oceans Apart and I have to say it sounds much improved, at least listening through my computer's speakers. Mountains Near Delray is on now and I can definitely clearly hear guitar flourishes that sounded like muck before. I'll let you know what I think of how it sounds on the iPod and through a proper hi-fi in due course, but right now my immediate reaction is that it's a very welcome improvement. | ||
| Alex Bolton Member Username: Alexb Post Number: 10 Registered: 01-2006 |
My technical knowledge is pretty limited, but as a avid GoBs fan having the followed the thread (over several months!) it seems OA is a highly compressed record because the band made an artistic decision to have it like that. I've read at least one interview where RF explicity states they were going for a commercial, distorted contemporary sound. The approach works well with Here Comes a City as Randy Adams notes, but not Finding You. Ultimately though, it's an aesthetic decision by the band and it seems to me the critics' beef is really with them. | ||
| cosmo vitelli Member Username: Cosmo Post Number: 18 Registered: 05-2005 |
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 73 Registered: 02-2005 |
I finally followed through and got my replacement disc from Yeproc (thanks to all the right-minded folks involved). I haven’t done a careful A/B comparison, but on first pass I’d say the remastered disc is a vast improvement. There is still some audible distortion on This Night’s For You, but it honestly felt like I was listening to the album for the first time… there’s a lot of sonic detail that I had never noticed before. I don’t know if this means it was well and truly buried in the original deaf-master or if my ears were “squinting” so hard I was blocking it out. Maybe I was just paying closer attention than I had before, especially after deciding that the original disc was defective. Whatever the answer I will be gratefully discovering/rediscovering this album in the coming weeks. | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 145 Registered: 05-2005 |
Alex, I competely disagree with your view that the album sounded the way the band intended it to. If that was the case they would never have issued a second version. They did so following concerted pressure from people on this messages board and because it was a definite fuck up. As Jeff says elsewhere on this page, heads should have rolled for it. And maybe they did at wherever is was first mastered. I'm no audiophile either, but I know when something sounds rubbish. But justice has been done and I have the replacement copy. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 75 Registered: 02-2005 |
I started a thread about the remaster on the audiophile www.stevehoffman.tv forum; a place populated by men with very sensitive ears and extremely low thresholds for irritation or annoyance of any kind. This, coupled with their 20K sound systems and generally bland MOR tastes, does not make it an ideal forum for discussing The Go-Betweens, but there are a few fans there. At least one Hoffmanite dismissed the remaster as a waste of time. These people are up in arms about the “Loudness Wars” in the recording industry and the mastering of a CD (Steve Hoffman is a mastering engineer) is their first test of enjoyment, not the music itself. In fairness, a lot of these guys are “pros” with extensive collections and probably do hear things the average listener doesn’t notice. They get particularly apoplectic about remasters of albums that are unfaithful to the original artistic intent. Lots of these guys hunt down original vinyl pressings and dismiss CD reissues altogether. Anyway, (in the hopes of making a point here) yes, Ocean’s Apart is a “modern” recording, it’s aggressively compressed. I am absolutely convinced that the original master was flawed; the distortion was the most dramatic I’ve heard on any CD and a lot of the subtlety of the recording was lost. I’m not sure that some of the production details aren’t still being squashed, but my own threshold for technical annoyance is much lower than the Hoffmanites (still higher than the proverbial “average” listener) and the remaster has successfully brought the distortion and compression down below my personal threshold of irritation. It’s not a wildly dramatic change, but it’s enough. After a few spins of the new disc under a variety of circumstances - listening on Discman peanuts, Grado Labs cans and speakers at both low and medium volume - I find that I can now focus on (and lose myself in) the music without getting distracted and annoyed by the sonic sludge. | ||
| Alex Bolton Member Username: Alexb Post Number: 12 Registered: 01-2006 |
Padraig, your post contradicts itself. First you say a second pressing would never have been issued unless it was a mess up. Then you claim the new version was issued because of complaints including those on this board. Isn't a bit strange the band, who'd laboured for months on this album don't appear that bothered about all the controversy. Could the reason be they wanted a compressed sounding album as RF has implied in interview? | ||
| Alex Bolton Member Username: Alexb Post Number: 13 Registered: 01-2006 |
To further the point... Listening to Spring Hill Fair the other day I found several songs quite hard listening because of the presumably intentional sonic hardness. It benefits the intensity of Draining the Pool. But some tracks like Five Words are like punch in the face. Like OA it was probably an aesthetic decision to go for this sound; we can argue about whether it was the right one. | ||
| Matthias Treml Member Username: Matthias Post Number: 59 Registered: 05-2005 |
Johnny come lately... I finally ordered the Ocean's Apart CD, my first copy. I've been waiting to see if the U.S. would be releasing the re-press version through Yep-Roc and I've also wondered about the quality of the songs compared to recent records. I had bought the 1st two records of Go-betweens Version 2.0 but haven't been impressed. I was particularly discouraged with BYBO where I liked the two bonus tracks better than any on the record: Instant Replay and Girl Lying on the Beach. FORW has really grown on me though. I was convinced to finally purchase after downloading some mp3s of Ocean's Apart (the 1st pressing). The songs are top notch and the arrangements are indeed lush and add a tremendous depth to them. I find Robert's material to be particularly strong. There is a great marriage between Mark Wallis' production sensibilities and Robert's songs. He sounds incredible and his songs have a lot of drama and tension in them thanks to the Wallis. I was so bowled over by hearing these mp3s that I logged on to Lo-Max and purchased the album today. Cannot wait to get the CD in the mail. Interestingly, the first listen I had to the new songs was from the DVD acoustic performance and the concert. I thought the songs were interesting (better than some recent material) but listening to the studio album really added a lot to them and made it a must buy. With the currency conversion from pounds to dollars including shipping it came to about $20.00. Well worth it. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 76 Registered: 02-2005 |
Alex Bolton: Let me get this straight. You're saying that The Go-Betweens and their record company remastered 'Oceans Apart' and offered free replacement copies to one and all in a thinly-disguised apology on the label's official website NOT because the digital compression and distortion on the original master exceeded the band's/producer's artistic intentions, but simply because 16 or 18 obsessive fans belabored the point on a fan website? They were all perfectly happy with the original version, but figured "the customer's always right." Have I got that straight? Are you high? | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 153 Registered: 03-2005 |
Matthias, it will indeed be well worth the $20 for the album. And considering Lo-Max' performance related to the subject of this zombie-like thread, it's great that you ordered from them. I too was disappointed with BYBO. My feeling was that they'd had quite a while to put together that album and it didn't sound like something that took any time at all, not the arrangements, the performances or the songs. And I very much agree with you about "Girl Lying on a Beach" being among the highlights. Robert is probably overdoing the memory songs nowadays but when he does a good one--and "Girl Lying on a Beach" and "Darlinghurst Nights" are both good ones--he really excels. I don't know if the songs you've downloaded include "Mountains Near Dellray." For me, that is a great highlight, a masterpiece of effective simplicity. So much so that it could almost be a Grant McLennan song. It is also suggestive of the type of present-tense writing that Robert might want to consider more often. | ||
| Alex Bolton Member Username: Alexb Post Number: 14 Registered: 01-2006 |
Guy, I've just re read your previous post Quote: "Yes Ocean’s Apart is a “modern” recording, it’s aggressively compressed. I am absolutely convinced that the original master was flawed; the distortion was the most dramatic I’ve heard on any CD and a lot of the subtlety of the recording was lost". How do you know the problem was in the mastering? If I were in the GoBs I would make damn sure the final version all my fans listened to was what I intended them to hear. Surely Grant and Robert would have approved the master and signed off on it. If they didn't, and given the variations that can occur at this stage, then frankly they were negligent. Don't always assume the artist has perfect judgement here. As In noted Spring Hill Fair is a pretty "challenging" recording. But then presumably that was what they were happy with at the time. | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 146 Registered: 05-2005 |
Thanks Guy. You've saved me the bother of saying the same thing. | ||
| M. Mark Burgess Member Username: Fortysomething Post Number: 63 Registered: 05-2005 |
Apologies to Cosmo notwithstanding but does anyone know just how involved R & G are in their finished projects? I mean, some artists just go in and record and pretty much leave the rest of it up to others. Perhaps David Nichols would know, if he were still frequenting this board, or Lindy or R.V...... I'm thinking maybe they just aren't that involved in post-production and when the screw-up was brought to their attention they got something done about it? | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 77 Registered: 02-2005 |
M. Mark is right. As an example, Peter Buck has said that the recording process is pretty much over for him by the time they get to the mixing stage... mastering-schmastering. Alex, the reason I'm pretty sure the problem is in the mastering is that Mark Wallis' production company responded to my pointed email about the sound quality on 'Oceans Apart' with, "I think you'll find the problem is in the mastering." (See my post #2763 above). I tinker with music on SoundForge and have uploaded a couple of tracks from 'Oceans Apart.' They are the most dramatically compressed WAV files I've ever seen. I don't think there was a single sonic 'peak' that wasn't shaved-off as a plateau. The album goes beyond the worst standards of the current Loudness Wars. I would also say that I can't conceive of an "artistic" rationale for the bass sounds to deteriorate through the course of the album - I mean, we're not talking about The Swans or Throbbing Gristle here. Those are admittedly judgemental observations on my part, but as a 25-year fan of the group, I'm not going to abandon my own instincts. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 78 Registered: 02-2005 |
Alex wrote: "To further the point... Listening to Spring Hill Fair the other day I found several songs quite hard listening because of the presumably intentional sonic hardness. It benefits the intensity of Draining the Pool. But some tracks like Five Words are like punch in the face. Like OA it was probably an aesthetic decision to go for this sound; we can argue about whether it was the right one." Which version were you listening to; the original vinyl? BB reissue? double-disc reissue? Spring Hill Fair was a fairly "techie" recording for its time and the process left the band feeling a bit beleagured (rhythm tracks built up of Lindy's drum samples, etc.). They missed the organic recording process they'd experienced with 'Before Hollywood.' I'm sure you'll find that the most recent reissue sounds different from the original vinyl and I think it would be fair to say that the LP represents the group's original artistic intentions (or the closest to their intentions given the circumstances of the recording, pressures from their new label to make a "commercial-sounding" record, etc.). The remastered CD wasn't perfect - the output level of Bachelor Kisses is much lower than the balance of the album - and record companies do feel a need to somehow change or "juice up" the sonics on remasters. This usually equates with a bit of EQ tinkering to make the recording "brighter" (focusing attention on sonic details that might have been more subtle originally) and a bit of compression to make the CD louder than previous versions. The music-buying public is pretty well convinced that Louder=Better. The band's involvement and control over these details may be a lot less than you like to imagine. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 154 Registered: 03-2005 |
I'll chime in here a bit on the subject of the "juicing up" of remastered records. Quite frankly I'm totally in favor of it. "Tallulah" presents a perfect example of the value of doing this. I never heard the vinyl version but I had the previous BB single disc issue and there is no way it can compete with the gorgeous sound of the new version. I'm a big 60s music guy and I love it when somebody decides to remix the old 4 or 8 track masters. The result is invariably superior. I see no reason for folks to remain bogged down with quick and dirty mixes completed during the press of business when the recording was merely a bit of "product" on the record company's conveyor belt. Sure, maybe "Sgt. Pepper" actually received careful thought while being mixed and mastered but you can be sure that damn near nobody else's recordings did. And that undoubtedly goes for a (commercially) minor league act like the GoBees. I have a great example for you Triffids fans out there: the clumsy fade-in of "The Seabirds" does not sound like a conscious artistic decision. I'll bet there was some technical or musical gaffe in the song's intro and the band lacked either the clout, the money or the inclination to fix it. Unless that's just some botch on my 1988 White Hot reissue. I'm largely addressing the "Hoffmanites" referred to by Guy in his interesting entries. Those are the types who insisted on the reissue of early Beatles albums in mono when the four track masters would have mixed up very nicely into stereo and made it much easier to hear the individual instruments and voices. I believe I recall David Nichols saying that the GoBees normally had no part in the mastering process. And keep something in mind: they've been doing live stagework for many years; their ears may not be very good by now. They may not have been able to hear much of the defects on the OA master. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 79 Registered: 02-2005 |
Yeah, I'm not a Hoffmanite in that sense and generally prefer remasters, although I've sometimes been disappointed and sometimes annoyed that there's no perceptible difference. Using a few Rock Classics as examples: Jimi Hendrix: The Experience Hendrix remasters are a lot brighter than the LP's or the first CD issues and I love them. You can hear every nuance of Mitch Mitchell's drumming, but it doesn't overpower the mix. The Byrds: my favorite group as a young 'un and I think the remastered CD's are stunning. The Who: my only gripe with these is that the output levels aren't consistent from one disc to the next - bad for making comps and custom editions (Lifehouse, etc.) The presence of the bass in the mix varies quite a bit too (loudest on the very loud Odds & Sods remaster). Rolling Stones: their catalogue was SO in need of upgrade it was laughable. The Hoffmanites all swear by the German Decca CD's from the 80's, but the one I had, Aftermath, didn't sound anywhere near as good to my ears as the current remasters. I think a lot of those guys have very sensitive hearing and VERY expensive audio systems designed to tease-out every nuance of their favorite genre (say, post-bop jazz on vinyl). As a result, a lot of contemporary masters sound shrill and overbearing on their systems. They also probably listen to music at high volumes, just as my brother does; he's an audiophile and says it's important to build a "forgiving" system that's friendly to all genres of music. But what do I know... I only replace my mid-level components when they burn out and some of them are over 20-years old! Not that you need to be an audiophile to hear the distortion on the original issue of Oceans Apart ;o) | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 147 Registered: 05-2005 |
Guy, I love the idea of a "forgiving" system! | ||
| Alex Bolton Member Username: Alexb Post Number: 15 Registered: 01-2006 |
Guy I was listening to the CD version of SHF without the bonus tracks - reissued I think in the mid 80s. Heaven help us if its been "juiced up" anymore! I really think the production on that album doesn't do it any favours. One wonders whether that album really killed the first stage of their career - it certainly finished the record company. It starts of well with Bachelor Kisses which is totally unreresentative of the record. One does wonder whether the band had gone for a 16LL type record earlier in their careers they might have become more successful. Production is such a hit and miss affair isn't it? I prefer the slightyl more organic sound on Liberty Belle or the bigger rock acoustics of Tallulah. 16LL managed to be both lush and intimate. But then that reflects the songs I suppose. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 80 Registered: 02-2005 |
I do like 'Spring Hill Fair' and since I'm old enough to have followed the band starting with 'Before Hollywood,' I always felt that they were evolving in a positive way, leaping from strength to strength. I liked the lush pop of 'Bachelor Kisses' and 'Part Company,' I liked the edginess of the record, it was an interesting mix. In hindsight and having read about the frustrating recording process in France I now see the album as being a bit more transitional, but I still love it. And you're right in saying that it's a fairly harsh-sounding record... it certainly doesn't need to be put under a brighter sonic light. I don't know if the CD's did that or not; they sounded fine to my ears. Honestly, it's pretty tough for me to be critical of anything The Go-Betweens do. When people on this board dismiss 'Bright Yellow, Bright Orange' or shrug off most of their Mk.II work or any of their earlier albums, I'm baffled. 'Send Me A Lullaby' was a bit tentative and awkward, but once you get past that I love it all. I can be modestly critical of RF's 'Warm Nights' - inconsistent production - and I'm not a great fan of GM's 'In Your Bright Ray' - too slick. Otherwise I'm fairly smitten with everything they've done. Call me an obsessive fan. | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 81 Registered: 02-2005 |
I can’t seem to stop here… some last thoughts regarding Randy’s comments. The strange thing about the digital age is that there aren’t any industry standards. The vinyl medium had inherent sonic limitations; records could only be so loud, so bright, and the skill of the wax cutters was developed over many years. It was a tight-knit circle of professionals with good ears and estimable reputations. CD’s offer more freedom, but the skills and sensibilities of the mastering engineers varies a lot. There are many different “philosophies” regarding the do’s and don’ts of the process. The guy who mastered Oceans Apart – Astley (rhymes with ghastly) – is the most-loathed mastering engineer on the Hoffman board. He’s the guy who takes the most liberties with historic recordings, applies the most excessive compression and has the most cavalier attitude towards the artist’s original intentions. He’s also worked with artists who should excuse themselves from the process because their hearing is shot (ex: Pete Townshend). It’s no wonder he cocked-up The Go-Betweens album. I do go on the Steve Hoffman board and while I think a lot of those guys are obsessive-compulsive nuts, I have learned to listen with a more critical ear. We all feel like suckers when we re-buy an album for the third time and it can be a real con-job. It’s one thing if the true Master Tapes have been unearthed and the music is presented with a clarity and depth never-before heard. Technology has also improved and when it’s in the right hands the newly-mastered product can be well-worth the money. I think the recent Eno remasters are an example of this – beautiful sound. But I’ve finally learned to put on the brakes when I feel the impulse to rebuy an album for the umpteenth time. I’ve found that if I sit down with a six-pack of beer and do a vinyl transfer of a vintage album through the Radio Shack cables stretching across the floor I can create a CDR that has a warmth and clarity missing from many officially-issued CD’s. That sounds like a ridiculous claim, I’ve never been a vinyl purist, but it’s true. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 155 Registered: 03-2005 |
Guy, no argument whatsoever about excessive compression. It made sense for putting something across on the radio of a 1964 Mercury Meteor but does not make any kind of sense today. Your observations about copying old vinyl are interesting. Maybe I'd have a similar view if my old belt-driven Thorens didn't need to be helped to get up to speed and the stylus wasn't hopelessly worn out--along with the records themselves. It would be nice to hear my old Atco Lulu albums again . . . . | ||
| Guy Ewald Member Username: Guy_ewald Post Number: 82 Registered: 02-2005 |
I have a belt-driven Thorens too and always give it a little start-up boost... figure it helps keep the rubber band from wearing out :o) The vinyl-transfer process is tedious (very tedious at first) and there's a learning curve to it, but I've gotten systematic enough now that I enjoy it. Combing out the ticks and pops requires Zen-like patience if it's not a fairly clean LP. I shouldn't overstate the fidelity claims, but my vinyl transfers of stereo 'The Beatles For Sale' and 'A Hard Days Night' are hands-down better than the official mono product. I did a vinyl transfer of PiL's 'Metal Box'... I'm sure there's sonic degradation in the computer process (I have no idea what kind of sound card I have) but it does sound deeper/richer/better than the official 'Second Edition' CD. Sometimes it's a matter of economics; my time isn't THAT valuable and if I enjoy the process why not spend an evening making a CDR rather than springing big bucks for an OOP CD or an import copy? I scan the LP artwork and the LP labels and do 2-sided printing on the inserts. It's not going to be everyone's bag, but creating these miniatures seems to appeal to the kid in me... the one who spent long happy hours building model cars and fussing with Lionel trains and Strombecker road racing gear. | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 150 Registered: 05-2005 |
I listened to Oceans Apart mk2 on the iPod yesterday and it sounded great. There is still some distortion on Lavender and This Night's For You, but it is minute compared to what it was before. The distortion on other tracks seems to have been negated below my listening threshold. I have still not played OA mk2 on the hi-fi though. |