John Foxx-Metamatic

[schwenko]

here's a response to my query on the ultravox site:

quote:Originally posted by Si_W:
Ask Ken, he's our resident remastering expert...

Only in semi professional way Si. [Bemused]
Im an IT person but the subjects cross over in many ways.

From a tech view it sounds like its been remastered from the same analogue tape as the last edsel version. So theres some of the same tape sounds quieter and in better quality, along with the music i should add. [Nervous laugh]

So im sticking with Rob's business view that it has been remastered, its just that theres only so much tweeking you can do if the source recording is analogue from the start.

[MetaMatrix]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Rubellan[/i]
Had any actual master tape been used, the pops would not be in the same areas, or would not be present at all.[/quote]

that's jus' A PLAIN LIE , because it ONLY goes to show that BOTH versions of the edsel re-releases - the one in 2001 & the latest one this year - are made of the same master tapes , but with different results , as the latest one indeed sounds better than the one of 2001 !
everything else is jus' his personal misinterpretation of otherwise clear facts !

FACT is that the new version of "metamatic" indeed is A REMASTER !
FACT is also that rubellan is jus' unhappy with the way it sounds - with a few exceptions !

anyway ... this alone jus' DOESN'T give him the right to claim that the new version of "metamatic" is NOT remastered !
he jus' doesn't like the result - THAT'S IT !
anything else is A LIE !

rubellan is jus' one of those wiseacres , who pester people with their overzealous & utterly ridiculous nonsense , which i highly dislike !
"getting anything remotely adult" from people like him is like waiting for world peace to happen - simply a waste of time & thoughts !

i jus' detest people like him , who always moan & groan & have something to criticize , where there is not much IF ANYTHING to criticize !
all they can do is spoiling the fun & enjoyment for everybody else & my only advice to him & his ilk is GET A LIFE NOW !

end of discussion for me !


"retrosonic radio" - back to the 80s !
for more info mail me privately !

[Barmy]

Does it really save time to type jus' rather than just?

[Abacab]

Scott, as much as I cannot abide Mr. Metamatrix and his inability to type coherently or in any civil manner, I do have question for you. You and I have had e-mail exchanges in the past, and that I normally agree with you on just about everything you post. "Remastering" these days is either cobbling together tracks from other CDs, maximising everything to death or a vinyl rip. My question is, can you post WAV graphs of the Edsel disc? I can clearly see the pops and static on the new "remaster", but without a frame of reference, it does not make much difference. I know Metamatrix and his cohorts are going to scream troll no matter what, but I would appreciate the WAV images.

Edward

[Abacab]

That's what I wanted to see. I wanted to see the spectral screen shots next to each other to see if the pops are in the same place. Seems that they are. Pretty clear cut.

Edward

[StormyPetrel]

John Foxx rawx, dude!!!! His last CD Sideways killed me. Awesome.

I would love for him to come to the USA.

-~Obscene dreams in rusty beds.~-

[eight6]

[quote][i]Originally posted by MetaMatrix[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by Rubellan[/i]
Had any actual master tape been used, the pops would not be in the same areas, or would not be present at all.[/quote]

that's jus' A PLAIN LIE , because it ONLY goes to show that BOTH versions of the edsel re-releases - the one in 2001 & the latest one this year - are made of the same master tapes , but with different results , as the latest one indeed sounds better than the one of 2001 !
everything else is jus' his personal misinterpretation of otherwise clear facts !

FACT is that the new version of "metamatic" indeed is A REMASTER !
FACT is also that rubellan is jus' unhappy with the way it sounds - with a few exceptions !

anyway ... this alone jus' DOESN'T give him the right to claim that the new version of "metamatic" is NOT remastered !
he jus' doesn't like the result - THAT'S IT !
anything else is A LIE !

rubellan is jus' one of those wiseacres , who pester people with their overzealous & utterly ridiculous nonsense , which i highly dislike !
"getting anything remotely adult" from people like him is like waiting for world peace to happen - simply a waste of time & thoughts !

i jus' detest people like him , who always moan & groan & have something to criticize , where there is not much IF ANYTHING to criticize !
all they can do is spoiling the fun & enjoyment for everybody else & my only advice to him & his ilk is GET A LIFE NOW !

end of discussion for me !


"retrosonic radio" - back to the 80s !
for more info mail me privately !
[/quote]


Hey, you're way out of your depth. Everything rubellan has written makes absolute sense, and if you weren't such a sheep and actually considered the hard evidence put in front of you instead of blindly taking the word of somebody with a vested interest in the CDs sale, you'd stop looking like a fool.

[thefxc]

I only have the 1993(?) Virgin CD, and I have no stake in whether or not the new version is properly remastered (although Rubellan seems to have made his point quite nicely), but I actually don't mind the noise and hiss--it contributes to the cold, dystopian feel to the songs.

[i]The Garden[/i], on the other hand, could use some tidying up.

[Rubellan]

I do have to admit that I just repurchased the old Virgin issued CD from eBay. I have been getting tired of holding onto mulitple versions of releases because the old one sounds better than the new, but I miss my old Virgin Metamatic, and plan to do my own lousy remaster starting from that source. In recent years, Metamatic has replaced The Golden Section as my fave Foxx album, so I want to make my own ultimate edition.

[Passing_Stranger]

Hi Rubellan, will your version of "Metamatic" be for yourself only?[:)]

[MetaMatrix]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Rubellan[/i]
<br>I miss my old Virgin Metamatic, and plan to do my own lousy remaster starting from that source. [/quote]
well ... as u CAN'T do a remaster that can indeed be called a remaster , if u DON'T have the original master tapes - which a wanker like u will definitely NEVER get your filthy hands on ! - by your own definition ( see above ! ) , all u can indeed do is making a digitally cleaned up copy from one cd & record it on another one !

the term "lousy" really describes what u do best - congratulations ! *lol*

p. s. to that other sucker called eight-something : the only hard evidence i can actually see here is the stick in your arse - well done ! *lol*

[eight6]

[quote][i]Originally posted by MetaMatrix[/i]


p. s. to that other sucker called eight-something : the only hard evidence i can actually see here is the stick in your arse - well done ! *lol*

[/quote]

I guess I was expecting too much from a fucktard such as you.

Tell you [i]click[/i] what, you [i]pop[/i] just keep [i]click click[/i] listening to those [i]pop[/i] pristeen [i]click[/i] CDs <i.pop[/i] and forget about [i]pop[/i] the educ[i]click[/i]ation that was [i]click[/i] attempted here.

[MetaMatrix]

"click click ... drone" *hehehe*

[Jeffrey]

I have to ask, have you heard anything that Rubellan has done? He does more than remove clicks, pops and static. The equalization and the fine tuning of sound is exquisite. I so wish you wouldn't be so cruel with your comments. Scott is a huge fan of the music, always know this.


Jeffrey

[Rubellan]

I just got the Virgin Metamatic CD back in my hands, and I forgot what an excellent flat transfer it was. This will be a prime starting point for a remaster.