So, has anyone heard the new Peter Gabriel remasters?

[Shoes4Industry]

I notice they're out today. I also noted that they're being reissued on vinyl. Anyone know if they're sourced from analog? Remixed?

Thanks

[Drew]

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to ask this question today. I intend to buy one or two on the way home from work. I should probably buy SO or Security because those are the ones I'm most familiar with and could notice any difference with the original CD, but it would also be nice to buy something I don't have like his first solo album. Decisions. Decisions.

:D

I thought these were supposed to be released as DVD-Audio or SACD. I really thought this might pull me off the fence so I would have a reason to buy into one of the new high-rez formats. They'll probably come out in about 6 months right after I've finished upgrading to these new remastered CD's.

[Drew]

OK I bought SO and his solo debut. A smarter person than I would've probably bought the remastered Shaking the Tree compilation as a test sampler but I walked into the store optimistic that they would sound good (translation: hoping/praying). I've never owned his solo debut, so I'm not sure if I'm the one to do the comparing on this disc, and I've never owned PG on vinyl.


I know Tullman said previously that he acquired a copy of Shaking the Tree and he thought it was analytical and had too much edge. But with all due respect, I think SO sounds much better than the original CD. It also sounds like a flat transfer to me but there is more detail. There is more separation between the instruments without the bass and treble being unnaturally extended. This album was never dominated by lead guitar or really any midrange instrument but if I were to pick something that I'm disappointed with is that I hoped for a little more midrange magic. The soundstage might not be as 3D as some of my DCC Gold discs but its not as flat as the original. This comparison was done as a direct A/B comparison with the original CD.

Pretty much the same with the solo debut. I'm not really the authority on comparing this album to the original CD but I think Robert Fripp's guitar in Solsbury Hill is very clean without being shrill or abrasive (like most of the Rhino CD's I've owned).


The light on my HDCD equipped HK CD player doesn't come on so I don't know what technology they used for the remastering. I've heard alot worse than this and a lot brighter/digital sounding CD's than this (the Rush remasters come to mind). But unless someone can convince me SACD's or DVD-Audio's are right around the corner (in which case I'd have to buy a player for one of these formats), I might be buying a few more of these PG remasters.

[JohnG]

I think the new PG remasters sound fine. In fact the first 3 PG releases have never sounded better. Now I can throw away those muddy sounding initial cd releases from way back.
I was lucky to get all the remasters early and I have been enjoying them immensely for the past 2 weeks.

Worth the upgrade.:)


JohnG

[KLM]

Please let it be so. I've been really looking forward to these remasters and ordered the entire set in the imported lp style cd coming out later this month. Not that it will make any difference since they are coming anyway, but I would like to hear if anyone else has some opinions on this one. I look forward to doing my own comparrisons but really hope that these new remasters are better than the originals (especially Plays Live which was the worse sounding of the bunch IMO).

[Uncle Al]

OK - so here's a conundrum....

I never bought into PG on digital - I always relied on my vinyl. The first lp always sounded... ok, nothing spectacular. "So" was one of the last vinyl lp's I purchased at a "record store", before it became a CD shoppe.

Can anyone compare the sound to the original vinyl? "So" was one of the last lp's I purchased when vinyl was dominant (the other's were Paul Simons Graceland and the Police's Synchronicity). All of the aforementioned ALWAYS sounded fine (read: at very least, very good) to me. Should I finally take the "digital plunge" on this these titles? Be aware that I am NOT upset with what I have.

[Tullman]

No one has answered the question to whether the vinyl would sound any better than the cd. I believe PG recorded digitally. I can't see how making an analog recording from a digital source would sound better than just going direct digital to digital, unless the engineers make a mix to analog and then back to digital for the master. Maybe Steve can answer this question.

I agree with Drew, I think these sound better than the original releases. I just think they could have done better in the midrange department. I did have to turn down the volume on these recordings. I'm sure they goosed the gain to appease those with cheap walkmans, boomboxes and car stereos.

[TSmithPage]

I've just picked up So so far (on sale for $12.99 at Best Buy), which was my favorite of his releases. The price point is probably going to discourage me from replacing most of my others, as I didn't think the sound quality was that bad in the first place. By the time they start reissuing things, I think the labels should drop the CD to midline pricing at least, unless they are going to give us a bonus disc, Hoffman mastering or something. It's hard to justify paying full list price for a 20+ year old CD that you already own unless you get something more than remastering for your money. This is true especially given that remastering has proven to be such a hit or miss proposition. that said, I'll probably buy them all eventually, but I may wait until they turn up used, as promos or on ebay...

[Joseph]

Todd,

Have you had a chance to compare the old So with the new remastered So?

[TSmithPage]

Originally posted by Tangent
Todd,

Have you had a chance to compare the old So with the new remastered So?

I've only had time to play it in the car, so it's not a fair assessment. It does sound clean and absent of distortion, not terribly bright sounding. One thing that irked me, however, is that he changed the track listing, moving "In Your Eyes" from the middle of the CD to the last track on the CD. After listening to it the other way for 18 or so years, it's a bit annoying for him to move this song around on the remaster. I guess we can look forward to a future remaster in which the original order of songs is now restored!

[Tullman]

I just checked Amazon. What is the difference between the domestic and import limited editions??? I know the price difference is ten dollars.

[Carl Hoffmann]

From the Peter Gabriel website:

"When the albums were originally mastered Vinyl was the principle format. Because record players can track more complex music better at the outside of the disk, the running order of SO was determined by the format rather than by Peter. So there may be some subtle changes in the re-mastered versions."

[peterC]

Originally posted by Carl Hoffmann
From the Peter Gabriel website:

"When the albums were originally mastered Vinyl was the principle format. Because record players can track more complex music better at the outside of the disk, the running order of SO was determined by the format rather than by Peter. So there may be some subtle changes in the re-mastered versions."

Hmm....subtle as a .....sledgehammer!!

[KLM]

What is the difference between the domestic and import limited editions??? I know the price difference is ten dollars.

My understanding is the UK imports are cases in the mini lp style cardboard casing with additional artwork/photographs versus the US digipak or plastic cases. The cds themselves are the same. I ordered the UK versions which are due later this month.

Anxiously awaiting.

[Dan C]

Originally posted by Tullman
No one has answered the question to whether the vinyl would sound any better than the cd. I believe PG recorded digitally. I can't see how making an analog recording from a digital source would sound better than just going direct digital to digital, unless the engineers make a mix to analog and then back to digital for the master. Maybe Steve can answer this question.

I agree with Drew, I think these sound better than the original releases. I just think they could have done better in the midrange department. I did have to turn down the volume on these recordings. I'm sure they goosed the gain to appease those with cheap walkmans, boomboxes and car stereos.

The 4th album (Secturity) was all digital and I think his following albums were all or mostly digital.

BTW, I've noticed that Classic is advertising that they'll issue his 1st album on vinyl soon. Anyone know if they're handling all of the vinyl?
Dan C

[Carl Hoffmann]

From the Peter Gabriel website:

"We also hope to re-release the whole catalogue on Vinyl throughout 2002."

[Rspaight]

I seem to recall reading at the time that So was a mix of analog and digital elements, as PG was unhappy with the way some instruments sounded in digital, and the way others sounded in analog.

Much like Pink Floyd's Momentary Lapse of Reason, which was digital except for the drums and bass which were recorded analog.

Ryan

[Joseph]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drew
OK I bought [B]SO and his solo debut. A smarter person than I would've probably bought the remastered Shaking the Tree compilation as a test sampler but I walked into the store optimistic that they would sound good (translation: hoping/praying). I've never owned his solo debut, so I'm not sure if I'm the one to do the comparing on this disc, and I've never owned PG on vinyl.

I have found that sometimes compilations do not sound quite as good as the actual albums that the songs are from (even if they were all mastered at the same time).

Anybody have the same experience? Anybody know or guess as to why?

[Shoes4Industry]

I have import vinyl for his fist album, third, and fourth and they all sound better than the the old cds (even "Security" which was recorded in digital). I'm going to need a real improvement over the vinyl to justify repurchasing my cds. I notice that the reissue vinyl is showing up "special order" on the amazon UK site...I may have to get one of these and see how they are.

[Claviusb]

I picked up So yesterday, and was immediately disappointed. Listening without hearing the original disc in quite a while, I was immediately struck by the lack of dynamic range throughout the remaster. I kept being jarred at places where I remembered there being crescendos but with this disc there was no place for the music to swell to, it's all the same level-- like the entire CD was normalized.

By the same token, I think the levels of a number of elements were boosted. I'm far from a technical person when it comes to the ins and outs of music recording, but to my ears the disc sounds like it was remixed, and not just remastered. Stuff like the voices of the female singers echoing "This is the new stuff" on Sledgehammer were pulled way up in the mix, I believe.

The other thing that I found disorienting was that the soundstage seemed really squished. For lack of a better thought, the sound seemed like it had been "cubed," like processed meat.

As others have noted, the sound of the So remaster is not shrill, or thin like so many other remasters, it's something they got right! On the other side of the coin, this may also be where they screwed up, because I kept thinking about the tonality of the material as I listened to it, an idea gleaned from Steve's posts. Even the material that sounded "clearer" (an attribute that I felt came from compressing some elements which had been louder before while boosting some elements that were softer before) didn't seem to have the right tonality to me. Maybe it was just wishful thinking, but I felt I could hear in my mind's eye the way Steve would've corrected this stuff, and got the tone of the instrument right-- assuming that info was on the tape to begin with. I thought the tonality was off because I felt some elements sounded clear and veiled at the same time (like they were boosted in the mix but EQed incorrectly).

I couldn't stand it any more, I pulled out my old copy of So. OK, well-- they definitely messed with Tony Levin's bass, and again-- I can hear that the tonality was right the first time. There is no bite to Mr. Levin's bass now. The soundstage is not really wide, but it's much wider than the remaster on my system. The dynamics are the way I remembered them and the tone... ah, the tone...

Listening to So again after a long time, I know it's the closest thing PG ever came to putting out a "happy" album, but it's still pretty dark to me... at least the original CD is anyway. But this remastered disc is like all of those movies that Lucas and Spielberg keep diddling with until they change the original intent.

Imagine a classic Humphrey Bogart film noir movie like "The Maltese Falcon" being "restored" so that all the scenes take place during the middle of the day in brightly lit rooms (in other words, lit like a comedy). That's what I feel we have in the So remaster. It's not bright in the conventional sense (as far as audio terms go), but it is over-lit, IMHO.

Let me zip up the old flame-retardant suit...

[krabapple]

Originally posted by Rspaight
I seem to recall reading at the time that So was a mix of analog and digital elements, as PG was unhappy with the way some instruments sounded in digital, and the way others sounded in analog.

Much like Pink Floyd's Momentary Lapse of Reason, which was digital except for the drums and bass which were recorded analog.

Ryan

"So" was AAD (analog record and mix, digital master)

Says so right on the CD ;> Security was DDD..a big deal was made of this at the time.

I have the first two albums as remasters, and they are
*definitely* improvements on the old CDs and LPs. The opening
of 'Moribund the Burgomeister' is finally coming through as something more than bassy sludge + reverb.

They even managed some magic on Robert Fripp's bizarre production
job on 'II'. That one's my favorite , musically, but it always sounded more or less dire. Now it has some real bottom end!

I'm ordering the rest of the catalog post-haste. (Though I can't imagine them making 'Passion' sound much better -- it's already stunning).

[Rspaight]

I have the first two albums as remasters, and they are
*definitely* improvements on the old CDs and LPs. The opening
of 'Moribund the Burgomeister' is finally coming through as something more than bassy sludge + reverb.

That's what I'm interested in -- I've got a nifty little box of "picture CDs" on UK Virgin of the first three, and the sound (especially on the first two) is pretty awful. Wall of Mud. If the new ones improve on that any, I'm there.

I'm not all that dissatisfied with the way Security, So and Us sound, so if the remasters offer small improvement or are actually worse (as Clavius opines), then I don't mind ignoring them.

Ryan

[Claviusb]

You may actually like the way the remaster of So sounds, don't let my review scare you-- decide for yourself! I've looked at a number of reviews of the PG remasters (everybody over at Audio Asylum is raving about them too) and I'm the only person who's had anything negative to say about any of the discs.

I picked up Security (my personal favorite Peter Gabriel disc) just to give these remasters another chance (because I see I'm the sole dissenter), and maybe it was because I was having a bad day yesterday, but I turned the disc off before I finished it. I didn't compare it with my ancient copy of the disc, but I plan to.

There is more clarity (the various drums at the end of The Rhythm of the Heat are all clearly delineated, though I could hear them all before, I'm imagining from people's comments of muddiness, others couldn't), some things are there that I never heard before at all-- but to me there is also something that is very non-musical permeating what I'm hearing, and I can't put my finger on what that is.

One section that really bugged me was in the song "San Jacinto." There is a part of the song where there are several instruments playing and then there is just the sound of, I don't know, chimes or something (maybe it's a synthesizer)-- in my mind I visualize an Indian coming to some great precipice and when the chimes kick in, a free-fall, the man turning into an eagle or some large bird that the camera in my mind follows over rocks and canyons (following the song, of course-- it's my little music video playing in my brain). OK, well-- now that you all think I'm doing some great drugs, my point is-- when I came to that part of the song on the remaster, I imagined the Indian tripped and fell because the leap was about 2 feet. The sound is like this long solid set of tones. I keep thinking the best description I've read was Perter C.'s comment "subtle as a sledgehammer!" That really sums it up for me.

I do feel that Security sounds closer to right than So, but you may not have the same issues that I do. If anything, I'd love to hear more viewpoints rather than have people take my word as final say. :D

[Rspaight]

I'll probably end up getting the first couple, then going from there depending on how I like them. I've got a big ol' soft spot for the first album, and am willing to risk $15 to perhaps get a better version.

Don't worry Clavius -- I intend to make my own judgements. Your thoughts were exceptionally well-put, and I certainly will keep them in the back of my head, along with the other more positive stuff I've read.

If I didn't just spend $4000 on a new roof for my house last month, I'd be listening to these as we speak!

Ryan

[KLM]

Well, I finally got a chance to listen to the remastered SO album. WOW, this really sounds great. I always used this album as a test cd for auditioning stereo equipment and am therefore quite familar with it. I always thought it was a good recording with great songs. I would now say the new remastered version is a great collection of songs with GREAT sound.

I was actually surprised by how big an improvement the newly remastered version is. It sounds less brittle than before, a wider frequency response with an increased soundstage. I hope the rest of the remasters sound as good as this one. Highly recommended.