'More Power To Ya' and 'This Means War' to be reissued.

[brent]

The remastering process does sometimes involved remixing, but it'll still say "Remastered" on the cover.

Those are two different processes. These two processes are completely different, done in two distinctly different environments, with distinctly different gear. True remixing requires the discrete tracks and documentation. Remastering requires the master tapes, or virgin copies, and that is it. That is not to say some remastering has not included remixing, but this is not normal, as most studios retain the multi tracks, and most studios from the old days are bankrupt and gone. This is why that stuff shows up on ebay. Most of it was not stored in a tape vault or a climate/humidity controlled room, was stored in a hot, humid mini storage, and is worth jack.

We now have software that allows us to remove reverb, vocals, some instrumentation and then add new elements to the mix. All of this is done without going back to the raw tracks on tape/hard-drive. It is spooky what we can do now. So, while some of it appears to have been remixed in the traditional sense, it can just be manipulated with DSP and augmented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNdZ-Liz ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp_tkFuzn3E

[brent]

...a big yawn...EMI is cheap. My only interest would be hearing the FULL solos that were edited down for CD.

[Boray]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNdZ-Liz ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp_tkFuzn3E

Cool! And R-Mix doesn't seem to be very expensive either. But is the sound quality of these things really acceptable?

[Mountain Man]

The remastering process does sometimes involved remixing, but it'll still say "Remastered" on the cover.

Those are two different processes. These two processes are completely different, done in two distinctly different environments, with distinctly different gear. True remixing requires the discrete tracks and documentation. Remastering requires the master tapes, or virgin copies, and that is it. That is not to say some remastering has not included remixing, but this is not normal, as most studios retain the multi tracks, and most studios from the old days are bankrupt and gone. This is why that stuff shows up on ebay. Most of it was not stored in a tape vault or a climate/humidity controlled room, was stored in a hot, humid mini storage, and is worth jack.

We now have software that allows us to remove reverb, vocals, some instrumentation and then add new elements to the mix. All of this is done without going back to the raw tracks on tape/hard-drive. It is spooky what we can do now. So, while some of it appears to have been remixed in the traditional sense, it can just be manipulated with DSP and augmented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNdZ-Liz ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp_tkFuzn3E

I realize that that there are different processes at work. My point is that even full-on remixes from original studio tapes, such as what was done with the Beatles catalog recently, are still advertised as "remasters", but they also call it "remastering" when an analog master is simply transferred to a digital medium. It has become a rather fluid marketing buzzword that can literally mean anything the publisher wants it to mean. I've seen films on DVD that were boasted to have been remastered to digital despite there being significant flaws in the picture quality and video signal. I've seen other remastered films that were so flawless that it's stunning (the Bluray version of 2001: A Space Odyssey is one such example).

All I'm saying is that when it says "remastered" on the label, it's a bit of a crapshoot as to what you're actually going to get.

[brent]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNdZ-Liz ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp_tkFuzn3E

Cool! And R-Mix doesn't seem to be very expensive either. But is the sound quality of these things really acceptable?

R-Mix has been out for a while in another form, under another name. It sounds fine. As with all things DSP, there are some artifacts, but those are easily masked in the mix.

There are cooler tools than this, mostly used in the forensic audio field.

[cndfogie]

Like EMI is going to spend the money to get this remaster the RIGHT way with ears that have an appreciation for what this classic should be dealt with. I doubt I will purchase this. They would have to make some drastic changes to this as a remaster to get many people to buy it.

[brent]

It will not sound better. Remastered usually = removing all of the dynamic range by smashing the liven'-crap out of it with a limiter, and then EQ'ing it to put some top end and low end back into it, giving it a "modern" curve. Some younger cookie-cutter "mastering" engineer will do it, because that "is what we do". I will not buy it either. I hope nobody does. I hope all fans take their money and buy the current albums. They do not pick engineers who know the music. Most engineers in this line of work do not know many of the artists they master. They listen from a different place, with a different set of ears. They do not hear the message, but hear the words...it's hard to explain. I get that way. I can be totally oblivious to messages sometimes, because I am listening like someone who has exploded a digital picture and is looking at the pixels. Some of you guys do this. You get it, right?

[executioner]

It will not sound better. Remastered usually = removing all of the dynamic range by smashing the liven'-crap out of it with a limiter, and then EQ'ing it to put some top end and low end back into it, giving it a "modern" curve. Some younger cookie-cutter "mastering" engineer will do it, because that "is what we do". I will not buy it either. I hope nobody does. I hope all fans take their money and buy the current albums. They do not pick engineers who know the music. Most engineers in this line of work do not know many of the artists they master. They listen from a different place, with a different set of ears. They do not hear the message, but hear the words...it's hard to explain. I get that way. I can be totally oblivious to messages sometimes, because I am listening like someone who has exploded a digital picture and is looking at the pixels. Some of you guys do this. You get it, right?

I get it. There are many times I just listen to an artist just to listen to a certain thread of a song or a certain portion; I basically blocked out all other sounds coming from the song.

[Mountain Man]

It will not sound better. Remastered usually = removing all of the dynamic range by smashing the liven'-crap out of it with a limiter, and then EQ'ing it to put some top end and low end back into it, giving it a "modern" curve.

In light of recent discussions about the production quality of older Petra albums, I'm fairly certain that some fans here will love it.

The only way I would ever be interested in remastered Petra albums is if the original producers were brought in to oversee the process.

[brent]

I think that it will be a cold one in the pit before that happens.

[Pethead94]

I'm actually excited about this... It's hard to find affordable cd copies of these classics.
I hope I get both for my upcoming 18th.

[brent]

In most cases there is some remixing included in the remastering process.

Not so, especially in this case. EMI does not have the multi-track tapes and session data. They only have pressing masters. Everything they are doing is from pressing masters, which are processed and formatted for a specific format. I have this from the man in charge of the assets himself.

[rexreed]

It will not sound better. Remastered usually = removing all of the dynamic range by smashing the liven'-crap out of it with a limiter, and then EQ'ing it to put some top end and low end back into it, giving it a "modern" curve.

In light of recent discussions about the production quality of older Petra albums, I'm fairly certain that some fans here will love it.

The only way I would ever be interested in remastered Petra albums is if the original producers were brought in to oversee the process.

Same folks? Right...so it will sound the same?

[brent]

There would never be a remix, because the studios usually held on to those, and all of those studios are long gone by now. Also, they did the drums on a sequencer after NOTW. John Lawry told about how they sequenced some of those records, and there would now be no way to recover and/or reproduce some of that. I am not sure if the others were sub mixed on the console and went straight to the master out, or returned those to the multitrack on stereo tracks. Again, Mr. Greene at EMI told me that EMI only has pressing/production masters of their assets.

IF someone could come up with the session documentation, multitrack tapes and files (and if the digital machine, computer and or sequencer used was still around) I would like for someone who knows Petra, or has done quality production for them in the past, to come back, retrack the drums and then remix.

IF there were demand for this, EMI would do it. They would sell their mothers to make a buck. They are attorneys and accountants. That's it. But they will never do it. The best thing that could happen would be for John Lawry to get everyone in to the studio and recreate everything from scratch, so that they all get some money out of it, instead of it going to EMI.

[Mountain Man]

The best thing that could happen would be for John Lawry to get everyone in to the studio and recreate everything from scratch, so that they all get some money out of it, instead of it going to EMI.

Which is basically Back to the Rock.