Please give us a review when you can, I'm curious as well. I would buy but just want to be sure before I spend the money, .
Haha, that's exactly how I used to listen to this album...with the top down. No wonder it didn't bother me that much. Man, I hope this one sounds good. I know it's likely cut from high rez or if it is done from an analog master, it's horrible marketing. Also, if it's cut from a substandard file, why even hiring the services of BGM which I'm sure isn't the cheapest around.
A little scary that it just says "cut". Not mastered, or remastered like many of their other listings.
IIRC, does the word "cut" mean the same thing as "mastered" when referring to vinyl mastering. It is a weird way to promote it in a press release and it is also a bit vague.
The recent BSSM vinyl reissue also says "cut" in the press release and it sounds amazing, so one can only hope the same rings true here.
That's what I was trying to say, except I wrote a typo "does" sounding like question form, instead of "doesn't"....my fault there and thanks for chiming in. Where did you get this information? This could be good news considering the album was mixed digital anyways. It could sound really good.
Just contacted the mastering house, they were kind enough to say. I'm definitely looking forward to this one now.
I was wondering if you had the initiative to do that as I couldn't find anything online that was that specific. Thanks for the confirmation.
Why? Was Jim Scott not a competent engineer? Wasn't it mixed to sound how the band/Rubin wanted it to sound? I guess we could say the same about the original mastering and it's pretty obvious that was bad. From what I can gather this album was meant to have a different overall feel. It's more of a 'dirty' sounding record (or is that just my car speakers breaking)? The band played live in one room and the basic sound is mono. I only pose these questions because I know very little about mixing and I'm not trying to contest your statement, just trying to understand. In saying this, I'd be interested to hear a remix. This is a very important record to me.
I have heard the "non-mastered" version and even if it sounds much better than the cd version, it doesn't sound great. It sounds very thin (especially drums) and it is very non-dynamic. Maybe this was how they wanted it to sound at the time but I really think it could be much better.
You could be right but I'm interested to hear what Chris Bellman did. Rarely am I not impressd with his work.
He's mastering their current string of post I'm with You singles. Has a replay gain of -9 or -10 dB, no dynamics... At least better than Vlado's -14 for I'm with You, and his EQing is better. Still not what I'd consider good mastering at all... 24/192? Fine and dandy, but is that pre- or post-brickwalling? Aren't all Chili albums recorded and mixed in analogue? Or is Californication an exception? I know everything up to BSSM was all-analogue, and so was S/A. It hasn't been made clear for IwY although I suspect analogue.
I emailed BG and got a response back from a Paul? He said he would happy to look into it next week and provide more information on what source was used for this. "We mixed to various digital formats (Apogee DAT, regular DAT, 96K DA88) and analogue 2-track, compared everything, and ended up using the analogue 2-track at 30ips with no Dolby" Hopefully its the 30ips tapes...
So why are they mastering from 24/192? D: Pls God make this be the version of Californication we've all hoped for for so long
Mine's out for delivery. If anyone is curious as to what certain parts of the album sound like, post 'em here and I'll do my best to get some clips of them up today.
