Kiss remasters are supposed to be really good, aren't' they? Or so I thought until 1 hour ago I compared "Greatest KISS" (the remastered compilation) to original debut album and Rock'n'roll Over. I never did it before since my Kiss phase ended long before I got my first good system. Originals were much more natural, "meaty" and "airy" (I'm not sure if I'm using the right words - sorry, English is not my native language). Originals rocked the way Kiss records are supposed to do. While remasters sure have more detail and they certainly don't suck (compared to some garbage out there), they still sounded sharper and one-dimensional. As most people here seemed to prefer remasters, I guess I'm in minority here. Or I'm not?
antonkk, I understand you perfectly. As far as CD's go, I'm finding that I prefer the very early Japanese and W. German pressings over the later pressings including the remasters for reasons similar to your own.
The Kiss catalog was the first time I really fell for the "newer means better, I'm gonna get rid of my old ones". I had everything up through Love Gun, but sold them upon getting the remasters (I was in 6th grade when the remasters came out, thus, I suppose I was too young and naïve at the time to realize that newer doesn't always mean better). In any case, I don't think the remasters are all that bad. I wish I still had the original CD's to do some A/B comparisons to, though. I think, too, that I remember reading in a special issue Kiss mag put out by Metal Edge back around the same time as the remasters that Gene Simmons mentioned that several songs on the various CD's had early fades, etc. and that with the remasters, everything was going back to the original tapes and that the songs would be complete. For what it's worth, though, since my originals are long gone, I'm not about ready to go buy used ones. I'm happy with the remasters, although the only REAL way to listen to Kiss is on vinyl
The remasters have some digital compression on them, which may account for the "one dimensional" feeling you describe. They are also of course maximized to be louder. I haven't heard the original versions to compare.
Man, Kiss Alive was my first album ever, and I wore out 2 copies of it! I don't have any remasters, and I usually play the albums, just like the "old" days. Might have to pick one up and do a comparison.
One thing is for certain is that CD-wise you have to go for the Creatures Of The Night remaster. It is the only way to get the original mix on CD. The first issue contained the 1985 reissue mix w/ the non-makeup cover. Gene Simmons remixed it to make it less ballsy and more commercial but it didn't help sales. This album is one of their best and is a must if you are fan. Also, the Elder remaster contains the non US mix of the album. The tracks flow better on this and there is additional music left off the US release. Polygram wanted to make the Elder more commercial so they changed the track order and chopped off some of the orchestrations. The story makes sense on the remaster. The non-US mix is also available on the first Japan CD issue of the Elder which I haven't heard.
Heh heh. If I was Joe, I wouldn't have used all mono mixes on the "Cup of Loneliness" George Jones compilation CD, that's for sure. Anyway, I know it because I was curious and looked at the waveforms in a wave editor. Since I haven't heard the original LPs or CDs, I wouldn't be able to tell it just by listening...
It is not in my nature to be confrontational, but you are incorrect here. You cannot tell if something has been compressed in mastering by looking at the waveforms on a digital audio workstation.
Why not, Rob? The waveforms show the amplitude of the signal. If it has lots of peaks and valleys, it's dynamic. If it looks like a big fat caterpillar, it isn't very dynamic.
I guess I should say, if one waveform looks fatter than the waveform of the same tune, in comparison, it would seem the fatter, less peaky waveform would have been compressed. Yes?
What I'm saying here is, you cannot tell if something has been compressed IN MASTERING by looking at a waveform depiction of it. How does one know if that compressed-looking waveform isn't compressed because it was a very compressed recording or mix? You can't just look at a waveform that looks like a link sausage and say "Ah, ya see? Mastering engineer killed it." It doesn't work that way. When there were posts on this forum that MFSL compressed John Lennon's "Imagine" for their gold CD, I wanted to scream. Did you know that MoFi does not even have a compressor in their building? But somebody loads "Imagine" into a wave editor and sees the graphic and jumps to conclusions, not even thinking that perhaps those mixes were compressed in the first place and not the doing of MoFi. The fact that there are individuals that even rely on wave editors to explain sound to them is not something I want to get into, but I really think it should stop.
Rob is on the warpath tonight! What about when one compares an original CD's wave to a remaster and they both used the original mixes? If the later version is less dynamic, it is pretty easy to come to the conclusion that the mastering engineer couldn't keep his hand off the chicken switch...
I'm certainly not the most knowledgeable person about anything technical, but I was under the impression that "square" waveforms (those which are sometimes called "buzzcut" waves) did not occur naturally, ie without being the result of digital manipulation somewhere along the line. Am I wrong about this? Would a recording that has an extreme amount of analog compression also appear square? And I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that anyone should decide whether they like the sound of a CD by looking at the waveforms rather than by listening to it. That's even too ridiculous for someone like me. Sorry if I gave that impression and pushed your hot button.
Having just looked at some of the waveforms from some of the songs on the remasters, it seems to vary. Some of them look fairly dynamic, while some look more "caterpillary." Go figure
Yes. Signal overload is signal overload and even if there was analog compression/limiting or even just plain gain boost with no actual compression, the waveforms would appear as a squarewave just because it is clipped. I didn't mean to come off the wrong way. This forum is for learning, and has taught me a few things, so...hopefully I can give back.
The waveform you are discussing can also happen from a clipping of the A/D converter (a lot of analog level at the front end), or a gain change in the computer. Compression would add a sonic artifact which would be more noticeable to the ear. If done gently, the waveform might even look a lot like the waveform of an analog compressed master. Let's not guess at what someone, you might not even know, has done.
The remasters are better, noticeably on Hotter Than Hell and Alive! The original CDs had white noise in spots and needed a sonic overhaul. In fact, I even prefer the '97 remasters to the George Marino remastered tracks on the recent KISS: The Box Set. I agree that Music From The Elder benefits from reverting to its original, non-U.S. sequence. It has a better flow from a musical and conceptual point of view. I still held onto my original U.S. CD because of that's the track sequence I grew up with. My only gripe with the remasters is that I wish they had replicated the original Casablanca LP label artwork and logos on the discs themselves.
I agree with ACK! one hundred percent. Even though I love the music, 'Hotter Than Hell' is one bad-sounding sludgefest no matter what the media or mastering. The '97 presentation is better to me than any other digital version. (I do like it on vinyl a *little* better.) Both original CD versions 'Alive' and 'Alive II' had strange sounds on them. I'm not sure if it was white noise or what, but it truly RUINED several songs. It was very intrusive. The '97 versions smoked 'em without trying. I actually liked the original CD versions of 'Dressed To Kill', 'Rock And Roll Over', and 'Love Gun.' I still think the remasters are better, but the difference isn't as glaring. I DO NOT like the sound of the boxed set. I didn't realize George Marino mastered it. When I first bought it, I couldn't wait to listen. I opened it at work and listened on my PC and I couldn't believe how underwhelming it sounded. As soon as I got home, I A-Bd it with the remasters. That was one of the final nails in the coffin of my attitude that 'new remaster equals better.' I love the boxed set's song selection, packaging, and overall presentation. However, to me, they screwed up the most important part - the music. Then again, it's KISS. I think even Gene Simmons would agree that packaging and presentation is EQUALLY important if not more so than the music to the KISS organization. The mini-LPs use the 97 remasters. These could have been the final word on KISS from both a packaging and sound perspective had they spent more time duplicating the original album art - inside and out. I'd have loved to see the various original Casablanca labels, the original inner sleeves, etc. The remasters actually get closer to the original album experience than the mini-LPs. Very disappointing. Still, I think KISS fans are very lucky to have what we have. I don't think it will get any better than what is currently available. I can't imagine purchasing these titles ever again unless Steve does 'em.
I had forgotten that Alive II had some sonic artifacts that shouldn't have been there. Hotter Than Hell is as good as it will ever sound - the recording and production fell way short of the mark and that's what's on the master tape. It is very odd that George Marino's remastering on the box set tracks wasn't as good as the '97 remasters, but whaddya gonna do. On the other hand, if you want to hear a tinny sounding, flat live recording that was done only last year...pick up KISS Symphony: Alive IV!
What puzzles me is why Hotter Than Hell sounds like sh!t while the debut sounds so much better, even though they used the exact same engineer and producers! Maybe because HTH was recorded in more of a hurry?
