Non-Astley Who remasters from '96, one philistine's opinion...

OK, maybe I'm a philistine...

I know Astley's re-mixing/remastering of the Who's catalog is not appreciated around here. I need to preface this by stating that I'm a (relative) late-comer to the Who (first exposure was in the '80s), I have no vinyl (but I have no vinyl of anything, I'm strictly a CD guy), or any other versions of the original albums to compare against, only various CD hits comps. I don't know what the original mixes are "supposed" to sound like, I wasn't conditioned to expect anything...

So, I just ordered all of the non-Astley Who remasters from '96, these are all Bob Ludwig's work, a mastering engineer that I just LOVE, though I know some here are luke-warm. I got:

Who By Numbers

Who's Next

Quadrophenia

OK again, I don't know what these are "supposed" to sound like, but out of 3000 CDs in my collection, I would rate these remasters very very high. They sound EXCELLENT. I mean really, really good.

What's the matter with these? Why shouldn't I like them?

Maybe they are revisionist history, but isn't it *maybe* possible for a new mix of old material to be *superior* to the original? OK, sure it's not "the same" but doesn't that leave open the possibility that it's "better" and not automatically "worse" (for some people anyway)? Again, I'm not speaking from experience with the old mixes, only reacting to what I hear from the '96 remasters which sound fine to me.

Should I hand in my ears?

 

The original MCA of Quadrophenia (CD) IS excellent. Nice discs, and they're not remixes!

It's about what moves you though.

 

On the other hand, are you really qualified to comment without having heard any original mixes?

That's just as bad as damning the remixes without hearing them.

 

As I said, nope. But I am able to come with an open mind to the '96 remasters; I have no pre-conceived notions of what they are "supposed" to sound like. All I have are the other 3000 CDs in my collection (and maybe 5000 CDs I've owned over the years in total) to compare against to determine if basic sound quality is on par with what I would expect. As I said, on that score, the '96 Who CDs sound GREAT!


It seems like there are a MILLION ways to mix any particular recording. Why should we ASSUME that they got it right the first time with the technology/equipment they had on hand back then? Isn't it possible for artists to revisit their older material wiser and more experienced and with better equipment in hand, and come up with even better results? I think it's possible, though I'm not arguing it happens every time...

 

In addition, the original MCA Who By Numbers CD is excellent. It may also be my favorite Who album.

 

BTW, Who By Numbers is a friggin' lost classic. No one talks about this in the Who's cannon of classic albums, but holy cow is this GREAT!

 

I think I've missed something here. Any CD release of "Who By Numbers" and "Quadrophenia" on MCA prior to the Astley remasters/remixes were the original MCA CD masterings. What Bob Ludwig remasters from 96 are we talking about. Did I read the original post correctly...Markl,your saying the Ludwigs are remastered from 96 and these are the ones that sound great or the Astley remasters sound great. As far as "Who's Next" goes we all know about Steve's mastering and other versions up to Astley's version. I guess I'm just missing something on the original post about the non Astley 96 remasters.

Thanks,

JF

 

There is nothing the matter with them. Just because some people don't like them, others do.
It's all a matter of personal opinion.

Yes, some remixes could certainly be superior to the original ones. Just because something was done first, doesn't automatically make it definitive, superior, or "The One".

I wouldn't worry too much about what other people think on this board. Satisfy yourself.

 

Yes, it's the Ludwig '96 remasters that sound great to me. I am assuming they are re-mixed as well as remastered, others can calarify if that's correct. I know that the other '90's re-mixed and remastered Astley Who CDs are not appreciated here. Of those I only have Who Sell Out with all the bonus tracks. I also have the Tommy CD/SACD and the My Generation SACD as well as the CD version, all of which are Astley. I have to come clean and confess that I truly liked the Astley mastered Tommy, My Generation (both SACD and Redbook) as well as Who Sell Out. I also have the Astley mastered Ultimate Collection, a recent 2CD set. I also liked the sound of that as well...

I also like the '96 Who's Next with bonus tracks, who mastered this I don't know, it may not be Astley.

So this makes me a double-philistine-- not only do I like the Ludwig-remastered Who CDs, but I also like some of the more recent Astley versions. Should I be ex-communicated from the forums? Maybe, but until/unless I hear other, better versions, these sound pretty darn good to me (so sue me!)...

 

Ok Markl, now I understand. The 95,96 remasters are always "The Astley Remasters"...I checked the booklets....Produced and Remixed by Jon Astley & Andy Macpherson. Remastered by Bob Ludwig. Astley always takes the fall for these due to the remixing among other things....anyway...just thought I'd clear it up,at least for myself and anyone else.....hey,bottom line if it sounds good to ya....enjoy!!!!!!

JF

 

I'm sure many people simply dislike them on principle because they are not the original mixes. If you've heard something the same way for 30 years it's hard to get used to it, whether it's a better mix or not.

 

I also recommend the MFSL Quadrophenia, Who Are You and Tommy. Very nice sounding discs IMHO.

Too bad you are not into vinyl as The Phases Box set is awesome!!

 

Bob Ludwig also mastered the Tommy remix CD. In general, I don't think people really criticize the mastering on these discs much (except for the clicking noises on Tommy, which apparently weren't Ludwig's fault). People object to the remixing, since in most cases it is radical remixing, resulting in substantially different albums. As opposed to the MacPherson discs, which some people dislike the mastering on, and the Astley discs, which most everyone dislikes the mastering on.

 

I think it's one thing to collect opinions and get ideas of what others think, but it's another to uniformly toe the company line. Clearly people are often sheepish about posting opinions that go against the SH Forum Conventional Wisdom. That's why we'll get occasional threads like this or about the 1993 McCartney CDs where someone is clearly nervous about saying they like those remasters.

Anyway, I agree that if you're not open to others' ideas, there's no reason to participate here. But I think the point of the message to which you replied would be that no one should feel bad because they don't agree with the Conventional Wisdom. It's fairly understated, but there IS peer pressure to go along with various concepts (Mew = bad, etc.), and it's tough to offer a contrary opinion.

However, if someone comes on here and unilaterally doesn't like Steve's work, THEN they're be stupid. Alternate opinions are great, but to go to someone's personal site when you don't like them would be rude and asinine...

 

Markl,

listen closely to "Behind Blue Eyes" on your Astley Who's Next CD, especially the beginning. What do you hear?

(By the way, Who's Next was remastered by Astley, not Ludwig.)

Also, the remixes of Who By Numbers and Quadrophenia do sound good when judged on their own. It is just that these remixes were totally unnecessary. The originals are fine and have that great raw vintage Who sound.

 

I think it is important to go against the SH Forum Conventional Wisdom, if necessary. When I joined, I found that the Genesis remasters received undivided praises, and the RCA Gold CD of Surrealistic Pillow was described as identical to the 2001 remaster. I disagree with both of these "wisdoms", and I am not hesitant to post about it.

 

The original UK CD of "Nursery Crymes" is still the best CD version.

 

My undertanding is that the Ludwig remasters have always been considered good. The only problem is:

- they're remixes
- "Tommy" is covered in digital clicks

Besides that, they're great. The single-disc "Live At Leeds" is one of my favorites.

When Astley began doing the mastering himself - that's when everything went down the toilet.

 

And the problem with attempting to have fidelity to the "original" is that it doesn't exist, at least not for these older recordings.

Back 30 years ago, both listeners and studio engineers were using speakers quite different from what is available now. As such, no one today is really listening to the same album (with, I suppose, the possible exception of the handful of people that still use 1970 stereo systems!).

The details that are brought forth by today's remastering technology were not audible back then, and automatically constitute a divergence from the original that is often just as significant as a full remix. (This aside from the fact that remastering often shifts the tonal balance enough to constitute a remix - by raising and lowering instruments relative to others - for example, cymbals are far more prominent in modern remasters than in the 1970's studio monitors.)

So, a remix is not so heretical as it might look at the start, and in fact, can actually be closer to the original than a remastering of the mix tapes.

 

I am aware of that. I wish you would have the time to listen to some of these controversial remasters (Supertramp, Genesis, Steely Dan, Yes, Rolling Stones) and post your thoughts.

 

And with respect, the mix tape is not the original.

When the engineers, producer and musicians are involved in creating the mix tape, they are listening to the speakers, not the tape. They hear a sound created by those speakers.

A remastering engineer 30 years later, using state-of-the-art equipment, is not hearing the same thing when he listens to the same mix tape.