MBV Loveless Remasters

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

Post Reply
btswire
gettin' sounds
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:56 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

MBV Loveless Remasters

Post by btswire » Fri May 18, 2012 5:27 pm

So after all these years, My Bloody Valentine's Loveless has been remastered. Most of us never thought this would see the light of day, as rumor had it that this would happen years ago.

It was released as a two disk set, with one disk being a remaster from the 1/2" mixdown, and the other being essentially (from what I've gathered) a normalized version of the original CD (the original CD was mastered from a DAT mix.)

To quote Kevin Shield's Pitchfork interview:

"...the processors in CD players and most digital playback systems operate at their best in the top three dB-- the player acts like all the stuff below that level isn't as important, so it won't process it as heavily.
So, of the two Loveless CDs that are coming out, one of them is exactly the same as the original, but everything's brought up to zero without crushing it with digital limiting."

First off, I think Mr Shields is quite a genius, but I'm not sure if he's got his facts straight on this one. As for the digital information on the CD, there can't be any additional information added, since the full 16 bits were never used in the first place due to the low levels on the DAT, correct? As for CD players, another poster on this forum had mentioned less than optimal performance once the converters hit around -3 dbfs. Anyone care to chime in on this?

In addition, it should be noted that Sony apparently labeled disk 1 as disk 2 (and vice versa.) It's also been said that there is a terrible digital glitch on the 1/2" analog remaster, the only one that really seems deserving of a listen.

I'm pretty bummed out, as I was really curious about this release, but shelling out close to $30 for this is a tough sell.

MoreSpaceEcho
zen recordist
Posts: 6495
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am

Re: MBV Loveless Remasters

Post by MoreSpaceEcho » Sun May 20, 2012 8:45 am

btswire wrote:but I'm not sure if he's got his facts straight on this one.
he doesn't. he's talking crazy.
As for the digital information on the CD, there can't be any additional information added, since the full 16 bits were never used in the first place due to the low levels on the DAT, correct?
correct. regardless of how many bits were used on the DAT.
As for CD players, another poster on this forum had mentioned less than optimal performance once the converters hit around -3 dbfs. Anyone care to chime in on this?
probably more like -.3
It's also been said that there is a terrible digital glitch on the 1/2" analog remaster, the only one that really seems deserving of a listen.
annoying....and you wonder how that got past Mr Perfectionist, but that really shouldn't be too hard to fix...i'm looking forward to hearing it.

User avatar
frans_13
gettin' sounds
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:46 am
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Contact:

Post by frans_13 » Mon May 21, 2012 1:02 am

Duh! I still got the CD they released back then... do you think there really will be a new MBV record soon? Or what's the reissue for if not drumming up some press to prepare for a new CD?
In the meantime you could listen to the Fleeting Joys, maybe the only MBV 'clone' that nailed the sound and took it further.

Osumosan
takin' a dinner break
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 6:55 am
Location: New York

Post by Osumosan » Mon May 21, 2012 3:28 pm

I don't need a redo at all on either Loveless or Isn't Anything. Perfect as is. Maybe Mr. Shields and his business associates need it, though.

Rolsen
steve albini likes it
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA
Contact:

Post by Rolsen » Tue May 29, 2012 7:17 pm

I've had a couple beers so I'll admit this: I've always thought the production of Loveless was kinda sucky, thin and lifeless. I'm into the MBV thing and all things shoegaze, but comparing Loveless to, say, Swervedriver's Mescal Head or Catherine Wheel's Chrome, Loveless sounds like frayed paper, to me anyway. Hopefully the remasters add some beef.

User avatar
xpulsar
pushin' record
Posts: 204
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 7:55 pm
Location: Nashville , TN
Contact:

Post by xpulsar » Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:40 pm

Rolsen wrote:I've had a couple beers so I'll admit this: I've always thought the production of Loveless was kinda sucky, thin and lifeless. I'm into the MBV thing and all things shoegaze, but comparing Loveless to, say, Swervedriver's Mescal Head or Catherine Wheel's Chrome, Loveless sounds like frayed paper, to me anyway. Hopefully the remasters add some beef.
Agree!

Loveless is one of my favorite albums but it is lacking in low frequencies and transients in the lows and transients in general. It is hard to listen to it loud on studio monitors and my AKG K240's which are pretty flat headphones and not hyped in the highs.

-Collin

Osumosan
takin' a dinner break
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 6:55 am
Location: New York

Post by Osumosan » Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:10 am

Damn. This album never bothered me until now! So I tried a remaster of "Only Shallow." Hey the transients are in there somewhere. Y'all should try it if you're not happy with the album as is.

User avatar
fossiltooth
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Post by fossiltooth » Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:34 pm

Rolsen wrote:I've had a couple beers so I'll admit this: I've always thought the production of Loveless was kinda sucky
Thinking that Loveless is a totally weird, f*d up and frayed-sounding record is not a shocking or novel position, and requires no beers to say in mixed company. I mean, it's clearly a mess from a traditional production standpoint. Some people like that about it though.

Loveless is an acquired taste, like liver and onions, or gorgonzola cheese, or more accurately, some type of food that requires massive quantities of pot to learn to enjoy. (Party mix made from Doritos and Skittles; Cold pizza with maple syrup, something like that.)

In any event, it's a seminal record and it deserves our respect, if not our sonic emulation. Definitely not that. It's a record that without fail, makes stereos sound broken.

I'd be curious to hear what the remaster sounds like.

MoreSpaceEcho
zen recordist
Posts: 6495
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am

Post by MoreSpaceEcho » Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:18 am

ms. morespace gave me the remaster for my birthday yesterday, only had a chance for a quick listen, but on first inspection i gotta say the 1/2" analog master sounds AMAZING. pick your adjective: warmer, fuller, rounder, deeper.

the severely pushed high mids on the original seem completely absent, which means you can listen to it loud without wanting to die. it really is so much nicer and more engaging to listen to. i was surprised at how different it is.

and amazingly enough it's not limited AT ALL. peaks look entirely untouched. if i could make every record as loud as this one life would be incredible.

User avatar
fossiltooth
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Post by fossiltooth » Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:27 pm

Does it sound like a warmer, fuller, rounder, deeper shade of broken? :wink:

That said, I really do love the album, and would like to hear the remasters, for sure.

MoreSpaceEcho
zen recordist
Posts: 6495
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am

Post by MoreSpaceEcho » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:20 am

you know, it actually sounds a lot more...normal. you get more of a sense of instruments being played in rooms. really!

what's really interesting to me is the difference between the two masters changes from track to track. some are more different than others. which seems weird...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests