Genesis Remix v. Orignal Clip...

the remix sounds like sizziling fat on a frying pan.

even at $50 I'm gonna pass on the bestbuy box set and hope against hope that the Gabriel era titles are given more care.

 

question for jamie

From Jamie Tate

I don't have the expertise to explain what I am hearing but what you have said here I totally agree with. The Genesis in 5.1 is not terrible, it could have been better but the way the mixing/mastering does not ruin my listening experience(in 5.1). After reading some Of Nick's updates from mastering over past couple of years I had high hopes that the Genesis catalogue would be some of the best 5.1 music around. It is to bad as the Genesis catalogue did deserve to be in the best of class.

Jamie, I am curious, have you ever sent Nick a private message asking him why he made some of the choices he did.

 

I don't think I communicated myself very well about remixing. For me, the interest is not in correcting mixing choices in the past (I think this rarely would need to be done), it's about having an alternative version out there. A lot of New Wave artists were into alternative or extended mixes, and I got into a few of those. I still want the original mix to be the standard, but if there is a (nice sounding!) Nick Davis mix also available, why wouldn't I want that choice? It's like if there is a live album out there with the same material, but recorded on different dates - I might want both even though the performances are pretty close.

I know the original rationale was that the original mixes were rushed, etc. I don't think these remixes turned out well at all, but it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me that there could be a remix I might like. I'm not looking for hyper-detail, or bringing everything to the forefront, I'd just be curious in hearing different (nice sounding!) mixing choices.

 

I like it

the remix that is...seriously

no, I'm not a troll

I always found the original Atlantic issues on CD to be very dull. I'm not saying that the remasters are great sounding either, but if I had my druther...

I'm just saying

 

Hey Nick.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

You know, it *is* possible someone may actually like the remix, just not the mastering.

 

You beat me to it!

 

But the mastering isn't the problem.

 

I think this is just like the John Lennon remasters. That is the loudness and other assorted nasties are on the remix master. But I don't think that's clear to everyone, Jamie.

 

I think it's a combo here. As I could care less about the 2.0 on these releases, I don't have a vested interest. There are two aspects to a remix: fixing the balance/panning/placement of instruments and/or voices, and then re-EQing. So the mix itself may be preferred by some, but the EQ choices made during the mixing process, compounded by mastering choices, can have negative effects.

So I can look at a mix in two ways. Of course when you remix, you always have to do some re-EQing since original settings may not work right in the new world. I've had that happen to me on projects.

 

I understand completely. I am in a studio quite frequently. But EQ choices are only part of a mix. They can kill it - no doubt - but there's more to a remix than EQ choices.

 

I can't for the life of me think of anyone I know personally who would like these. There are remixes out there from other artists that are inferior, but *not quite* like this. The overall balances of the tracks in these mixes are far from even, or listenable for that matter. They're bathed in bad EQ, compression, and brick-wall limiting. When you really put it in a realistic perspective, it's horrifying. Personally, this is isn't even an opinion, it's a fact.

 

I don't know why people like Bob Dylan (his music or his voice), but hey, such is life. Same deal. If he likes the remixes, let him. There is no right and wrong here.

 

Everybody here has every right to voice their opinion, that's something we can all agree on. But he could elaborate a little, he hasn't been back and I really don't understand his post. "I'm just saying you know" doesn't do a lot for me.

 

They DO. The drums actually have texture and depth in the remix whereas in the original mix they are completely lifeless. The soundstage is different, yes, but I don't hear that as a negative - just a difference that must be gotten used to. The remixes give the drums the more up-front and realistic-sounding presentation they deserve. As usual, and as I've said before with regards to the Hoffman board, I think most of the objections to the remixes are from people who are used to something being one way and just don't want something they're comfortable with changing. This, however, is the kind of change that could actually get some new listeners with an open mind to sit up and take notice. Three sure sounds a heck of a lot better than the original ever did - that was easily one of the dullest sounding albums I've ever heard, so dull that I didn't really care for it, and now the new mix really brings out some traits that have me coming back for more.

 

There's no reason to worry about anything illegal since the band themselves advocate taping and trading.

 

In my case this is far from the truth. I am all for improving something. As you may have heard from various SH remasters, you can improve recordings. In the case of these remixes/remasters, the evidence is there to see, and hear. I guess it all depends on what one is able to discern from a recording. We all hear different. The Memory Almost Full thread is further evidence, with some people thinking it sounds just great! Having the ability to tell the difference helps. Some obviously can't.

 

Which album are you talking about? The Atco Trick isn't lifeless. If it's done right, the original mixes can sound awesome. The original CD of W&W is a little lifeless I'll grant you that, but that's because it has very little low end and the upper midrange to low high end is also lacking. That's the worst, and a couple of the other original cds could of been EQd better too I think. But I really don't see it as a mixing problem. My main problem with the remixes, after I get past the harshness, is that it seems like Nick tried to turn everything up as if he wanted EVERYTHING to be heard. It's just a big pile of sound.

 

That is my main problem. Cymbals are meant as accents, not lead instruments. My fillings ached after playing Squonk!

 

Wasn't that a McCartney line from World Tonight? "I go back so far, I'm in front of me".

 

Just heard your clip, Jamie. The compression is something else, sounds almost dbx-encoded, and I assume the snare got swallowed up as a result. It has body to it on the first section, and sounds almost cancelled out in the second and third sections. Maybe this was never an exemplary track from an audiophile standpoint, but I always thought the point of remixing was to improve on the clarity, not numb it out of existence. I wonder what the remixes sound like without all those other moves?



Dan