TMW 25th anniv remastered released today

[executioner]

I feel sorry for this generation of music listeners, they don't have a clue what they're missing out on.

[Boray]

Hmmm, I thought you liked that kind of mixes exe, for example is Jekyll & Hyde a good example of this kind of over compression.

[executioner]

Hmmm, I thought you liked that kind of mixes exe, for example is Jekyll & Hyde a good example of this kind of over compression.

Too me JAH doesn't sound over compressed; it has a live raw feel(I love live albums) to it and sounds great. I think you are the only one I've ever seen that has said its over compressed. At the CP show in Texas I got to talk to Bob some about the JAH album and he said its the most fun he ever had in making an album and would really like to get back to that in future sometime, so IMO this leaves open the way for the Farewell lineup to make another album in the future.

[brent]

J&H is the perfect example of over compression as an effect/style. Everything was stomped to death on that record.

[rexreed]

One of the things I disliked about J&K was the sound- reminded me of a Newsboys album. Good ole Peter Furler, first he tell Bob that guitar solos are out and then he crushes the audio.

[brent]

The people that said solos were out could not play a good solo if they had to do it or die.

[AntonW]

TMW original cd is so low dynamically you can't hear it all. By the time you turn it up it's a muddy mess sound. The new remaster is so much better on the ears - louder, clearer, crisper. Whatever you say about compression means nothing if you just put everything down and just enjoy the sound. Loving TMW 25 - so much better than my original. And yes I was listening to this 25 years ago too

[Boray]

J&H is the perfect example of over compression as an effect/style. Everything was stomped to death on that record.

Nice to agree with you for a change!

[brent]

TMW original cd is so low dynamically you can't hear it all. By the time you turn it up it's a muddy mess sound. The new remaster is so much better on the ears - louder, clearer, crisper. Whatever you say about compression means nothing if you just put everything down and just enjoy the sound. Loving TMW 25 - so much better than my original. And yes I was listening to this 25 years ago too

1. Your terminology is wrong. But I hear what you are saying. But, when the volume of the disc is lower, you have MORE dynamic range. That means there is room for the peaks in the signal to be reproduced accurately. The louder the average level is, the LESS dynamic range you have.

Back then, they were recording and mastering in 16-bit digital, which only has 98dB of dynamic range. Today we record with 24-bit, which has 144dB (unlimited for music) dynamic range.

2. If you have issues with sound quality when you crank that disc, you have an inferior sound system. Increasing volume of that CD will not make the sound muddier. The frequency response is what it is on the disc. Any changes are on you and your system. Again, I do understand that you like it louder. You like less dynamic range.

3. What we say about compression is true. Just because you do not know how works, what it does, and how to listen for it, does not mean that it is not so.

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

http://www.sharoma.com/loudness_war.htm

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/a ... udness.htm

[zman7720000]

So, I agrree with everything! But why do i like listening to LPs more? To me thay have better range.

[brent]

LP has a vibe that strikes a chord with you on many levels. It is not because it sounds better. LPs are more romantic to me. I prefer them for some types of music, but not rock.

Toward the end of vinyl, mastering engineers were pushed to make them louder as well. They pushed the limits of the vinyl. So some have more dynamics than others. What you may not know is that the first runs usually were of a thicker, better sounding quality. Depending upon the sales, the record club, or retailer, there would be different runs with different thicknesses, and hence completely different sounds. Most retailers would not accept record club records because of this.

No matter what, vinyl has very little channel separation compared to CD. This crosstalk equates to less of a stereo image than CD provides. The vinyl records cannot have sub bass like CDs can. The stylus that cuts the master is not allowed to cut frequencies under 50Hz. So, you get some kick, but you will be missing most of the Low E on a 4 string bass, and the Low B on a 5 string. Vinyl records cannot produce the same frequencies consistently, from beginning to end. This is why vinyl albums are arranged differently, not only to accommodate song run times, but frequency response requirements. But, vinyl has more dynamic range than any digital recording allows. That is a plus. vinyl has a sound, a warmth on the bottom and a sheen on top. I like it.

The thing is, the vinyl has a sound, and that sound is great affected by the stylus, whether you use moving magnet or moving coil cartridges. Moving coil is much more sophisticated and articulate, but it yields a lower output, and more surface noise. The moving magnet yields a higher output, but is less accurate. Moving magnet works better for rock. Coil works better for classical. Of these two types, there are millions of variances that change the sound.

Then we have the RIAA EQ curve in the preamp, and the phono preamp circuit itself, and how it loads the cartridge. There are lots of variables that change the sound for better or worse. Synergy of components is important.

[petrafied]

I have a question.

On itunes I will switch from alot of different petra/john schlitt albums. And if I go from The Greater Cause to This Means War (regular cd, no remastering). the volume will be extremely different. Is this because new cds, to be considered modern, have to be loud, or is this a more complex system with newer systems to produce music.

Also the david crowder band, for their last album made both, cds and vinyl. The vinyl was alot more money (I dont remember the amount, but it was like 20 dollars more) and the vinyl version sold out by the time I saw it. So... is this a good idea for John Schlitt and Classic Petra. Or is this something that would hurt rather than help.

[curt]

Releasing Classic Petra on vinyl might be a good idea.

Vinyl is getting more and more popular. A lot of people feel that they really get what they pay for when buying vinyl because they are big, pictures are big, and in almost every way they differ from digital products. So vinyl sells quite well. Some prefer to have a physical media. Personally I'm not into that by any means. But there is a market for that.

And by all means “Classic” and “vinyl” seem to go along quite well. So I guess it would work (but it might be expensive to get the production started. I've got no idea about that.)

[brent]

Vinyl costs exponentially more to produce. It always has. There is much more waste and variance in quality.

I don't think it would matter much if they re-issued on vinyl. I would not waste my money, I will say that.

Back in the day, there was a competition between labels to have a sound that set them apart. There is no standard volume in digital. Levels are relative. That is the difference. The album is comprised of songs. The songs vary in volume because of the composition, sounds, etc. So an average volume is established based on the songs. If all of the songs are loud rockers, with little dynamics, the whole album will be louder than an album with a bunch of ballads and orchestration. Compression is used to level things out.

I don't know what masters exist fully. I only know EMI has the full catalog of pressing masters. Pressing masters are THE things used in manufacturing the CDs, the LPs, the cassette tapes, etc. They cannot be remastered per se, to change them. If an old Petra record was pressed on vinyl once, it can be again. If it did not, they could take a CD master and make a vinyl master out of it. You cannot take a vinyl pressing master and make a good sounding CD master out of it. They are two completely different things. Just about all of the Petra records, aside from the Inpoops, were released in foreign markets on vinyl. I know that the pressed radio discs for the US market. I am not sure about LPs for sale in the USA.

[executioner]

Releasing Classic Petra on vinyl might be a good idea.

Vinyl is getting more and more popular. A lot of people feel that they really get what they pay for when buying vinyl because they are big, pictures are big, and in almost every way they differ from digital products. So vinyl sells quite well. Some prefer to have a physical media. Personally I'm not into that by any means. But there is a market for that.

And by all means “Classic” and “vinyl” seem to go along quite well. So I guess it would work (but it might be expensive to get the production started. I've got no idea about that.)

I agree; I'm not sure what the cost would be but there is a market out there for this. There are plenty of Petra fans out there that would buy one I know I would. It would be great for a rerelease of all their albums, but I'm not sure how it all could happen; too many people to sign off on it.