Has anyone ever complained??

[Rubellan]

Some months back, people were asking if there was a way they could contact Cherry Red to make known their opinion of certain CD mastering shortcomings. I'm curious if anyone actually did send their comments, and if so was a response ever received? It seems more important now than ever as it appears they may be looking to create most future CD masters from vinyl, even if master tapes are readily available. It makes no sense, and my attempts to make them understand are falling on deaf ears. If you are happy paying $15-$20 for a CD with sound quality you could achieve at home at an elementary level, then that's fine. But if you believe that paying for an original studio produced CD should be drawn from the best possible available source, then your voice should be heard.

For many years these studios, both major and indie, have been taking shortcuts for the sake of saving cash. It's only going to get worse if everyone just accepts it as such, just like the gas prices which no one seems to be too concerned about anymore. Most recenlty, I received the new batch of Siouxsie remasters. The JuJu CD suffers from slightly muddy sound quality, and there are a number of areas in which the right channel drops out for a second or two at a time. The original CD from 17 years ago sounds better! The Kaleidoscope CD has some inappropriate fades on a couple of songs, and some fans have pointed this out. The new single CD of The Scream suffers from very loud, distorted volume. I do not have this version of the CD, though there are a couple of nasty reviews on Amazon.co.uk. Though it has been brought to the attention of Steve Severin, what can he possible do at this point? This is getting out of hand.

On the other end of the spectrum, all of The Cure reissues, and even the new Depeche Mode reissues, have absolutely stunning sound all the way. It's at a point in which we get lucky to have a new reissue that sounds better than the old release.

[korova1]

GREAT!!!! I just purchased these discs, and haven't had a chance to spin them yet. I am glad they were like 8.75 a piece. Man, what gives??!! Which songs contain dropout on Juju? Which songs fade out early on Kaleidoscope? Why does this crap continue to happen?!?!? How does the remastering process work?

How does a skip or dropout show up on a remaster that has been toiled over for months before it is released to the public? I don't know that end of the biz? Anyone? Anyone?

It is fascinating that record companies are allowing complete shit to show up on the marketplace (check out Aztec Camera's - 12 inch version of "Oblivious" on 12 Inches of the 80's 3 CD sets... at like a minute it, the track SKIPS, basically ruining the listening experience everytime you put the damn thing in. Are we supposed to throw the song on a sound editor ourselves so we can eventually enjoy it? Since technology is ten times better these days than in 1988 when these CD's first came out... there should be no excuse for bad quality at this day and age.

Thumbs down to Universal, they also are guilty for deceptively selling CDR's for 18.98 a piece at a place called disk kiosk.com because they are too lazy to just repress a couple hundred legit copies!!!

If you do complain about releases to the record companies, at least the indie companies, alot of times they will repress them and send you the newer version that is corrected. Since the big merger, I don't know if Universal really gives a shit. They are basically the largest media manufacture out there right now aren't they? Anyone?

But with indies at least you have a fighting chance. This recently happened with the Go Betweens most recent release on Lo-Max/Yep Roc Records. The original master of the CD sounded like overmodulated and tinny, so the massive flood of complaints on the web forced Yep Roc to remaster and repress the CD to get the correct sounding version out there. Trust me the repress was a million times better.

Nothing is sacred with remastering. The Beatles most recent box set (Volume 2) was also flawed and had the fake stereo versions of the mono tracks on the first pressings, that is until somebody complained, in this case a DJ on the East Coast. Capitol records recalled them and repressed them with the correct mono mixes instead of the fakes. It happens all of the time, but people have to speak up. Quality control is controlled by US! Put a bad review up on Amazon.com, CD Universe, wherever they will allow you to speak up about inferior products. Email Universal and ask for your CD's to be properly remastered and released. I've sent a few emails in the past ten years, but time is short and it isn't my top priority but I do send them. Honestly I think it does make a difference in some cases. For a big company like Universal, who knows. In this day and age when it comes to customer service, mediocrity reigns supreme. Try getting your health insurance claim resolved some time, it is fun isn't it?!?! One thing is true, peeps have to speak up.

The thing that sucks is I've been waiting years for these releases to come out in a clean remastered form with bonus tracks... and to have like two or three bonus tracks on some of the reissues is an insult, having crappy sound is insult to injury.

Siouxsie is just as important as the Beatles to some people and they should sound just as pristine as the Beatles remasters (that is after they were also corrected!!!). Keep it up Rubellan, industry people do read these boards and maybe if word spreads something will be done about it.

[Barmy]

With the advent of downloading, this problem is not going to get better. The general public does not care as much about sound quality as it used to. And I would think that reissues will become increasingly unprofitable because alternative sources exist for basically everything. In any event, it is not a good idea to sell old CDs after you get remasters, at least until you are absolutely certain that the remasters were properly done.

[yipyipcoyote]

..which is why customer reviews and message boards like this are very useful. There is no reason to put up with, and thus encourage, shabbily produced reissue CD's.

In the past when I did get burned (like the mono sound Eyeless 'Sixth Sense' and mastered-from-vinyl Maximum Joy 'Unlimited'), I would just send it back to where I ordered them from (in these cases Amazon) with a note of complaint, and I would always get my money back. After I made back-up copies first, of course [:p]

The lack of any bonus tracks on Secret is a disincentive for me to buy it, but the Solo CD does have some bonus tracks and if the sound quality isn't too awful, I may still pay for it.

[Yachtingtype]

Of course the sound quality isn't awful, but in the world of Rubellan everything has to be perfect or it's not acceptable, which is really stupid, if anything why can't you just be grateful that these bands are getting released, so maybe sound isn't the best, you are the only person who will notice such flaws, really, give me a break. It makes me sick that you can't just appreciate the music but have to find everything wrong with it, you aren't enjoying the music. It seems you have more fun finding everything possibly wrong with the production, which is a waste of time, do you really have nothing better to do with your time? Stop being so damn nit-picky and just respect the fact that in 2006 we are seeing bands like Classix Nouveaux and Siouxsie remastered on CD with or without bonus tracks, trust me, in all my years of listening to CD's and buying them I have never heard any flaws or terrible sound, nothing that would make me return a CD. Could sound be better? sure, but why make a deal out of something that is already released and sounds just fine.

[Rubellan]

Well, because it's cattle like you (and I have a pretty good idea who you are) who allow the crap reissues to continue. So, maybe you don't hear it. Does that mean it's ok? No. If anyone hears it, and there were sound quality complaints long before I arrived here, then it's not acceptable, especially when it's supposed to be "new and improved".

-why can't you just be grateful that these bands are getting released-

Oh, that's been my favorite line for years. Accept the shit and like it. Why not just put your arms straight in front of you and walk with an emotionless glazed look on your face.

-you are the only person who will notice such flaws-

Not true. See above statement. Duh...

-me, in all my years of listening to CD's and buying them I have never heard any flaws or terrible sound-

Well, maybe you're just stupid.

-but why make a deal out of something that is already released-

Because one person really CAN make a difference.

There, now I've stooped to your level. Did you enjoy it sweetie? I know I feel better. Hugs??

[Grunch]

Hey man, I'm with Rubellan all the way. While I don't necessarily understand or care about the technical mumbo jumbo he speaks of (it's mostly foreign to me) I DO understand what I hear sounding good or bad, and sometimes downright shitty. No, I am not thankful to any band or compnay putting out a piece of shit quality CD that doesn't even sound as good ay my own CD-R from my vinyl. I pay my hard-earned money with the expectation I am getting the best quality recording, professional at that. It would be different if, where advertised or sold, there was a notice visibly and clearly stating the inferior quality of the CD so you then can make the decision to buy or not with this information. I absolutely detest hearing a CD I was excited to buy, paid decent money, and then throw it on and be greeted by a Rice Krispies CD, or one with skips, or obvious computer-made CD-R with blips, etc....it would be no different than any other goods purchased that are clearly known to be inferior without making this knowledge available beforehand to the consumer. If a band, or artist, or label, thinks it's good just to release a poor sounding CD, so be it. That's there decision, but ethically, I think they have a strict obligation to clearly inform potential buyers. Would you sell a used car with major flaws/problems you know about to an unsuspecting buyer? Maybe so, but I would not. I would feel compelled to either fix before selling, or make them aware of anything I know. What's so wrong about forthright information to CD consumers about CD's from vinyl, etc???

Thanks Rubellan for the info. Not trying to rattle anyone's chain, but to attack him just because he digs good quality?? OK, you have your right to your beliefs, and your right to say what you will, but I would guess that most people into music would also prefer good quality and the knowledge of bad quality before laying out their money.

It sucks big time to throw on a much anticipated disc and hear sound that could have been better etched on a cave wall.

[Klaus Von Konrad]

Rubellan is right. I always read reviews of remastered CDs before I buy them. I will not buy crappy releases. I will not buy Smitch CDs until they are properly remastereed. CDs should have the best sound possible. A little extra care is all that is needed is the remastering process. Do the job right. On the positive side, look at Rhino records. They started from zero to becoming a major player in the record industry. All by giving the customer a good product and putting out smaller scale products that music fans want to hear.

[Surly]

Yes, Rhino is definitely the model for quality reissues. I'm just as frustrated as everyone else when remasters get screwed up, have poor mastering, drop-outs, etc. It's unfortunate that most consumers don't care about sound quality - they just don't realize what they're missing.

I'm also frustrated at the fact that the labels don't seem to be sticking with the hi-rez SACD and DVD-Audio formats.

"Words like conviction can turn into a sentence"

[Rubbeet921]

Last year, I bought "1977-1982 The Complete JAM on FILM (DVD)" and the quality really sucks! Lots of glitches!!! Grrrrrrrrrr!!![:(!] Now, I wonder if anyone else bought it and suffers from the same crap or is it just my copy? I didn't file a complaint though coz the cd outlet was too far for me to go back to and it took me some time before I actually watched the dvd)[B)]

[milkbone]

After all this time, the people at the record companies should be able to properly re-master albums for CD in their sleep. There's no excuse that a "re-mastered" CD should have noticable glitches in it, particularly from a popular band like Siouxsie & The Banshees.

[Spaz]

If any of you think you can remaster better than the labels, then, by all means. DO IT!

Set up a label, license the music and have someone search vaults for the master tapes. Then, once they've been found, go into a professional studio with at least one original important member of the band and remaster it the way it should sound. Then get the artwork taken care of, the liner notes, etc. and press the damn thing. If you've taken the correct steps to get this done, then you've already sunk a minimum of $25,000.00 into the project.

Then go out and sell it. Oh, you've got to sink a few grand into advertising if you want to sell more than 500 copies.

In order to break even, you've got to sell 5,000 minimum. Why that many? Well, you've got to have proper distribution, which means you'll be selling them to a distributor for $8 each. They sell them to stores for $11 and the stores sell them to the public for $15.

So, what happens if you sell 700 after sinking $40,000 into the project?

You file for bankruptcy.


Man, wasn't that worth it? Hey, at least it didn't get mastered from vinyl, huh? Even a great vinyl remastering job would have saved you $30,000 total, but that's OK....it's from the original master tapes! Forget about your spouse, who's just left you for a label owner who DOES master from vinyl. And forget about your kids' college tuition. They're going to grow up and be just like YOU!

[Grunch]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Spaz[/i]
<br>If any of you think you can remaster better than the labels, then, by all means. DO IT!

Set up a label, license the music and have someone search vaults for the master tapes. Then, once they've been found, go into a professional studio with at least one original important member of the band and remaster it the way it should sound. Then get the artwork taken care of, the liner notes, etc. and press the damn thing. If you've taken the correct steps to get this done, then you've already sunk a minimum of $25,000.00 into the project.

Then go out and sell it. Oh, you've got to sink a few grand into advertising if you want to sell more than 500 copies.

In order to break even, you've got to sell 5,000 minimum. Why that many? Well, you've got to have proper distribution, which means you'll be selling them to a distributor for $8 each. They sell them to stores for $11 and the stores sell them to the public for $15.

So, what happens if you sell 700 after sinking $40,000 into the project?

You file for bankruptcy.


Man, wasn't that worth it? Hey, at least it didn't get mastered from vinyl, huh? Even a great vinyl remastering job would have saved you $30,000 total, but that's OK....it's from the original master tapes! Forget about your spouse, who's just left you for a label owner who DOES master from vinyl. And forget about your kids' college tuition. They're going to grow up and be just like YOU!





[/quote]

No one is saying they cannot master however they so choose, but what is wrong with a little honesty, to let the consumer know that they can expect some noise just like the LP before they spend the $15 on it. They have a choice how they master it, shouldn't consumers have a choice in buying it based on it's limited quality?? IMO, the reason they don;t warn consumers of vinyl mastering is that they know the quality is not what most would want, thus they don;t mention it or their sales would be lower. If I have the LP, and can make my own CD-R, then to buy a CD mastered from vinyl for me personally was a waste of my money. I simply think it is the right thing to do to clearly state the source and limitations of the CD based on how much effort was put into making a quality CD, then just let the consumer decide if it is still worth the money they are about to fork over. Just my opinion.

[Spaz]

Over the past year, the general attitude has been 'if it's mastered from vinyl, it isn't worth our time'. That's fine. Go ahead and do it yourself (ie: make a CD-R at home from your LP). There's no problem in that.

A general rule of thumb in reissues is that if the band sold records and were on a major label, then the label took better care of the masters. If that same label (or associated label) does the reissue, then they are going to try to find the masters. Hopefully, they will and everyone will be happy.

But if a band was essentially a tax write-off for a major label (as many new wave bands ended up being) or on an indie label, and they didn't find initial success beyond a regional hit or two, the masters probably weren't handled as well. Nobody thought 25 years ago that there might be a demand for a remastered re-release in 2005 on a format that didn't exist back then. So, for those obscure bands, the only way to hear them on a compact disc is a master from vinyl.

Five years ago, I was disappointed when I'd buy a CD that was mastered from vinyl, but in dealing with many artists over the past few years, I've learned that they themselves can't get their masters from the label even if they the labels are legally obligated to hand them over (ie: contract expires or whatever). The masters are gone, lost, misplaced, mis-labelled, etc...This is the reality of the situation.


Someone here stated that labels do have the master tapes to these releases, but in all actuality, they probably don't. In the '80s, hundreds of albums on each label were released per quarter and if five of those made their money back, then the label paid attention. They lost money on 90% of them and maybe destroyed the masters, taped over them, threw them in a giant bin and buried them, whatever. If a label could easily have access to the masters, then they'll use them. Otherwise, don't count on it.

Depeche Mode, the Cure, Siouxsie, etc. Those were pretty popular bands back in the day and the labels paid attention to them. Artists like Sal Solo, as good as many of us think he is, didn't sell as well and was overlooked when another act on the same label outsold his album 100,000 to one.

So, if it's a major band on a major label, then money will be put into the project. If the band was/is obscure, then a major won't bat an eyelid to help the indie label that wants to re-issue it. Or they'll charge them $20,000 for use of the master (the cost includes finding the master, re-mastering it, etc). An indie label can't afford that so they go the affordable route. Plus, the artist is usually involved at some level and if they are behind it, then we should be behind it as well.

Support the bands and the small labels doing something good by reissuing their music. If you boycott any release that was mastered from vinyl then that lessens the chances of that label surviving and it certainly doesn't put money back into the artists pockets.

If you continue to boycott CDs that are mastered from vinyl, you hurt everyone from the artist (no royalties or mechanicals), the label (no sales means label goes under), the fans (who won't see any more reissues because that label went under),etc.

[Spaz]

I'm not one to press an issue further than it needs to go....

I will state for the record that it seems that you speak out of ignorance on this subject. Go back to my original post about the cost of reissuing and read it again. And again. It is not the gospel, but it is the truth. I have had dealings with many labels over the years and hear the same stories over and over again.

You use Universal as an example. Do you realize that Universal own 33% of all the labels on the Billboard charts (and beyond)? They make more money per MINUTE than you can possibly imagine. Of course they're going to have a great system to find the master tapes of their artists with some kind of sales history. But can they find the masters for WAY OF THE WEST? Maybe....maybe not

Wounded Bird has a deal with certain labels, yes. If the label can't find the master tapes, then there's a good chance that it won't be released. But more than likely, the tapes used are not the first generation tapes. They use the LP mixdown 2 track tapes instead of going back to the original masters and digitally remastering them. If they did that, you could definitely tell.

I could go on and on, but I think that my point has been made.

You are upset about vinyl masters and I am not. Give the labels a break and move on.