[MrLee192]

Does anybody else agree this album has alot of things going on in the mix...but for some reason (im gonna guess loudness war related) its really hard to make it all out?

This really pisses me off cause i really like the songs and blend of all Pumpkins eras into one sound Machina has.


ugh, i failed the spelling in the title.

[whywontyoulisten]

Guess you'd like to hear the Machina premaster then.

[MrLee192]

^ Now that sounds promising! Where do i look to hear this?

[noblegeorge]

I agree theres alot going on....but personally i think the production on Machina is the finest of all the pumpkins albums. I love the sound they created. The problem i have with it is the song choices. For me the machina album was brought down by some cumbersome material while there was slow dawn, if there is a god, let me give the world to you etc begging to be included.

[MrLee192]

I agree Machina II had some most excellent material on it

Noblegeorge... i like the production...the production is great, the sounds achieved on the album are really original and different. Its the mastering ive got a problem with...it makes it fuzzy and spoils the dynamics when the songs are at their loudest points. Depends what you look for in the album, some people would say my gripe is OTT whereas some would agree and take it much further.

Which version of Heres To the Atom Bomb do you prefer?

I like the "new wave" version

[noblegeorge]

i actually prefer the original version of heres to the atom....had to go listen to them there to remind myself the difference! Regarding the mastering, think its a fair point you make, that kind of stuff annoys me too (when poor mastering overshadows a good song) but i never noticed it before on machina. Perhaps i never listened to it loud enough! ;)/> You have inspired me to go listen to it now though. I better still like it or i will be blaming you mr lee!

[MrLee192]

noblegeorge, on 03 April 2011 - 10:51 AM, said:

i actually prefer the original version of heres to the atom....had to go listen to them there to remind myself the difference! Regarding the mastering, think its a fair point you make, that kind of stuff annoys me too (when poor mastering overshadows a good song) but i never noticed it before on machina. Perhaps i never listened to it loud enough! ;)/> You have inspired me to go listen to it now though. I better still like it or i will be blaming you mr lee!

haha im sorry!!! Its the sound nerd in me!!! I studied production and while its gave me a greater understanding on recording and how sounds are achieved, it can tate my opinion of some albums mixing or sound!! Thankfully Sex Pistols - Never Mind The Bollocks still comes across as raw and as kick ass as it always did despite me realising that thing is one of the worst productions ever haha...but it fits the sound!!!!

[geezero]

So you people have actually heard the original mixes before mastering? How could you criticize the mastering when you even don't know how the stuff sounded when it left the studio?

[MrLee192]

geezero, on 03 April 2011 - 11:31 AM, said:

So you people have actually heard the original mixes before mastering? How could you criticize the mastering when you even don't know how the stuff sounded when it left the studio?

well thanks to a tip off here ive got the pre-mastered version now which does exactly what i thought, adds the dynamics back to the mix!!!

You can just tell if something has that bad mastered sound. Its like Californication by chili peppers. If you listen to Around The World on headphones. Listen to the vocals, even when hes singing quiet it sounds just as loud as when he sings loud, it sounds harsh and strange. I picked up on this before hearing the unmastered version, so i trracked down the unmastered version... listened to it, and you can hear the dynamics are back in his vocals. The quiet is quiet, and the loud is loud... it just makes it more pleasing to the ears. Its hard to explain really. Do a search on wikipedia called "loudness war" it tells you alot about mastering and how it can potentially ruin a songs recording if too loud.

If you listen to the Oasis song - Whats The Story Morning Glory.... the guitar intro literally crackles because its been mastered shitty n the audio is breaking up. Id like to hear the unmastered version of that to see if it clears up that crackle.

[MrLee192]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Otherside-graphic.png

Here is a comparison of a song from the Chili Peppers album. Look at the soundwave difference. The mastered one is a block of audio, cutting off frequencies in the mix.

Hopefully you dont already know all this lol...or else you probably think "who is this asshole telling me this"

[whywontyoulisten]

Is now a good time to mention the Zw*n album?

[LostSoul]

Zeit & TbK suffer from the "loudness" issue. Although the last 3 songs are an improvement.

I know what you mean with Machina. I of the Mourning is the best example I can think of. A lot of unusual effects & sounds going on behind the guitars, and you cannot detect it without headphones.

[Bulletproofmask]

Does anyone know where the Machina Premaster can be found nowadays? I searched for it but only came up with dead links.

[geezero]

MrLee192, on 03 April 2011 - 11:46 AM, said:

Its hard to explain really. Do a search on wikipedia called "loudness war" it tells you alot about mastering and how it can potentially ruin a songs recording if too loud.

How 'bout you go play with a shovel at your backyard and see if you can find something even more ancient and boring to discuss than loudness war.

I'm a professional sound engineer and a producer and I'm tired of people talking this bullshit.

What you are suggesting is that the artist's own judgment of one's art is flawed. You're saying that somebody actually spent thousands, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to release something that they really weren't capable of seeing or hearing as being turned into bad quality in mastering. I mean, seriously dude...

You, my friend, are only yammering about loudness war and bad mastering because you heard some "big boy" doing so and have really no competence of your own on the matter. One thing proving this is that you actually had to use those sound file images to prove your "point". It really isn't hard to explain if you knew what you were talking about. I'm not saying that you couldn't hear the difference but I'm saying that your hearing and your judgment are clouded by this idea that you think is some kind of a truth or universally agreed on by "people who know better".

And one thing: making things loud isn't about all about dynamics. Try Google, I'm not going to elaborate.

Quote

Hopefully you dont already know all this lol...or else you probably think "who is this asshole telling me this"

Oh well...

[V_____]

geezero, on 03 April 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

How 'bout you go play with a shovel at your backyard and see if you can find something even more ancient and boring to discuss than loudness war.

I'm a professional sound engineer and a producer and I'm tired of people talking this bullshit.

What you are suggesting is that the artist's own judgment of one's art is flawed. You're saying that somebody actually spent thousands, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to release something that they really weren't capable of seeing or hearing as being turned into bad quality in mastering. I mean, seriously dude...

You, my friend, are only yammering about loudness war and bad mastering because you heard some "big boy" doing so and have really no competence of your own on the matter. One thing proving this is that you actually had to use those sound file images to prove your "point". It really isn't hard to explain if you knew what you were talking about. I'm not saying that you couldn't hear the difference but I'm saying that your hearing and your judgment are clouded by this idea that you think is some kind of a truth or universally agreed on by "people who know better".

And one thing: making things loud isn't about all about dynamics. Try Google, I'm not going to elaborate.



Oh well...

I don't exactly understand what you're arguing. Are you saying that the trend towards heavily compressing and clipping songs (a business decision often made by the label in order to compete for "loudness" on the radio rather than a decision made by the artist[although I am sure this is not always the case]) is fine? I don't agree with that at all.

Or are you just complaining because he thought you didn't know about the phenomenon?

[V_____]

geezero, on 03 April 2011 - 11:31 AM, said:

So you people have actually heard the original mixes before mastering? How could you criticize the mastering when you even don't know how the stuff sounded when it left the studio?

And yes. The premasters are available in FLAC and, to me, they sound more like the classic Smashing Pumpkins mix aesthetic.

[purelunasea80]

noblegeorge, on 03 April 2011 - 09:30 AM, said:

I agree theres alot going on....but personally i think the production on Machina is the finest of all the pumpkins albums. I love the sound they created. The problem i have with it is the song choices. For me the machina album was brought down by some cumbersome material while there was slow dawn, if there is a god, let me give the world to you etc begging to be included.

all 3 of those songs would be the weakest track on machina I if they'd been included. MAYBE slow dawn surpasses mercury and sacred.

[purelunasea80]

MrLee192, on 03 April 2011 - 11:25 AM, said:

haha im sorry!!! Its the sound nerd in me!!! I studied production and while its gave me a greater understanding on recording and how sounds are achieved, it can tate my opinion of some albums mixing or sound!! Thankfully Sex Pistols - Never Mind The Bollocks still comes across as raw and as kick ass as it always did despite me realising that thing is one of the worst productions ever haha...but it fits the sound!!!!

"tate"? you mean "taint"?

wow. sometimes i wonder how people make it through life.

[Deleted Account]

Mastering everything super hot, or beyond loud, has to do with competitive radio play. The idea is that the louder song, the more listeners they'll nab. It's fucked up- it destroys dynamics and hurt ears, but when it works for one... the others have to do it to be competitive.

[geezero]

Bimbly, on 03 April 2011 - 08:38 PM, said:

Mastering everything super hot, or beyond loud, has to do with competitive radio play. The idea is that the louder song, the more listeners they'll nab. It's fucked up- it destroys dynamics and hurt ears, but when it works for one... the others have to do it to be competitive.

Um... Radio stations compress their output to compensate for example a weak transmission signal. There usually is a master compressor that is last in the stations signal chain before the signal goes on air and -like with the Mutron Bi Phase- everything is run thru it. Everything.

Because of this tracks sent to radio are usually premastered a lot quieter than the ones that go on albums.

[Deleted Account]

That's how it was explained to me. By people in the know. I don't doubt your credentials, but "what you are suggesting is that the artist's own judgment of one's art is flawed" is ridiculous in re: things mastered terribly.

[V_____]

geezero, on 03 April 2011 - 09:45 PM, said:

Um... Radio stations compress their output to compensate for example a weak transmission signal. There usually is a master compressor that is last in the stations signal chain before the signal goes on air and -like with the Mutron Bi Phase- everything is run thru it. Everything.

Because of this tracks sent to radio are usually premastered a lot quieter than the ones that go on albums.

This is true. Some radio stations have such ridiculous compression going on that everything sounds absolutely terrible. But it still doesn't change the fact that hard clipping happens in a lot of songs on albums and on the radio. It doesn't matter how quiet your song is if you've hard clipped the peaks. It's still going to sound hard-clipped.

Also recall that "album versions" are what go on itunes so there's a competition there for attention via high average levels which doesn't need to factor in any proprietary radio compression. (Although I admit I am not sure if the itunes store uses any sort of compression on preview clips or not. I suspect not, but I would imagine this would be the same for all the content, if they do, so if that's the case a compression contest could still take place. I could be wrong about that, though.)

[V_____]

Bimbly, on 03 April 2011 - 10:01 PM, said:

That's how it was explained to me. By people in the know. I don't doubt your credentials, but "what you are suggesting is that the artist's own judgment of one's art is flawed" is ridiculous in re: things mastered terribly.

Unless the artist in question is the mastering artist. In which case, yes, that's exactly what we're saying.

Regardless, how often is it actually not the case that one has a skewed perspective of one's own work towards the positive or negative? It's very difficult to be objective about the quality of your own work and its impossible to predict how the reader/listener will react. It would defeat the functioning of art and literature and music if it were the case that you could convey exactly what you wanted to. The power of it comes from the infinity of its interpretation by the audience. The artist is only one member of that audience. They're a listener with opinions just like anyone else.

[V_____]

For example, if Billy thinks 1979 is about being stuck at a stoplight in 1979 that's great. It doesn't matter to me because that song is, to me tied up in memories of when I really discovered alt. rock in the mid 90s and has a completely individual reception in me. Billy's experience of listening to that song is unknowable to me and irrelevant.

The same can be said of mastering. It doesn't matter if the artist thinks a squashed master sounds good if it doesn't sound good to other people. Their reception is equally as valid as the artist's.

Artists are not godlike beings or saints. They are not sacred, nor is their opinion sacred. They can't even be judged as infallible or fallible because there is no element of error or truth to be judged in aesthetics.

This works in both directions. Go look up some of John Lennon's opinions on his songs. He tended to hate a lot of the songs that a lot of people (myself included) love. That doesn't mean I am wrong for liking them because the artist wasn't pleased with the result.

[geezero]

V_____, on 03 April 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

I don't exactly understand what you're arguing. Are you saying that the trend towards heavily compressing and clipping songs (a business decision often made by the label in order to compete for "loudness" on the radio rather than a decision made by the artist[although I am sure this is not always the case]) is fine? I don't agree with that at all.

Or are you just complaining because he thought you didn't know about the phenomenon?

Both. :)/>

Question: has Corgan ever complained anywhere that there's something wrong with the mastering of Machina, Zeitgeist or MSOTS? I only remember him saying that he liked the original "rough mixes" of Zeitgeist more than the ones that the label pushed through but never ever has he said anything about premasters.

And the thing is that the whole loud trend is really not a trend anymore. It's really old news, that really has more to do with the limitations of the cd and compensating with 16 bit digital dynamic range. There are a lot of albums and new music made with more dynamics and less "smiley"-curve all the time. Of course there are exceptions, most of them major label productions, but majors have been hanging desperately from the last car of the train for several years now anyway and they are probably the last to put an end to the total madness. But loudness-wise pop music isn't going back to the 90's, although there's a lot of toning down happening.

Also one thing, maybe contradicting to some parts of my rant, that I think has made a big disservice to development of sound quality as whole is the mp3-player revolution. When you get your daily dosage data compressed and through shitty headphones, why would the music producers (the ones paying productions not the ones who are artistically involved) spend more money to make the end-product sound better? There's no use. Of course, lossless formats, bigger hard drives and faster internet connections are slowly changing all this but so far the consumer has in a way been in charge.

[RottingApples]

V_____, on 03 April 2011 - 10:29 PM, said:

For example, if Billy thinks 1979 is about being stuck at a stoplight in 1979 that's great. It doesn't matter to me because that song is, to me tied up in memories of when I really discovered alt. rock in the mid 90s and has a completely individual reception in me. Billy's experience of listening to that song is unknowable to me and irrelevant.

The same can be said of mastering. It doesn't matter if the artist thinks a squashed master sounds good if it doesn't sound good to other people. Their reception is equally as valid as the artist's.

Artists are not godlike beings or saints. They are not sacred, nor is their opinion sacred. They can't even be judged as infallible or fallible because there is no element of error or truth to be judged in aesthetics.

This works in both directions. Go look up some of John Lennon's opinions on his songs. He tended to hate a lot of the songs that a lot of people (myself included) love. That doesn't mean I am wrong for liking them because the artist wasn't pleased with the result.

Agreed, absolutely. 100% :thumbsup:/>

[RottingApples]

geezero, on 03 April 2011 - 10:38 PM, said:

Both. :)/>

Question: has Corgan ever complained anywhere that there's something wrong with the mastering of Machina, Zeitgeist or MSOTS? I only remember him saying that he liked the original "rough mixes" of Zeitgeist more than the ones that the label pushed through but never ever has he said anything about premasters.

And the thing is that the whole loud trend is really not a trend anymore. It's really old news, that really has more to do with the limitations of the cd and compensating with 16 bit digital dynamic range. There are a lot of albums and new music made with more dynamics and less "smiley"-curve all the time. Of course there are exceptions, most of them major label productions, but majors have been hanging desperately from the last car of the train for several years now anyway and they are probably the last to put an end to the total madness. But loudness-wise pop music isn't going back to the 90's, although there's a lot of toning down happening.

Also one thing, maybe contradicting to some parts of my rant, that I think has made a big disservice to development of sound quality as whole is the mp3-player revolution. When you get your daily dosage data compressed and through shitty headphones, why would the music producers (the ones paying productions not the ones who are artistically involved) spend more money to make the end-product sound better? There's no use. Of course, lossless formats, bigger hard drives and faster internet connections are slowly changing all this but so far the consumer has in a way been in charge.

The Zeitgeist rough mixes he was referring to were the premasters. He also mentioned wanting to put out the original mix/ tracklist for both Machinas out someday (we can only hope). Zwan, he was proud of the mix at the time ("Loud at any volume"), but he doesn't speak much of Zwan these days, so it's tough to say if his opinions remain the same...

[V_____]

geezero, on 03 April 2011 - 10:38 PM, said:

Both. :)/>

Question: has Corgan ever complained anywhere that there's something wrong with the mastering of Machina, Zeitgeist or MSOTS? I only remember him saying that he liked the original "rough mixes" of Zeitgeist more than the ones that the label pushed through but never ever has he said anything about premasters.

And the thing is that the whole loud trend is really not a trend anymore. It's really old news, that really has more to do with the limitations of the cd and compensating with 16 bit digital dynamic range. There are a lot of albums and new music made with more dynamics and less "smiley"-curve all the time. Of course there are exceptions, most of them major label productions, but majors have been hanging desperately from the last car of the train for several years now anyway and they are probably the last to put an end to the total madness. But loudness-wise pop music isn't going back to the 90's, although there's a lot of toning down happening.

Also one thing, maybe contradicting to some parts of my rant, that I think has made a big disservice to development of sound quality as whole is the mp3-player revolution. When you get your daily dosage data compressed and through shitty headphones, why would the music producers (the ones paying productions not the ones who are artistically involved) spend more money to make the end-product sound better? There's no use. Of course, lossless formats, bigger hard drives and faster internet connections are slowly changing all this but so far the consumer has in a way been in charge.

Ok, so you're saying that the trend is not going that way anymore. Ok. I get that. I'm not incredibly interested in most pop music so I don't follow that type of production as much as indie rock/non major label production which, as you say, does not seem to suffer as much from compression.

I still don't think it matters whether or not the artist likes it, though. If I don't and if a lot of other people don't that's just as valid of a reception just as, if someone doesn't like one of my mixes because it's not loud enough or whatever; that's their valid opinion as well.

[MrLee192]

purelunasea80, on 03 April 2011 - 08:23 PM, said:

"tate"? you mean "taint"?

wow. sometimes i wonder how people make it through life.

im allowed to be tired, and im allowed to make grammatical mistakes.

But hey ill just go die to ease your suffering

[MrLee192]

geezero, on 03 April 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

How 'bout you go play with a shovel at your backyard and see if you can find something even more ancient and boring to discuss than loudness war.

I'm a professional sound engineer and a producer and I'm tired of people talking this bullshit.

What you are suggesting is that the artist's own judgment of one's art is flawed. You're saying that somebody actually spent thousands, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to release something that they really weren't capable of seeing or hearing as being turned into bad quality in mastering. I mean, seriously dude...

You, my friend, are only yammering about *loudness war and bad mastering because you heard some "big boy" doing so and have really no competence of your own on the matter. **one thing proving this is that you actually had to use those sound file images to prove your "point". It really isn't hard to explain if you knew what you were talking about. I'm not saying that you couldn't hear the difference but I'm saying that your hearing and your judgment are clouded by this idea that you think is some kind of a truth or universally agreed on by "people who know better".

And one thing: making things loud isn't about all about dynamics. Try Google, I'm not going to elaborate.



Oh well...

well i can hear the difference and i think as a professional sound engineer, producer, surely you can hear the difference between the premaster of californication and the official release?

*Wrong. People moan about how mp3s are intolerable to listen to, but i dont think they are that bad providing you have it set to at least 256kpbs, and preferably 320 VBR. My opinion of bad mastering is perfectly acceptable. If audio is unclear because of this, and you can listen to a version before mastering which gets rid of this problem..how can my point be completely worthless?
** No, i just felt at the time that was the best example to use to make someone who might not understand see what i was trying to explain.

I didnt want an argument with you AT ALL. I have utmost respect for those more experienced than me in any area of the music industry. I respect your argument but i strongly disagree.

[Wrong Company]

Is the Machina premaster the same as Machina promo?

[set_the_ray_to_jimmy]

no.

[purelunasea80]

MrLee192, on 04 April 2011 - 10:29 AM, said:

im allowed to be tired, and im allowed to make grammatical mistakes.

But hey ill just go die to ease your suffering

"grammatical mistakes"? it's entirely the wrong word, and not that close.

[stickman0779]

how about useful link to the premaster?

[nasalscarecrow]

stickman0779, on 04 April 2011 - 04:29 PM, said:

how about useful link to the premaster?

Just what I was about to politely ask, since the above has turned into the same old debate.

[LostSoul]

I would love to hear those

So, thirded...ed...

Bite me, Purelunasea. :p/>

[V_____]

purelunasea80, on 04 April 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

"grammatical mistakes"? it's entirely the wrong word, and not that close.

OK. While we're at it let's take a look at your posts.

"all 3 of those songs would be the weakest track on machina I if they'd been included. MAYBE slow dawn surpasses mercury and sacred."

No capital letters except for emphasis (which is grammatically dubious, since you have the option to use italics on this board; but we could maybe let the all caps "MAYBE" slide as long as you don't want to be taken seriously).
No capitalization of a title of a long work.
No italics or underlining of aforementioned long work.
No quotes around the titles of songs.
The use of the numeral "3" instead of the grammatically correct "three" (although one might be able to argue this depending on which system we're using, so I can let that one slide).

"'tate'? you mean 'taint'?

wow. sometimes i wonder how people make it through life."

Once again, no capitalization of letters at the beginning of sentences.
No capitalization of the word "I."

"'grammatical mistakes'? it's entirely the wrong word, and not that close."

Once again, no capitalization at all. You might like to argue that "grammatical mistakes" was not capitalized in the original quote but the proper thing to do in this case would be to bracket the "g" and capitalize it ("[G]rammatical mistakes")
Extraneous comma.
Generally poor sentence structure.

TL;CR: Some parable about glass houses.

[Deleted Account]

Tate instead of taint is pretty bad.

[V_____]

Bimbly, on 04 April 2011 - 06:24 PM, said:

Tate instead of taint is pretty bad.

Clearly, it's the downfall of society.

Look, I'm an English teacher and even I don't view someone's occasional misspellings as indicative of their character.

If he gone tark look than I mite wander if he needing a amanuensis, may B.

[Her]

I agree, it is busy and incredible! Especially noticeable for me on Wound, Sacred and Profane, I of the Mourning, and Raindrops + Sunshowers.

[CoolAsIceCream]

MrLee192, on 04 April 2011 - 10:38 AM, said:

People moan about how mp3s are intolerable to listen to, but i dont think they are that bad providing you have it set to at least 256kpbs, and preferably 320 VBR.

there is no such thing as "320 VBR". 320 kbps mp3s are CBR (constant bitrate).

[afroguy10]

V_____, on 04 April 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:

OK. While we're at it let's take a look at your posts.

"all 3 of those songs would be the weakest track on machina I if they'd been included. MAYBE slow dawn surpasses mercury and sacred."

No capital letters except for emphasis (which is grammatically dubious, since you have the option to use italics on this board; but we could maybe let the all caps "MAYBE" slide as long as you don't want to be taken seriously).
No capitalization of a title of a long work.
No italics or underlining of aforementioned long work.
No quotes around the titles of songs.
The use of the numeral "3" instead of the grammatically correct "three" (although one might be able to argue this depending on which system we're using, so I can let that one slide).

"'tate'? you mean 'taint'?

wow. sometimes i wonder how people make it through life."

Once again, no capitalization of letters at the beginning of sentences.
No capitalization of the word "I."

"'grammatical mistakes'? it's entirely the wrong word, and not that close."

Once again, no capitalization at all. You might like to argue that "grammatical mistakes" was not capitalized in the original quote but the proper thing to do in this case would be to bracket the "g" and capitalize it ("[G]rammatical mistakes")
Extraneous comma.
Generally poor sentence structure.

TL;CR: Some parable about glass houses.

:thumbsup:/>

You are a legend.

[nasalscarecrow]

:whattodo:/>

[neverlastinggaze]

Anyone got a link to the premasters?