Hans19 October 2012 at 10:25pmPosts: 10 (0 today)Status: offline
Good article - thanks for posting. It would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison of the 80s masters and 2002 remasters for the rest of PG's discography. I have both versions of PG3 and PG4. I have to say I think that the 2002 version of PG3 is a distinct improvement on the 80s master, but there is little to choose between the two versions of PG4.
DolceVita25 October 2012 at 2:27pmPosts: 2330 (0 today)Status: offline
Thank you r.i.s.e., very interesting!
THOM26 October 2012 at 7:23pmPosts: 46 (0 today)Status: offline
Jonny7527 October 2012 at 3:47pmPosts: 55 (0 today)Status: offline
That is interesting.
What annoyed me with the 2002 remaster was what it added: lots of studio chatter and mic noises and other mixes bleeding in. Most noticeable on That Voice Again (ironically). Have these been fixed.
I was at a very interesting talk by Pole (Stefan Betke) who is an artist but does a lot of mastering and some remastering for some very big acts. His opinion is the whole remastering process is a sham! I was quite shocked to hear this from someone who makes a lot of his money from this. I have thought over the years remastering has helped some records, but he was quite insistent. I think the general thrust was too much emphasis is placed on remastering, the analogue to digital conversion is important (although not developed greatly over the last twenty years) but any other changes are essentially a remix, so you are purchasing a remixed album not some "better" copy. And indeed the remix is taking steps away from the original vision, usually to nudge towards contemporary tastes.
As I say, an interesting point from an insider.