Viva Hate / Kill Uncle Missing Tracks from the Remasters

wastelandofyourhead

Active Member
Hi,

In order to enjoy these remasters in their original track listing, I have applied mastering presets from iZotope's Ozone 4 to the missing tracks so that their volumes are more consistent with the other remastered tracks.

The sources were the original studio album Flacs, loaded in Adobe Audition, iZotope Ozone 4 master presets applied, exported to 320 kbps mp3.

links

Kill Uncle - (original) There Is a Place in Hell for Me & My Friends & Tony the Pony:
http://uploaded.net/file/eketuft2

Viva Hate - Hairdresser on Fire & Ordinary Boys:
http://uploaded.net/file/ea2auhog
 
Last edited:
Thanks a lot for doing this. I have been subbing in the Viva Hate EMI 100 Year edition version of Ordinary Boys because that was a remaster.
 
How about the non-trimmed version of Late Night, Maudlin Street?
 
How about the non-trimmed version of Late Night, Maudlin Street?

OK, I have put this up.

Just FYI to those potentially interested - What I am doing isn't nearly as dynamic as the actual remasters. There is a considerable increase in quality on the actual Late Night, Maudlin Street remaster. I was more inclined to do this for the tracks that were omitted. But for ultra-purists, here is mine, which brings the volume up to a more consistent level with some dynamic enhancement, while maintaining the original track length.

Late Night, Maudlin Street (original length):
http://uploaded.net/file/a239tlpj
 
I just want to understand. Are you re-mastering the remasters?
 
I just want to understand. Are you re-mastering the remasters?

Certainly not. If the reissues were the same album in their original track listing, there would be no need to do anything.

But lets say you want to enjoy the remasters using the original tracks, and so you took the missing tracks from the original album(s) and put them in the playlist. What would happen is the tracks that were not remastered will sound very quiet (maybe 50% volume) and less dynamic. That may break the listening experience and you will have to turn the volume way up per omitted track, and then remember to turn it back down so you don't blast your ears.

So I just took the omitted tracks from the original studio albums (FLACs) and ran them through mastering presets from iZotope's Ozone 4. I just chose the mastering presets that made the omitted tracks sound as close as they could to the remasters of each respective album, given this method.

With regards to "Late Night, Maudlin Street", the request was made for a non-trimmed version. So again, I went back to the original studio album release version and ran that through the mastering preset. I didn't run a master on the remastered version (which incidentally would have been the trimmed version).

This isn't an authoritative release and I'm not an engineer or a mastering professional. I am a music production hobby enthusiast. But Ozone is a pretty good piece of software and the difference between the originals and these homemade remasters is quite noticeable. I Hope all that clarifies this for you.
 
this is so awesome, thank you. could you let me know which particular preset(s) you used? I have ozone and want to try a similar experiment with some other audio files.
 
What would happen is the tracks that were not remastered will sound very quiet (maybe 50% volume) and less dynamic. That may break the listening experience and you will have to turn the volume way up per omitted track, and then remember to turn it back down so you don't blast your ears.

Technically, they should be less dynamic if they're louder. 'Louder' is a measure of decibel range in engineering terms.

Also, bear in mind that the term 'remaster' tends to be pretty vague. There are instances when the original stereo mix is sent to a mastering engineer and remastered from scratch, but there're also times when they just get the master tapes and do some remixing too. Or even just slap a limiter on the existing masters. The recent Smiths reissues, for instance, were definitely subject to a little remixing (compare levels between different tracks).

Edit: Also, if you're into production, check out the Massey L2007 limiter. There's a free, time unlimited demo - with some limitations - and it sounds better to me than the Ozone, Waves and Sony Oxford mastering plugins.
 
Last edited:
this is so awesome, thank you. could you let me know which particular preset(s) you used? I have ozone and want to try a similar experiment with some other audio files.

You're welcome. You do have to be careful when applying these presets. They are generally meant for audio productions that have not yet been mastered. Anything modern already has a lot of compression and loudness added to it. There are some presets which are less specific, more general. I used the 'CD Master' preset as a jumping off point for one of those. It is pretty basic. There is also the 'CD Master - Exciter And Widener", but on something like I did, you have to be careful to not take too much creative license in the increasing and spacing of the frequencies. If it is your own production, or something that has not been produced by the commercial industry, then have fun experimenting. I just know from experience, it is just as easy to mess the sound up as to feel that you have enhanced it. I used one of the General Purpose Master presets as well, but I had to make adjustments and I'm afraid I did not take notes on what those were, nor did I save them as a new (modified preset).
 
Technically, they should be less dynamic if they're louder. 'Louder' is a measure of decibel range in engineering terms.

Also, bear in mind that the term 'remaster' tends to be pretty vague. There are instances when the original stereo mix is sent to a mastering engineer and remastered from scratch, but there're also times when they just get the master tapes and do some remixing too. Or even just slap a limiter on the existing masters. The recent Smiths reissues, for instance, were definitely subject to a little remixing (compare levels between different tracks).

Edit: Also, if you're into production, check out the Massey L2007 limiter. There's a free, time unlimited demo - with some limitations - and it sounds better to me than the Ozone, Waves and Sony Oxford mastering plugins.

You are correct. The dynamic range has been reduced in the modern-day loudness war. I wasn't speaking technically accurate but in laymen's terms. The perception of enhanced dynamics, particularly in the drum and bass. Visually comparing the two waveforms, the original looks quite flat, although it does have a greater dynamic range. It's peaks are not nearly so great. So the perception is that it is quieter, which of course it is.

That is true that remasters can mean many things. Anyway, I am keeping this pretty high level because I'm not really an audiophile. I have just spent a lot of time on my own and in some circles that use the alternative DAWs, such as Renoise and all those that came before it. These adjustments I made to a few of the tracks are not a definitive remaster. Just an option that sounds better (more consistent with the other remasters) than simply volume-normalizing them.

I'll check out that demo. Thanks for the heads up.
 
Yes, music production is a lot of fun. I'm mainly a musician, but I know my way around a recording studio and have done a few paid gigs here and there mixing and engineering.

I compared your version of 'Tony the Pony' to the original release and was quite impressed. So many people just crush mixes when they start trying to master things, but you did it pretty tastefully here. Couple of small things if you're interested:
- You added quite a bit of low end, but you might notice that it's not as punchy as on the original. The way I would get around that is by using a side-chained bus compressor and adjusting the attack and release until you get a bit of pumping. You can also do this with the limiter at the end of your mastering chain, but it's a bit tougher because those settings will then affect the whole frequency spectrum, which can do nasty things.
- The high end is also hitting the limiter a bit too hard. If you listen to those guitar parts at the very end, you can hear a little bit of nasty distortion. The extremes of the frequency spectrum are always much harder to work with digitally. Tape naturally compresses them both, which is why a few producers I know like to bounce Pro Tools mixes to tape at some point. (It's a lot of fun too, if a bit messy. You have to listen carefully for drop outs ;) )
- There's more 'mud' the 2-500hz range. This is always a problematic area, because you have a lot of transients here (the oomph of the vocals, and the drums, and the bass, and the guitars)... One thing you might want to try is using a mastering eq with a m/s ('mid-sides') setting. This way, you can take some of the low-mids with the guitars and the snares without affecting the vocals, bass or kick (which tend to panned dead center). Give it a try!

Sorry for boring everyone who isn't interested in this - most of you, I'm guessing!

- - - Updated - - -

One more thing... Be careful with those 'stereo widener' things. They can have nasty artifacts!
 
Yes, music production is a lot of fun. I'm mainly a musician, but I know my way around a recording studio and have done a few paid gigs here and there mixing and engineering.

I compared your version of 'Tony the Pony' to the original release and was quite impressed. So many people just crush mixes when they start trying to master things, but you did it pretty tastefully here. Couple of small things if you're interested:
- You added quite a bit of low end, but you might notice that it's not as punchy as on the original. The way I would get around that is by using a side-chained bus compressor and adjusting the attack and release until you get a bit of pumping. You can also do this with the limiter at the end of your mastering chain, but it's a bit tougher because those settings will then affect the whole frequency spectrum, which can do nasty things.
- The high end is also hitting the limiter a bit too hard. If you listen to those guitar parts at the very end, you can hear a little bit of nasty distortion. The extremes of the frequency spectrum are always much harder to work with digitally. Tape naturally compresses them both, which is why a few producers I know like to bounce Pro Tools mixes to tape at some point. (It's a lot of fun too, if a bit messy. You have to listen carefully for drop outs ;) )
- There's more 'mud' the 2-500hz range. This is always a problematic area, because you have a lot of transients here (the oomph of the vocals, and the drums, and the bass, and the guitars)... One thing you might want to try is using a mastering eq with a m/s ('mid-sides') setting. This way, you can take some of the low-mids with the guitars and the snares without affecting the vocals, bass or kick (which tend to panned dead center). Give it a try!

Sorry for boring everyone who isn't interested in this - most of you, I'm guessing!

- - - Updated - - -

One more thing... Be careful with those 'stereo widener' things. They can have nasty artifacts!


Yeah, that's not boring for me at all. You were spot on with your recommendations. I actually try to employ all of those techniques, except for the tape-bouncing, when I'm mixing my personal stuff. I agree that exciter/widening can do crazy things. I don't think I used the aforementioned preset here; it was just a reference. But I do really love working with exciter when I'm mixing my own stuff because I can work with it from within the track mix before applying the mastering level. On something like this, I didn't spend much time with it. It was one of those -- it's arguably "better" than it was things; i.e. louder without too much creative license. I still kept the original album recordings. I just did this surface treatment without spending too much on it because I didn't want to inadvertently add too much. But of course, it left things undone/overdone still.

When I am working on my mixes, days go into the process until I feel its ready. And then I open it for peer-review. A lot of the things you and I are discussing we do in my little circle of DAW-users with each others' tracks. It's a lot of fun. I appreciate all your thoughts. You sound very well-informed. That's great you get all that exposure. I haven't spent much time in professional studios, although I have laid down vocals a couple times in one. My background is that of a singer with a lot of experience and training, but no desire to perform publicly. :p (That and my lyrics suck).

I've been engaged in a lot of DIY stuff over the years so software sequencing combined with 'laptop studios' has been the business. I've worked with a couple guys in Europe providing vocals for their trance. Nothing commercial. My quit-the-day-job dream would be nothing more than to develop production and composition skill to the extent that it was viable in the soundtrack space -- Games, documentaries, that kind of thing. The craziest thing I was involved in was a drunken freestyle hip hop group. I was much younger then. The tracks are embarrassing and I don't revisit them.

*edit: I made a thread we can discuss these things not related to downloads/bootlegs.
http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/132841-Mixing-and-Production-Gear
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom