West Coast Connection Forum
DUBCC - Tha Connection => West Coast Classics => Topic started by: dnjp4life on March 19, 2013, 03:53:40 AM
-
I recently rebought 'All Eyez On Me' because I saw it for dirt cheap and it was a 1996 version (me already having the 2001 Ron Winter Death Row re-release), and I immediately noticed how much better it sounded compared to my old copy, which is funny because it was a digitally remastered version.
Has anyone noticed the difference before? The 1996 version of 'Tha Doggfather' is miles better as well, everything sounds much clearer. Does 'digitally remastered' really mean anything at all?
-
I got all the originale, never had a problem except the mixing of the vocals on "Doggfather" were too low...
-
often times "remastering" can be performed by less than qualified engineers and can really denigrate the original sound. i believe this to be the case with all eyez on me. considering the artwork is poorly generated and pixilated, it doesn't give much confidence in the fact that they would hire a proper mastering engineer. it was also likely done just as a marketing ploy to make additional money for a crumbling label. i lost one of my AEOM disks and went on amazon to get a replacement. look for other sellers on the amazon marketplace that sell the original copy and not the remastered version. you'll appreciate the brilliance of dj quik's mixes much more!! but remastering done at a high quality facility with a capable engineer can boost certain frequencies, add certain dynamics, even out the volume of all the tracks on an album, and enhance the overall sound of a recording/album (amongst many other things). great question though.
-
I don't know if the Ron Winters 2001 remastered rereleases were sonically the same as the remastered versions released in the US in 2001, which had nothing to do with Ron Winters. So what I'm speaking on here has to do with the US remastered versions, since I'm from the US.
All Eyez On Me was already amazing sounding when it was released originally, so remastering it wasn't really necessary.
I haven't heard the Doggfather's remastered version so I can't speak on that one.
I did download the remastered version of Dogg Food out of curiosity because I remember "Smooth" in particular always sounding kind of muddy on the original release so I wanted to see if the remastered version sounded better and I would say it definitely did.
The Makaveli remaster sounded a lot cleaner/crisper but that album was mixed and mastered with the intention of making it sound rougher to make it seem more like a "street album" so this was a little different than the other albums.
The majority of the albums sounded great at their initial release so I wouldn't expect the remasters to be very noticeable.
-
I own both Dogg Food, US versions, and they sound the same to me, same case to Murder Was The Case, Gridlock'd, Gang Related, Above The Rim,
and Retaliation, Revenge and Get Back releases. On the contrary, The Chronic, Doggystyle, Doggfather, Makaveli and All Eyez On Me sound far different from the original releases. Makaveli was the only real nice enhancement compared to the original version, as the rest of the remasters audio quality was worst than their original counterparts. Dante said back in the day that just a dolby filter was added to the audio tracks. Nothing else.
-
i wish they would go back and re mixdown some of their classic tracks so the vocals are clearer
perfect example is Toss it up
listen to the Nu Mixx vol 1 version and hear Pac's voice compared to the way it sounds on Makaveli...you'll see what i mean. shits just clearer.
-
It's good to know that others have noticed the difference as well. I do most of my listening on my home stereo where the difference between the mixing and mastering of certain albums can be very clear.
On the one hand you have albums like '2001', 'Street Gospel' and 'Rhythm-al-ism' which to me are the holy trinity of sonically perfect albums, and then you have albums like the remaster of De La Soul's '3 Feet High' which have terrible sound quality and are probably worse than the album in its original format. It's frustrating sometimes, but then there is the argument like DJ Coma said that some albums retain their raw, street feel through their unmastered sound - Wu- Tang's debut being the main one I can think of right now.
-
On the one hand you have albums like '2001', 'Street Gospel' and 'Rhythm-al-ism' which to me are the holy trinity of sonically perfect albums
ain't that the fucking truth. those albums are sonically remarkable. dj quik truly is a brilliant engineer!
-
Those Remasters always sound a little 'bright' and they take a bit of the range out to make it sound cleaner. I've re bought all the original pressings on amazon for pennies
The old analog sounding OG's are always better IMO
-
Those Remasters always sound a little 'bright' and they take a bit of the range out to make it sound cleaner. I've re bought all the original pressings on amazon for pennies
The old analog sounding OG's are always better IMO
agreed!
-
I think that it was the DualDisc remasters that showed the biggest improvements in audio quality. But it's mostly the CDs that already had room for improvement (Tha Doggfather, Makaveli) that had the biggest differences.
-
I've seen those DualDisc releases but never bought one
Have u get them? What's the sound like?
-
I've seen those DualDisc releases but never bought one
Have u get them? What's the sound like?
IMO they sound exactly the same as the 2001 remasters. There's a little bit of improvement in the dvd audio, as there's 24 bit, enhanced stereo, but nothing spectacular. I rather stick with the originals.
-
I've seen those DualDisc releases but never bought one
Have u get them? What's the sound like?
they sound great
-
It's been said that those Death Row "digitally remastered" releases from 2001 were not from tha reels. It was said that all they did was turn the volume up on them. We all heard about those Death Row/Koch releases (those compilations), right? For those who don't know, those didn't come from tha reels. Those were MP3s on a disc.
-
I've seen those DualDisc releases but never bought one
Have u get them? What's the sound like?
The only DualDisc I own is the Makaveli album, which out of the Death Row catalogue shows the most significant improvement, obviously because the Makaveli album released in its original form has never really mastered. I've listened to the actual discs of both (the original release from 1996 and the DualDisc from however many years ago), and there's a clear difference. But frankly I haven't listened to the actual disc in five or six years, I just ripped it into mp3.
I think on one of the older Pac forums (maybe MrMakaveli or one of those), Dante actually posted some diagrams with some readings that are supposed to dictate audio quality. I didn't really understand it but I could kind of figure out the differences, as it showed side-by-side original records, remasters and DualDisc comparisons.
-
When I buy old albums or replace old albums that might have gotten damaged I always buy the original pressing whenever possible just because I want to hear it the way it was intended to be heard, for better or worse. I wouldn't want to hear an old album remixed and remastered by someone less talented than the person who originally mixed and mastered it, specially cuz nowadays it's all about making shit sound as loud as possible, a lot of stuff is over compressed, sometimes distorted and lacks dynamics; older, more subtle mixes/masters sound better to me and it's how older albums used to be mixed and mastered.
They should re-release instead of remaster. Because the bottom line is that they are trying to sell more copies of that album so they slap the "Digitally Remastered" on it like it's soooo much better than the original. They should leave the original recordings as they are (unless there's a major fuckup somewhere of course) and instead change the art work, add some bonus tracks, add some videos with some behind the scenes footage, in the booklet they can add some behind the scene photos or talk a little bit about the process of how the album came to be, that would be worthy of a re-release and I wouldn't mind buying an album again if I'm a fan of it. If the only selling point is the "Digitally Remastered" logo on the cover, I stay away from it because a lot of times it just means they fucked up the mix. But that's just how I feel about "Digitally Remastered" re-issues.