Metamatic Forums John Foxx John Foxx remastered or not ? :-o

well ... there's a guy called scott a.k.a. rubellan over in another forum claiming that the new double-album of "metamatic" is NOT a remastered edition ! :-o

please read for yourself , what he has to say @ http://www.nwoutpost.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=20502

what do y' all think about that ? :-o

i'm actually quite annoyed about his claims & have already answered over there & also in the ev forum to it ! *grumble*

anyway ... a clarification from rob about this matter would be a good thing now !

If the new edition of Metamatic isn't remastered then I am an elephant.

Yeah, ive added my two cents of the euro too at EV. Hence my reason for listing 'Metamatic' second version cd, earlier on my playlist today.

Yes its a storm in a tea cup, so lets drink up quick.

Some flaws - like the bit in Young Love where everything goes to the left speaker for a split second - may not be "remasterable".

Even by playing one of the CDs in my computer I can clearly hear the difference compared to the previous edition. I don't think it's anything radical but there has certainly been work done, probably as much as it can be, given its age - of that there is no doubt.

That person is talking rubbish.

I begin to be tired of reading the comments of these "sound specialists"!
It is certainly not a big difference in the sound quality to the last Edsel remastered version. But a much better than the 1993 Virgin version.

For me , the important reason to buy this new Version were all the bonus tracks. For this I'm very thankfully John had heard the wishes of his fans! Now we can listen to some long missed tracks - and for that it was worth the money alone!

To discuss if one bleep is better remastered as another one is very boring for my opinion!


THANK'S A LOT JOHN!!!! GO ON!!!

Looking forward to THE GARDEN!!!....

And that REALLY matters???

my thoughts exactly , alex & i bet that he doesn't have the guts to come over here to renew his claims in "the place to be" concerning all things foxx-y ! ;-o

some people are never really satisfied - for what utterly strange reason soever ! *sigh*

john simply DOESN'T deserve such "fans" like this scott a.k.a. rubellan person imho , but luckily enough there aren't much of his ilk around these days anymore ! *phew*

'nuff said for now !

Absolutely.

Some people are just impossible to please. For me the sound is slightly better than the previous reissue, and I was perfectly happy with that.

Like Andreas, I was mostly interested in the second disc for the bonus material - which I think sounds as good as it probably can.

I'm not a sonic geek who wants to sit and weigh up the pros and cons of every little click and bleep, then complain that one bit of percussion is too loud in one track compared to the origial etc, and all that, but to read comments like that is just unfair.

The fact is that it is officially out there and sounding good.

People who want to pull apart the work that has been done obviosuly have a problem of some kind, which esculates to POINTLESS arguments and disagreements etc.

There are much more interesting and worthwhile aspects of John's music to talk about.

They should just shut up and simply enjoy the music!!!!!!

Exact my opinion too, Alex!!!

WTF!?

It's an album that was (as Foxx put it), 'Recorded in an 8-track cupboard in Islington'...

WTF was this guy Scott expecting it to come out sounding like - 'Dark Side of the *&^*^*% Moon'!?

Q: Can I play it? A: Yes

Q: Can I hear a bit of tape hiss from 1979 A: Yes

Q: Do I give A s**t that I hear a bit of tape hiss from 1979?

A: No. I have a life.

Q: Does it 'Rock'? A: Hell yeah!

Spot on!!

I think we need say no more.

I'm not employed as a sound engineer but I'm 31 years old, have excellent hearing and have been playing about with tape recorders, synthesizers, drum machines and computer audio editing equipment since I was very young.
Anyone who has seen my fully restored Roland CR-78 would be able to see my great attention to detail

I love Metamatic and know all versions of it intimately. In a nutshell, the old 'Edsel' re-issue is plagued with unmistakable master tape drop-out, particularly on "He's a Liquid"

After a while, you get used to it, so therefore it was a pleasant surprise NOT to hear it on the new CD

There was also some kind of weird noise reduction used on the old Edsel release, the volume level of tape hiss seems to vary in-line with the source material, like some kind of automatic noise reduction system had been implemented. When listening through headphones, the effect is rather bizzare, a bit like the Automatic Level Control you used to get on old, cheap cassette recorders!

Thankfully, that too is gone on the new release! Yes, the hiss is still there but it's constant and with no attempt made to remove it - this is a GOOD thing, with a recording of this age I would rather hear the vintage tape hiss, rather than A) Try to remove it with a heavy hand and loose a fair amount of 'top end'. B) Use a Digital Noise reduction technique causing unavoidable odd effects like those described above.

I've played it a number of times now, with and without headphones and I'm pretty convinced that a different (better) source master tape has been used for this release. Considering the recording was made in a very small studio circa 1979/80, I doubt much can be done to improve the sound over this new version, which is simply brilliant!

In my humble opinion, the guy that is moaning about the new CD is wrong....

Thank you John, you have done us proud and I simply cannot wait for the Garden........

I'm also over the moon with the new remastered Metamatic. Back in 1980 I was happy with the vinyl as well, not knowing any different. I don't sit and listen to every imperfection. I've better things to do.
I'm pleased that John as re-released Metamatic and I'm also eager for The Garden.

Peter

yes indeed - very well said & explained , dave r. ! :-)

What impresses me most about the sound quality of the new release is that, perhaps for the first time, we are now hearing Metamatic as its creator intended?

It's unfortunate to see this degenerated into a typical online tirade against freedom of speech. If anyone actually read the thread in detail on the New Wave Outpost, they would see that in no way do I suggest that people should avoid this release, more so than comment on the "remastering". I have recently provided screen shots in that thread for our little torch carrying guy who started this thread, in an attempt to illustrate my point.

And for the record, I am a freelance sound engineer, having remastered several currently in-print CD's. When I say "remastered", I mean I would spend hours on one song, with a full remaster taking weeks at times.

In the 90's the the term "digitally remastered" meant going back to the best generation master tape available, and enhancing/improving the sound quality. Nowadays, the term means nothing more that "the music is now on CD". Speaking from experience, many companies will simply "remaster" from previously released CD's. The reason is restoring and transfering tapes can be quite costly. And while I have been put in this situation with projects that I've worked on for release, I always remaster the material completely. If Metamatic were my project, and tapes were not to be used, I would have started with the old Virgin CD because it is an excellent starting point. Please note the term "starting point" because the processing would begin from that source. It is a flat transfer of the masters with no processing added. The Edsel release from years back was a very novice job, and much of that is what was used for the current CD release. I mean no disrespect to John, Robin or anyone reading, but this just didn't live up to my (admittedly audiophile) expectations. This is my observation, nothing more.

Scott

I think that's a fair point well made.

This forum is all about freedom of expression and open discussion. All opinions are welcome, particularly when expressed in this eloquent and well-considered manner.

Thanks for posting Scott.

The very reason I stated on this thread yesterday that this was a 'storm in a tea cup', was because I knew you had a point about the limited amount of improvement that was made to this lastest release. Everyones opinion is right to a degree, yes it was remastered but yes it could have been better.

Please see my post at EV yesterday before this thread started at Metamatic, it mirrors your thoughts too.

http://www.ultravox.org.uk/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000540;p=1#000019

Anyway now your here on the forum we hope you decide to stay, as balanced views are always welcome.

sorry fellows , but i'm indeed well pissed off by now ! *grim*

what a load of bullshit ! *grim*

FACT is that we are discussing it now , but FACT is also that nobody has ANY right to LIE through his teeth like this person did with all his claims , "explanations" & wanna-be "proofs" ! :-/

i've already answered him over in the other forum & for me he's jus' one of those wiseacres , who pester other people with their overzealous & utterly ridiculous nonsense , which i highly dislike ! :-/
read my reply to him & his "proofs" here @ http://www.nwoutpost.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=20502 , if u like !

well ... that may be true in other cases but DEFINITELY NOT in the case of the new "metamatic" remaster !

fyi : if the new "metamatic" version would have indeed been made of the same previously released cd by edsel ( which this person seems to believe ) then it would also sound like it , which is CLEARLY NOT the case , as dave r.'s reply here already proves WITHOUT A DOUBT !

that's actually the ONLY thing i agree on !

anyway ... for me it's jus' A FACT that both edsel re-releases are made from the same source material - i. e. the ( original or @ least still available ) master tapes - plain & simple as that !

"nothing more" , eh ? :-o

jus' read what the same person wrote over in the other forum before he paddled back here like a spineless sissy ! *grumble*

scott a.k.a. rubellan wrote : "I just got the Metamatic 2CD set, and I can tell you it has NOT been remastered, as previously claimed. It is just a transfer of the previous CD reissue with a few unreleased tracks added."

how does that sound to u then !?

however ... there are only two options & absoluetly NO space for other "interpretations" now : either this scott person is right & it's indeed NOT a remaster , which i highly doubt for reasons that i've already explained over in the other forum ... or rob harris & all the people involved in the production of the new version of "metamatic" aren't telling us the truth & want to make us fans believe that it's a remaster , while it's not , which i actually don't even dare to think for real , as this would make me furious as hell , if it should be true then ! >:-O

therefore i must demand a clear word from rob harris in this case here as soon as possible to clarifiy things ONCE & FOR ALL now !

'nuff said indeed for me !

Having had a read through the posts on here and the NW site it seems to me that the argument is not whether or not the latest release has been remastered but what was it remastered from. As it has been stated for a remaster to be of significant improvement the original analogue tapes need to be used. If you are just using a CD, whether it be the Virgin or Edsel release then surely that shouldn't count as a true "remaster". At least when CD's first came out a lot of them had the AAA or DDD or ADD etc guide on the sleeve to let the listener know. I have the latest Metamatic release at home but I am currently away so I can't actually comment on what I hear myself.
If you're trying to tell the difference on a Japanese boombox with a loudness control though then you might have some difficulty.

Does anyone really care! We have the new tracks on Metamatic, two new albums released today, ICA show, tour starting soon, new releases next year and even a Metamatic t-shirt (cool!)........fill ya boots

yes , I DO !

this topic's question is indeed a very serious one for me , because either we - the fans - were fooled by the makers of this new "metamatic" version , as we were told that it's a remastered version ... or it's jus' a vicious scheme by a certain individual , whose aim was to generate some controversy about it all ! :-o

either way , i simply DEMAND a clear answer now , as i'm not @ all willing to let this question go by unsolved !

that much is for sure - without a doubt !

Well, I'd like to thank Scott very much for taking the time to post his comments here and for the detail he's provided on The New Wave Outpost forum ... the 'screen-prints' were very interesting (to me) to view.

Without wanting to cause any offence to anyone involved in the new 2CD release of Metamatic, I have to say that I agree with everything Scott has said. I certainly appreciate having this 2CD set, and the obvious time and considerable effort that's gone into it (thanks, Rob! ), but it is almost certain that, being a reissue from Edsel, the new CD sound source is a 're-tweaking' of the 2001 CD, which, as I'm sure many of us realise, contains numerous flaws ... the tracks run too fast, for one thing!

The original Virgin CD (CDV 2146, released in 1993 ... from where I discovered Extreme Voice, I might add ) appears to have been taken from the same master as the original vinyl album. I say this because the inter-track links are identical ... e.g. the way the CR-78 snare roll at the end of Underpass runs right into the start of Metal Beat ... the end fade of 030 runs into the start of Tidal Wave ... sort of thing.

I also agree with Scott's comments about Assembly being a pretty-good remaster, even though there's obvious technology changes over fifteen years, but I can imagine that the quality of remastering certainly depends on who's doing it and the amount of time and care they can afford to invest in the project. It's interesting to note that the cover of Assembly states, "Remastered for CD by John Foxx.". So, perhaps it's just the fact that the first CD of Metamatic, released by Virgin, was able to be taken from the actual vinyl master, but the Edsel CD's had to be taken from a different source and an 'economic' remastering process was done for that release, which has now been tweaked and corrected, where possible, for the latest CD.

So, I do appreciate all of Scott's comments as I can certainly hear what he is referring to, and given that I've done quite a bit of 'strictly amateur' sound enhancement, I can appreciate what it's like to spend hours on one track, zooming in to 1000ths of seconds to correct 'drop-outs' and the like.

There are clearly different degrees of quality of remastering and I can say that only one CD in my entire collection totally impresses me, and that's the 2003 MCA remaster of Reach The Beach by The Fixx ... it literally had me going back to the vinyl to check to see if some of the sounds on the CD were in the original recording.

So, again, while I am eternally grateful for the considerable time and effort that goes into all of these CD projects ... all of the EV/EMI Gold Ultravox reissues, the Island remasters, and all of the John Foxx CD's ... there are certainly going to be elements of these projects that are totally out of 'supervisory' control, expecially when you're trying your best to get details like the artwork the way you want it, but someone else is insistent on doing it their way, etc ... so I have nothing but appreciation for the people who enable these items to end up in our private collections, and if this latest release is the definitive Metamatic CD, then I'd certainly rather have it than not.

Once again, thank you Scott for the very interesting details you have provided and for explanations of what I can certainly hear.

All the best ...

I was going to post yesterday morning but had a certain train to catch to get to a certain city for a cetain gig (Nice to see eveyone on Saturday BTW), but Martin's posting following Scott's put it in almost the same words.
Firstly, welcome Scott to the forum and I hope that you do indeed stay, I read your postings on the NW thread and see what you're saying. I am appalled at the viciousness with which you've been treated for what is an opinion founded in fact.
Secondly, I believe Scott was trying to say that there is remastering and then there is remastering, and he hasn't once said don't buy the CDs. OK he stated it was NOT remasterd at first, but we're splitting semantics here, there's no libel, no case to sue, no demands to be made. John, Steve, Rob, Louis, Chris 1, Chris 2 and all those people involved with making these CDs and the shows available, thank you from the bottom of my heart as a fan of all this Foxxy since 1981. And I am going to say it, and hopefully NOT get thrown off the forum - but if I do I'll understand why cos I've read the rules and regulations - Olaf (yes I'm naming names) how dare you treat someone in this way over something so petty, you have an opinion and so does Scott. I'm sick to death of coming on this forum to see what developments there are for John's various projects only to read petty arguments form forum members who constantly feel their's is the only opinion. Please grow up and treat this place the way it was intended. AND I won't be replying to any disected point for point response cos I hope to find better things to do.
Keep up freedom of speech on this forum - Scott, thanks for sharing you're opinions.
Cheers

Well, I'm certainly glad to see others are able to view my comments as they were meant to be. And thank you for the welcome.

Without the intent of causing any further uproar, I do have a concern about the future reissues. The previous Edsel reissue of The Garden was plagued by similar issues as Metamatic; primarily the static pops throughout the duration of the main album tracks. Again, none of this was present on the Virgin CD. If the remastering of The Garden is going to be done from a previous remaster, it would be great that it start with the tracks on the Virgin CD, then go from there. Just a suggestion though.

Also, the bonus material on the Edsel reissue of In Mysterious Ways all seems to have come from vinyl sources. I'm assuming Virgin couldn't find the tapes when John bought back his back catalog?? Remastering from vinyl is my specialty, so if Robin or John would like my assistance on either of these future projects, I would be happy to assist for the best possible outcome, coming from an audiophile with a productive amount of OCD.

If you would want to hear examples of my remastering work, a couple of my projects were released a couple of weeks ago, with full credit details in the booklets:

Dead or Alive-Sophisticated Boom Boom (with 7 bonus tracks)

King-Bitter Sweet (With 8 bonus tracks)

Kind regards,
Scott

I think what is happening here is a division between those for whom fine detail is all important and those like myself who just wish to listen to the overall sound and are grateful to have new music to listen to.

I have been a Foxx fan most of my life, but had this release not included the second CD I would probably not have purchased it so the arguments above mean very little to me.

My own view is that if you are listening with that much detail to the technical aspects of the recording you are probably missing the overall majesty of this work, but maybe I'm missing something... maybe there is another dimension to this music that I am completely blind to.

Erm, without wanting to get the infamous-in-some-places feline1 claws out,
this really is a pretty no-brainer, put-up-or-shut-up case:

if you really think the latest Metamatic CD is the same as the Edsel one,
then rip a WAV file off both of them,
put them both in an audio editor,
invert the phase of one,
and see if they cancel to zero.

If they do - then they're the same
If they don't - then you're talking balls.

The end!

Stop sh*t-stirring and waffling on and trying to bamboozle less-technically-minded fans on John's website.


Personally speaking, I've owned all 3 CDs over the years -
I didn't spend time doing an AB comparison of the Edsel CD before I gave my old copy to a friend! Cos I was more interested in the previously unreleased tracks (and getting to hear YOUNG LOVE again!)
I did notice though that "Burning Car" sounded actually like it had more tape hiss and a slight ricketyness on it compared to the previous mastering.....

I imagine this is an artistic decision on the part of the mastering engineer - you can decide to try and remove tape his and beef up bass and squash things with multiband compression etc etc to make the track sound more "modern" -
or you can decide to have some respect for the original source material and not try and change it too much.

As Garry notes above, METAMATIC was recorded on a low budget 8-track, fer goodnessakes! I'm amazed it sounds as good as it does.
I have a Roland CR78 myself for instance, and the signal to noise ratio is pretty poor - always a bit of clock signal bleed, for example ... they must've EQ the bollocks off it on Metamatic to get it sounding so big...

Something like "Young Love" is only an out-take anyways, John's only letting us hear it out of the goodness of his heart ;-)
It's archaeology! If the stereo image flummuxes in the middle, don't be surprised.
Yes you could patch it up in an editor if you wanted. Or you could re-record bits! Or the whole thing from scratch! But it's a demo from 28 years ago! Why bother?

Fact is, about 90% of the people interested in Metamatic at all first heard it on VINYL. Probably on a crap record player. With all the attendant limited dynamics and frequency range.
They wanna still buy CDs of it in 2007 not for techinical isssues but because of what it is as a piece of art and music, in terms of SONGS, the Ballardian lyrics, the stark futuristic arrangements, John's pointy chisel chin and viscose clothes, etc etc etc.
It's low budget glorious art-school nonsense assembled from trash! (The CR78's green bakelite RHUMBA preset button, anyone?)
Arguing about how much tape hiss can fit on the head of a pin is missing the point badly.

A little off-topic I know but I have one, and love it to bits - and have noticed the clock signal bleed too I would love to chat about it a bit more if you have time, maybe share some tips on the old beast?

Cheers,

Dave.

Well,what can I say!!
If he doesn't think it's a remaster then I suggest he goes for an ear syringe!!

Broken Furniture is a very good friend of mine and I know I was the first to let him hear the re-master(can I rub that in again...RE-MASTER!!) when myself and another friend picked him up for a day out,we had Metamatic on in the car and you could just FEEL the differance!!.
A superb remaster done a great diservice by somepeople :rolleyes:

Post deleted (by user)

Now here is the perspevtive!!

You say that anyone who disagrees with you is just not listening but then you claim to be 'objective'

Surely the fact that I can AUDIBLY hear a difference between the old Edsel release and the new,so-called,Re-master means that,as far as I'm concearned,it is a remaster....

It's not a case of the town out to kill the wolf,but more a case of the innocent out to defeat the guilty.

Point of FACT!!.
This has been marketed as a "Re-master", if you can PROVE it is NOT then PROVE it!!

Otherwise,shut up!!,sell your copy on e-bay if your not happy with it.I really couldn't care because I love the RE-MASTER

Should we be expecting an 'official' response to the questions raised in this thread?

The CD is a remaster. I know the vinyl record off by heart and notice instantaneously that the sound is much crispier. You don't have to be a techie to notice that. The clue is in the percussion. They do stand out on CD.

The Metamatic 2CD is a success. It may not have been the biggest selling of its genre but regarded by its peers as the definitive synth album. John makes it into a work of art. That's the difference.

The album and extra tracks are well recorded and produced. When you have a line-up of John Foxx, John Barker (orchestral arrangements for Heaven 17) and Gareth Jones (Depeche Mode fame) what can go wrong.

I'm VERY HAPPY with the deluxe edition of Metamatic.

Chris

Look people, this really is a load of trolling balls, to be blunt.

You don't come on the Internet making potenitally libellous statements about someone's release like that unless you can prove what you say.
As I mentioned, the very easy way to prove that the new 2007 CD is the same as the Edsel CD is to rip a WAV off each, invert the phase of one, put them both in an audio editor and see if they cancel to zero or not.
If this guy wasn't a spouting mentalist he would've done that first before he went near the Interweb spouting his claims.
Even if he was correct, publically accusing someone of false advertising simply by posting an unsubstantiated claim on a message board, without presenting the evidence, is brainwrong, particularly if he really does claim to be a 'professional' mastering engineer - he could have his 'ass' litigated out of the business.

The fact that he's done things this way means either too things:
( a ) - he's a stupid eejit
( b ) - he's just another of the Interweb's many lying trolls, whose real name is probably Darren and he's either a 17 year old high school student from Michigan, or a 41 year old assistent bank clerk from Hemel Hempstead who last had a girlfriend in 1997.

NEXT!

Might I suggest Feline actually read the thread in detail and follow any links. Mindless cat cattle just searching for a reason to scratch...

Hell with it, I'm outta here. This brief experience has been all so..., typical. Have fun tearing each other apart.

I suggested you put up or shut up.
It seems you'll be doing the latter.
Be seeing you. :rolleyes:

yeah ... i really hope so , as it would sicken me beyond belief to even dare to think that when i bought the new version of "metamatic" , which was CLEARLY ADVERTISED as a REMASTER , it's actually not a remaster , so i demand an "official" answer to the ONLY interesting question in this case for me again now :
is the new version of "metamatic" a remaster or not ?
YES or NO ?

i'm awaiting THE DEFINITE ANSWER to it now !

[ ... ]

btw : to all those people , who supported or even thanked this scott troll here , i can only say that i'm indeed deeply saddened to see this happening @ all , but as such a behaviour is not new to me & some people seem to "enjoy" such a role as "the devil's advocate" i can only tell u - & u know , who i mean with it ! - that i do NOT wish to talk or discuss ANYTHING with u again , if u aren't even able to differentiate between a person's private opinion & THE FACTS ! :-/

as i already wrote here before : either it's indeed a remaster , then this scott troll is jus' a vicious LIAR ... or it is not , then rob harris has lied to us , as he claimed that it's a remaster , as he was asked about it - plain & simple FACT !
fyi : there is NO room for other "interpretations" in this case , as painful as it may be in the end ! *sigh*

to make this clear without a doubt : i still trust the given word of rob harris & not the word of "somebody" , who only came here , because i've challenged him to prove his claims !
that much is for sure - anyway !

however ... i still want to know THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER to my original question !

oh for goodness sakes -

SOME (excellent) FREEWARE CD-RIPPING SOFTWARE:
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

SOME FREE AUDIO EDITING SOFTWARE:
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

download them,
rip a wav each of "Underpants" of an Edsel CD and a 2007 CD with Exact Audio Copy,
bung both wavs in Audacity,
invert the phase of one of them,
see if the wavs cancel out bit for bit.

The End. :rolleyes:

Can we CLOSE this thread please?

i'm 101% with u , feline1 , but sadly not even a clear word from rob harris would stop this scott troll from renewing his claims , as he already made clear in that other forum before , so ... he certainly jus' *lol* about us all now & makes a note to himself : "mission accomplished !" *grim*

WHAT AN ASSHOLE !!! :-/

p. s. : i jus' wish that i would NEVER have read this posting here : http://www.ultravox.org.uk/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000540;p=1#000016 , as this was , what started the whole mess ! *sigh*

i'm indeed very sorry for taking this bait over there ! :-(

seriously ... i agree , please close it & then also delete it completely as soon as possible !

a short & final note like "the new version of 'metamatic' is indeed a remaster !" by rob harris would solve this question once & for all !

thanx !

Speak for yourself dear,
I don't spend my time making posts on message boards for people to come along and delete them on me!

Apart from the techy side of which both F1 and Scott have put forward, it must be remembered that actual opinions are not so black or white.

The question is not as simple as has it been remastered or not. Its the degree of how much we all think the quality has been improved. For me, it could have been better but im happy enough to call this the definitive edition.
Other grey areas are, some people agree with Scott, some dont, and some of us said from the start 'everyones right to some degree'.

The most important grey is not about the cd, but this finger pointing about 'lies'. Even though Rob did say it was remastered, it may of been that he was lied too. No one person ever knows everything, even if their in a group of people working on a project. So for that reason no one person should be made responsible. And again, it may have been remastered with such a small difference from the last one, that it actually has been remastered, and no-ones lied.

So lets just get back to the techy facts which Scott, F1, (and myself to less degree on EV) have spoke about. This and an official answer from Rob is the only way forward.

Otherwise I agree with Alex, close the thread please.....

Right, back to the Chemical Brothers!!

Look, not wishing to be snippy,
but you're talking bollocks - it *IS* that black or white: the guy in question made a post on that "new wave forum" where he alleged:

The simple test for whether or not this is balls or not is as I have described.
The End.

All else is blithering trolldom.

okay ... jus' closing it might be enough , i suppose ... & it certainly also makes me the big idiot , who started it all ( again ! ) - for everyone to see ! *sigh*

please read this thread : http://www.metamatic.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000188 , if u care !

i'm out now , as i jus' can't stand it any longer , sorry ! :-(

now HATE ME , if u want ... as i certainly deserve it by now ( SERIOUSLY ) ! :-/

No, you misunderstood. That quote was me agreeing with you. But im saying the grey areas are 'how much of an imorovement in sound quality it is, is always up to the listener' and a certain person cannot start throwing the word 'lied' around. I also ended my post saying the techy way is the way to go.

If we start getting confusion about agreements, then it really is time to close it.

Olaf, i dont agree with you using 'lied' for the reasons stated, but you and I did ask for Rob to reply from the start. And that was spot on. As this is way over the top now.

SG Metamatix, I think you need to calm your jets and go lie down in a darkened room with Cathedral Oceans until your blood pressure has dropped a bit

Newvox, sorry for any confusion!
Indeed, mastering is an art not a science,
there is never a "definitive" version of anything,
and anyways the listening and enjoying takes place inside our heads, not on any technical measure of quality.
(But yes, the original posters' claims are easily verifiable. I would do so myself if I hadn't already been quite content to give my old CD to a friend!)

Thats okay, its understandable on this thread.
Guess i must have been talking the cats bollocks after all.

too bad if SF Metamatrix really left because of this

Same feeling with me.

He had this unique way of posting in the Forum which made him of some importance here and moreover John Foxx is his hero. I wonder if other members who post here feel the same.

Chris

Can we close this please?

Well we're still waiting for someone to post up some screenshots proving whether or not Wavs from the Edsel and 2007 CDs are identical bit-for-bit or not...
(although we all know they're not, of course ;-)

Drama Queen, comes to mind.

Not being techy, but what are the screenshots Scott posted on the New Wave forum? Don't know what they prove or disprove. I do think it's a shame this got to individual sniping, but both arguments should be welcome without resorting to insults and threats of libel.
Succinctly put RobTim, there's more important things in the world. I must admit I keep coming back this thread as it's a bit like car crash telly - Jerry Springer style - but can someone just do what F1 has suggested and put this to bed? If the new CD is different AT ALL to the old one's then an element of remastering has gone on.
Cheers

feck knows.
He's posted spectral plots of 'a 2 second sample of "Underpass" from the new CD' (38 seconds in)
then " next shot is the exact same 2 seconds from a different CD of the song" but he doesn't say what "different CD" that is, and, hilariously, the screen shot says that this is 29 seconds in :rolleyes: so how is it "the exact same 2 seconds"?

Only later does he post a spectral plot of "the exact same seconds from the Edsel CD" (which is what he was ACTUALLY supposed to be comparing it with)...

He points out artefacts which he claims are "static pops" ... by which he implies they are "random" things which happen when the master analogue tape is playing back, and are not present on *on* it (i.e. on the recording).
I can only guess without hearing it, of course, but I suspect they're not "static pops" but actually *are* present on the original recoring and that's why they are on both CDs in the same places!

The new double cd version of Metamatic is clearly not a copy of the 1st Edsel remaster.

The 1st Edsel release was mastered by Chris Thorpe.
The 2nd & definitive version was remastered by Dallas Simpson.

The 1st Edsel remaster is much clearer & pin sharp & more metallic sounding than the 2nd remaster, which has more bottom end to it overall. There isn't an ocean of difference really in either of the remasters, they both sound fantastic & so does the Virgin release too.

I've got all three & it's money well spent.

Time to get back to listening for enjoyment.

Olaf, come back ya banana

According to his Myspace he's gone away on vacation for a few weeks so I dont think he's listening.

I hope he does come back,this place wont be the same without him.

I think the fact that his plans to come to England & see John Foxx & Thomas Dolby had been scuppered has not helped.

Anyways back on topic,life's too short to get involved in this topic so I'm staying out of it.

Yeah, It's a real shame. Hope Olaf comes back strong & refreshed. Was hoping to see him @ the Barfly in Brum, but I shall be seeing Brian & kerry, plus the usual suspects & my good friend The Quiet Trees.

C U Sat.

Yes we will see you all on Saturday

WTF? I go away for a week and this thread happens? Olaf gone?