Wish Rhino would do this for Styx

[yogi]

First thing they have got to do is play the songs/album backwards. If there is any questionable lyrics the song/album is labeled explicit. Heard from a very reliable source that JY does not want the explicit label.

This is why there will be no remastering of Styx albums in the USA. Doesn't matter in Japan since most people don't even know what is being sung about.

You can read about this @ www.styxremasters@a&mrecordsviauniversal.com

[Boomchild]

I don't know the answer to this, so I'll ask. Does remastering affect the sound of mp3/digital files? In other words, if Paradise Theatre was remastered and then put out on iTunes. Does it sound any different than the original Paradise Theatre digital files?

Using a remastered version to create an MP3 would not improve the sound quality of it. MP3s are the worst when it comes to sound quality. The amount of compression that is used on that format kills the sonic qualities of the recording.

[masque]

boom is right........just eliminate mp3's from any discussion with sound quality.

the only things the average listener would notice about a remaster of PT would be that it would be louder than the original release.

back in the day when vinyl catalogs were being transferred to cd they used the volumes that the vinyl would allow.....thats why you can put on a cd of PT and compare that to a new release say from sheryl crow and the crow cd will be MUCH MUCH louder.

not necessarily better.....just louder.


the second thing you would likely notice would be a boosted low end....once again to compensate for the perceived limitations of vinyl and also to match the amount of low end in modern recordings.

outside of that you would notice very little else unless they had access to the original mixes and could go back in make changes within......but then that would be a remix and a remaster.

[StyxCollector]

Boomchild and masque are not totally right, but not totally wrong, either.

A remaster uses the original source tapes. A remix would literally be going back to the multi-channel and creating a whole new stereo and/or multi-channel mix (i.e. 5.1/7.1) which would be different than the original. Both go through a process called mastering which is putting the spit and polish on a recording.

A proper remaster is not necessarily louder. I can tell you that the AF and SHM-CD/Platinum SHM-CD/SACD (new one) are NOT loud. Loud is always relative; it's really about dynamic range. Loud is fine IF there is dynamic range. Loud sucks if, say, Babe is just as loud as Back In Black.

One thing a remaster generally brings to the table is that modern analog to digital conversions are better due to better internals on the processors. Even today's low end processors are generally better than what was commercially available 10, 20, 30 years ago when some of this stuff was released. You may hear more 'resolution' or detail in some cases because of it. So if properly mastered, a remaster should sound better than the original. Then again, everybody's ears are different. One man's pleasure is another's pain.

A new remaster if available to iTunes would sound different - it's the same music, different mastering job. MP3/AAC is not the be-all-end-all for sound quality. It's a convenient sized format for most, and most people really don't care about sound quality as much as others do.

For the record, the loudness wars/compression started LONG before digital. Computers just made it easier.

[Boomchild]

A new remaster if available to iTunes would sound different - it's the same music, different mastering job. MP3/AAC is not the be-all-end-all for sound quality. It's a convenient sized format for most, and most people really don't care about sound quality as much as others do.

As far as MP3 goes it's more like the end of sonic quality. From the storage and ease of access it's good. But from a sonic perspective it just sucks. So sure it would "sound different" then a previous release but due to the limitations of the format it still wouldn't really be an improvement. So in my opinion it would be a waste of time.

[FormerDJMike]

I have AC/DC's 74 Jailbreak on my iPod. When I downloaded it, it was one of those releases that said "remastered for iTunes". And it might have even said "remastered vinyl" but I'm not sure. Anyway I think it sounds pretty darn good but all I have to go on is my own memory of previously owning the cassette when it came out years ago (Columbia House Record Club anyone?).

[masque]

Boomchild and masque are not totally right, but not totally wrong, either.

A remaster uses the original source tapes. A remix would literally be going back to the multi-channel and creating a whole new stereo and/or multi-channel mix (i.e. 5.1/7.1) which would be different than the original. Both go through a process called mastering which is putting the spit and polish on a recording.

A proper remaster is not necessarily louder. I can tell you that the AF and SHM-CD/Platinum SHM-CD/SACD (new one) are NOT loud. Loud is always relative; it's really about dynamic range. Loud is fine IF there is dynamic range. Loud sucks if, say, Babe is just as loud as Back In Black.

One thing a remaster generally brings to the table is that modern analog to digital conversions are better due to better internals on the processors. Even today's low end processors are generally better than what was commercially available 10, 20, 30 years ago when some of this stuff was released. You may hear more 'resolution' or detail in some cases because of it. So if properly mastered, a remaster should sound better than the original. Then again, everybody's ears are different. One man's pleasure is another's pain.

A new remaster if available to iTunes would sound different - it's the same music, different mastering job. MP3/AAC is not the be-all-end-all for sound quality. It's a convenient sized format for most, and most people really don't care about sound quality as much as others do.

For the record, the loudness wars/compression started LONG before digital. Computers just made it easier.

with all due repsect, i'm not wrong.......i gave a simplified answer.....but it is correct. i've spent 25 years in the world of recording and I am fully aware and in tune with exactly what takes place with mastering or -remastering depending on the source material. or with a remix and subsequent remaster.

and in my 25 years of being around it and having clients ask for mastering one of the main concerns with them is ensuring louder.....the second concern is ensuring more bottom end on the recording.

all you have to do is take renegade from the original pieces of eight cd release (because that would have been lifted from the vinyl master) and put it on your ipod........have that be track 1.

then take the version of renegade that appears on "styx:rockers" and rip that to your ipod and make that track 2.........

then listen to those two songs back to back and you will see instantly that part of the re-mastering that takes place for almost ALL 70's act transfers is to increase the volume to make those songs "seem" as loud as your new nickelback cd.

if you dont believe me.......go check it out.......you will see instantly.

i make no claim that it makes it better but it does happen, has happened and will continue to happen.

personally i hate the loudness wars.....newer music can easily fatigue my ears because of the lack of dynamic range within the music......and the lack of dynamic range within today's music is a by-product of trying to make it as loud as possible.

you can turn loud down but you cant rid yourself of the negative sonic impact of the lack of dynamic range.

however, that lack of dynamic range is not fully created during the mastering process......a huge chunk of it is created in the way the album is recorded.......vocals are highly compressed, bass is squashed, drums are compressed beyond imaginable limits.......and that is a necessary step to allow the mastering house to then squeeze it a bit more and squash the life out of it.

if you take the original source material finished mixes of styx music even the worst loudness offenders could never make their music sound like nickelback or katy perry or any of the newer shit.....why? because the voices and instruments were recorded and mixed with some dynamic range and were not overly compressed.

so while any styx re-mastered song doesnt sound overly loud is because there is only so much squashing of the source you can do without it becoming sonically noticeable.

so even if you take the remastered version of renegade from rockers and put it next to a new song from nickelback the nickelback song will still sound louder and larger because of the combination of how it was recorded, mixed and mastered......its the combination that matters.

BUT, make no mistake any styx album remastered today will be louder......case in point the difference between renegade from rockers to pieces of eight.

[StyxCollector]

Well, great. My long response didn't get up here. Not retyping. Oh well.

[FormerDJMike]

Well, great. My long response didn't get up here. Not retyping. Oh well.

I HATE when that happens, it just happened to me too :/

[sniper16]

rhino is a subsidiary or the warner/electra/atlantic labels and do re issues or artists those labels control recordings of, so they would not put out product for other labels ( except were an artist had hits for a wea label and another label not under their umbrella in a combined hits , example boston had hits wit cbs/epic and mca 2 different labels, so cbs contracted with mca to include Amanda and 1 other I believe on the cbs greatest hits,as for members while they don't control the masters the do control how songs are used( ie commercials) so a band will re record those songs to cut out the label . I believe a&m is under the umg control (UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP)

[FormerDJMike]

rhino is a subsidiary or the warner/electra/atlantic labels and do re issues or artists those labels control recordings of, so they would not put out product for other labels ( except were an artist had hits for a wea label and another label not under their umbrella in a combined hits , example boston had hits wit cbs/epic and mca 2 different labels, so cbs contracted with mca to include Amanda and 1 other I believe on the cbs greatest hits,as for members while they don't control the masters the do control how songs are used( ie commercials) so a band will re record those songs to cut out the label . I believe a&m is under the umg control (UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP)

Friday Music, the label who reissued the Styx albums on 180 gram vinyl also did Boston's First album. I could be wrong but I believe Friday is part of Rhino. They have also reissued Bill Squire's Don't Say No from Capital. Not really sure how al of that works but they seem to be releasing albums from several different companies.