What records do you think need a proper reissue? SOUND OFF!

[Zdan]

I mentioned that sometime ago but I will repeat myself: Bloodlust "Guilty As Sin" with the "Terminal Velocity" EP as bonus tracks (and any demo/unreleased stuff one can find). On a proper sounding non-bootleg CD. This is one of these rare US metal wants that nobody even touched. I wonder why. The album itself is a speed metal beast.

And to add one more: the Canadian masters Assault and their sole album "Survival In The Street" - another AWESOME speed metal burner. There are pre-album and post-album demos if bonus tracks are needed.

 

[TribunalRecords]

I mentioned that sometime ago but I will repeat myself: Bloodlust "Guilty As Sin" with the "Terminal Velocity" EP as bonus tracks (and any demo/unreleased stuff one can find). On a proper sounding non-bootleg CD. This is one of these rare US metal wants that nobody even touched. I wonder why. The album itself is a speed metal beast.

And to add one more: the Canadian masters Assault and their sole album "Survival In The Street" - another AWESOME speed metal burner. There are pre-album and post-album demos if bonus tracks are needed.

I assume nobody has touched the Bloodlust because Metal Blade won't license it. I will ask them, but like Sound Barrier and several others I have inquired about I may be told no.

I hit up Ray Hartmann about Assault album and our convo started out weirdly so I just never went after it.

 

[Lost and Found Records USA]

I think there are a lot of albums from the Metal Blade back catalog that there are some questions on who really owns the rights anymore. I don't know if it is really a matter of them not wanting to license, but the amount of money it would take to get lawyers involved, finding band members, etc. just isn't worth the investment to them. I think a good chunk of smaller labels run into this same problem. Just my 2 cents...

 

[TribunalRecords]

I think there are a lot of albums from the Metal Blade back catalog that there are some questions on who really owns the rights anymore. I don't know if it is really a matter of them not wanting to license, but the amount of money it would take to get lawyers involved, finding band members, etc. just isn't worth the investment to them. I think a good chunk of smaller labels run into this same problem. Just my 2 cents...

that is a good 2 cents!

 

[otcmetal]

Slightly off-topic(?), but do the I.N.C. reissues in the distro have any sort of remastering?

 

[TribunalRecords]

Slightly off-topic(?), but do the I.N.C. reissues in the distro have any sort of remastering?

Yes, the audio is remastered but not as loud as mine tend to be, as Dark Symphonies seems to be more of a purist label - not in a bad way, but that is just how they like to do things. Rest of packaging is pretty true to the original except a few added photos and a brief essay.

 

[Zdan]

Yes, the audio is remastered but not as loud as mine tend to be, as Dark Symphonies seems to be more of a purist label - not in a bad way, but that is just how they like to do things. Rest of packaging is pretty true to the original except a few added photos and a brief essay.

I actually wanted to ask about this Matt - why do you remaster your releases in the way that you do? I am not against them (and have plenty on my shelf) but they can get rather loud. As I recently turned towards first pressings and original releases and try to go with more dynamic-sounding releases. Do you have any strategy in your style of remastering?

 

[TribunalRecords]

I actually wanted to ask about this Matt - why do you remaster your releases in the way that you do? I am not against them (and have plenty on my shelf) but they can get rather loud. As I recently turned towards first pressings and original releases and try to go with more dynamic-sounding releases. Do you have any strategy in your style of remastering?

I personally have no desire to reissue anything without remastered audio. If you want the original audio, go buy an original press or a replica off Ebay. Not you literally Zdan, but any person out there. I am not in this business to give customers something that has been done before. My goal as a label is to give fans new and updated product that is relevant now, I am not out to replicate the past like some other labels. That is just how I choose to operate and others are either in agreement with me or not.

If people actually could see how many glitches I fix in original pressed CD sources we remaster from, I think people would think twice about their stance. There are countless issues remastering reveals of the "dynamic sound" of original presses which is hidden because of their age.

As far as specifics of audio quality I am not an engineer and I leave that in the hands of my engineer Jamie King to decide what is best. Each person prefers their audio a certain way it would seem and I cannot please everyone, but I trust Jamie to give the new master the best sound possible given the source he has been provided.

Over time some people complain about this and that, once again depending on their audio preferences, but on a whole most customers (and ALL bands) are quite happy with the improvements we make in both audio and visual presentation.

 

[Lost and Found Records USA]

I personally have no desire to reissue anything without remastered audio. If you want the original audio, go buy an original press or a replica off Ebay. Not you literally Zdan, but any person out there. I am not in this business to give customers something that has been done before. My goal as a label is to give fans new and updated product that is relevant now, I am not out to replicate the past like some other labels. That is just how I choose to operate and others are either in agreement with me or not.

If people actually could see how many glitches I fix in original pressed CD sources we remaster from, I think people would think twice about their stance. There are countless issues remastering reveals of the "dynamic sound" of original presses which is hidden because of their age.

As far as specifics of audio quality I am not an engineer and I leave that in the hands of my engineer Jamie King to decide what is best. Each person prefers their audio a certain way it would seem and I cannot please everyone, but I trust Jamie to give the new master the best sound possible given the source he has been provided.

Over time some people complain about this and that, once again depending on their audio preferences, but on a whole most customers (and ALL bands) are quite happy with the improvements we make in both audio and visual presentation.

There are two types of labels that exist out there today when it comes to reissues...Hit and run style, and those who actually care. This is an easy thing to see, simply by looking at the time and amount of money a label is looking to invest to each and every release. As a consumer of any good I purchase, it is something I always look at. I will not waste my time with labels that half ass releases, because to me it shows a lack of real passion for what they do. It is extremely hard to make a label work that deals with reissues. Like remastering or not, the one thing you can count on with Divebomb stuff is a high quality, well thought out product each and every time. The behind the scenes work Divebomb does to put together one release is amazing....

Support the label, support the bands and keep the train a rollin'!

 

[Zdan]

I personally have no desire to reissue anything without remastered audio. If you want the original audio, go buy an original press or a replica off Ebay. Not you literally Zdan, but any person out there. I am not in this business to give customers something that has been done before. My goal as a label is to give fans new and updated product that is relevant now, I am not out to replicate the past like some other labels. That is just how I choose to operate and others are either in agreement with me or not.

If people actually could see how many glitches I fix in original pressed CD sources we remaster from, I think people would think twice about their stance. There are countless issues remastering reveals of the "dynamic sound" of original presses which is hidden because of their age.

As far as specifics of audio quality I am not an engineer and I leave that in the hands of my engineer Jamie King to decide what is best. Each person prefers their audio a certain way it would seem and I cannot please everyone, but I trust Jamie to give the new master the best sound possible given the source he has been provided.

Over time some people complain about this and that, once again depending on their audio preferences, but on a whole most customers (and ALL bands) are quite happy with the improvements we make in both audio and visual presentation.

I understand this totally Matt. I can also understand that some sources sound absolutely terrible and remastering is needed. Why do I ask about this? Mainly because some reissues FORCE people to seek out the older pressings because of their butchered sound. Look at the Judas Priest reissues - the sound on those is completely hacked. If you compare the older pressings with the newer ones the difference is night and day.

There also is this tendency in remastering to go with LOUD and compressed audio. And it is mostly true that the older pressings have more dynamic range. They might have other problems but dynamic range is usually not among those. Also some metal fans in particular do not like remastering and believe that music should be released in the same audio form that it was recorded.

This is not to harp on your releases Matt. As I said I have lots of them and in some cases the remastering is needed and in some cases not so much (Slammer).

 

[otcmetal]

I understand this totally Matt. I can also understand that some sources sound absolutely terrible and remastering is needed. Why do I ask about this? Mainly because some reissues FORCE people to seek out the older pressings because of their butchered sound. Look at the Judas Priest reissues - the sound on those is completely hacked. If you compare the older pressings with the newer ones the difference is night and day.

There also is this tendency in remastering to go with LOUD and compressed audio. And it is mostly true that the older pressings have more dynamic range. They might have other problems but dynamic range is usually not among those. Also some metal fans in particular do not like remastering and believe that music should be released in the same audio form that it was recorded.

This is not to harp on your releases Matt. As I said I have lots of them and in some cases the remastering is needed and in some cases not so much (Slammer).

I would think that all the bands would probably think that the remasters sound the way they wanted them to in the first place. As far as the Priest remasters, I think they sound great! I have all the original pressing too, and I think every remaster sounds better and more full of life. "Defenders..." sounds way better than the original, in my opinion. I don't know where you're from, but maybe they butchered them in your country. Not trying to argue, but I really do think they sound great!

 

[TribunalRecords]

I understand this totally Matt. I can also understand that some sources sound absolutely terrible and remastering is needed. Why do I ask about this? Mainly because some reissues FORCE people to seek out the older pressings because of their butchered sound. Look at the Judas Priest reissues - the sound on those is completely hacked. If you compare the older pressings with the newer ones the difference is night and day.

There also is this tendency in remastering to go with LOUD and compressed audio. And it is mostly true that the older pressings have more dynamic range. They might have other problems but dynamic range is usually not among those. Also some metal fans in particular do not like remastering and believe that music should be released in the same audio form that it was recorded.

This is not to harp on your releases Matt. As I said I have lots of them and in some cases the remastering is needed and in some cases not so much (Slammer).

I disagree with the Priest remasters, but again that is personal preference. As is all remastering. I have had plenty of customers tell me they don't buy my stuff because they don't want the audio updated and I kindly tell them to find an original copy or bootleg because they aren't for Divebomb then and that Divebomb will never simply release original untouched audio on one of our reissues.

A good example is my third attempt at reissuing CONFESSOR's Condemned album from Earache for reissue on CD. We had finally worked out all the details and I had forgotten to ask about using Jamie King's updated master and they said no and I said then I don't want to do this deal, and that was that. this was about 5-6 years ago before the Earache/Century Media deal. But that is how important it is to me, I won't rehash the past.

Plus, that Confessor remaster is amazing sounding.

 

[TribunalRecords]

There are two types of labels that exist out there today when it comes to reissues...Hit and run style, and those who actually care. This is an easy thing to see, simply by looking at the time and amount of money a label is looking to invest to each and every release. As a consumer of any good I purchase, it is something I always look at. I will not waste my time with labels that half ass releases, because to me it shows a lack of real passion for what they do. It is extremely hard to make a label work that deals with reissues. Like remastering or not, the one thing you can count on with Divebomb stuff is a high quality, well thought out product each and every time. The behind the scenes work Divebomb does to put together one release is amazing....

Support the label, support the bands and keep the train a rollin'!

Thank as always Bryan for your kinds words and support! Stoked to you see rollin' again as well!

 

[TribunalRecords]

I would think that all the bands would probably think that the remasters sound the way they wanted them to in the first place. As far as the Priest remasters, I think they sound great! I have all the original pressing too, and I think every remaster sounds better and more full of life. "Defenders..." sounds way better than the original, in my opinion. I don't know where you're from, but maybe they butchered them in your country. Not trying to argue, but I really do think they sound great!

I agree with you. Most all original Sony Records releases from the 80s sound bad. The ones with red text and white spines. It came out about 15 years ago (I think that long, maybe less) that Sony (to meet CD demand) rushed out CDs using copies of copies for master audio sources. Pink Floyd in particular was discussed.

 

[J. Golden]

There are two types of labels that exist out there today when it comes to reissues...Hit and run style, and those who actually care. This is an easy thing to see, simply by looking at the time and amount of money a label is looking to invest to each and every release. As a consumer of any good I purchase, it is something I always look at. I will not waste my time with labels that half ass releases, because to me it shows a lack of real passion for what they do. It is extremely hard to make a label work that deals with reissues. Like remastering or not, the one thing you can count on with Divebomb stuff is a high quality, well thought out product each and every time. The behind the scenes work Divebomb does to put together one release is amazing....

Support the label, support the bands and keep the train a rollin'!

Well put and pretty much true.

 

[J. Golden]

What I most often hear is people who seem to think remastering actually changes the recording and they don't understand that remastering is basically raising levels, it is not remixing.
Stuff Jamie has done for me has more often than not brought up stuff in the recordings that one just could not hear in the originals - not to mention the cleaning up of hiss, snaps, wobbles, etc.
If the volume is loud on a remaster, well there is a button on the stereo to reduces volume. If the volume is low an an original, well that stereo volume sometimes just can't get loud enough. HAHA

 

[Zdan]

What I most often hear is people who seem to think remastering actually changes the recording and they don't understand that remastering is basically raising levels, it is not remixing.
Stuff Jamie has done for me has more often than not brought up stuff in the recordings that one just could not hear in the originals - not to mention the cleaning up of hiss, snaps, wobbles, etc.
If the volume is loud on a remaster, well there is a button on the stereo to reduces volume. If the volume is low an an original, well that stereo volume sometimes just can't get loud enough. HAHA

The problem with remastering is that often it goes too far if we are talking about loudness and compression. The efect is often that the dynamic range of the recording gets totally squashed. If everything it LOUD there is no dynamics there, no room. In case of metal this is not such a big problem - as said I still buy Divebomb stuff or Heaven and Hell Records stuff. I skip only in the case of me already owning an album and liking the production on that - as I said I think that Slammer album sounds pretty good in non-remastered form. But you can look at the Megadeth remasters - those have been met with negative opinions in most cases. You can go overboard in remastering. But it is all personal preference - if I think a remaster butchered a recording I will go back and get the original. Simple as that.

What I do like is making stuff that is hard to get available again. THAT is what is most important to me if we are talking reissues. Some of this stuff is EXTREMELY rare or the reissue made it available on CD for the first time.

 

[J. Golden]

The problem with remastering is that often it goes too far if we are talking about loudness and compression. The efect is often that the dynamic range of the recording gets totally squashed. If everything it LOUD there is no dynamics there, no room. In case of metal this is not such a big problem - as said I still buy Divebomb stuff or Heaven and Hell Records stuff. I skip only in the case of me already owning an album and liking the production on that - as I said I think that Slammer album sounds pretty good in non-remastered form. But you can look at the Megadeth remasters - those have been met with negative opinions in most cases. You can go overboard in remastering. But it is all personal preference - if I think a remaster butchered a recording I will go back and get the original. Simple as that.

What I do like is making stuff that is hard to get available again. THAT is what is most important to me if we are talking reissues. Some of this stuff is EXTREMELY rare or the reissue made it available on CD for the first time.

first off, thanks glad to hear of people who pick up H&H releases.
In the case of a lot of 70s stuff and 80s; these albums were never recorded with CD formats in mind so I think that plays a very big factor on why remasters of such stuff sounds so much better than the originals. I suppose some people can go overboard, I thought the Rock Candy Angels were a little to hot for my taste. But considering some things like every hair band from the 80s, oh goddamn; things like Every Mothers Nightmare are really hard to listen to nowadays - and that is not only because my mentality has matured past that of a 12 year old. HAHA Seriously though the volume on such stuff is really low and muddy sounding. It is the same on 80s Dio, Dokken, Cinderella, etc.
I love remastered reissues, just hate buying things over again. Some stuff I have now bought so many times; MSG on cassette and vinyl in the 80s, CD in the 90s, remasters in the 2000s, sometimes I wonder if somewhere a long the way the enjoyment of the music itself might get lost.
But I do agree with Matt on simple re-issues; if people want the original just find an original or get a replica. I know when I pick up re-issues that are merely replica of the original or less than, I kind of feel ripped off and disrespected as a fan. I can think of several labels as i'm sure everyone else can, who are the other one of the two types of labels Bryan spoke of.
Last year I picked up the New Renaissance reissue of Gargoyle and just felt it was a waste of money. I already had a boot of it, and the boot is an exact replica that actually looked better than this reissue so I just keep the boot and got rid of the other. I just felt that there was nothing more offered in the product than what I already had, and actually it was even lesser.

 

[TribunalRecords]

The problem with remastering is that often it goes too far if we are talking about loudness and compression. The efect is often that the dynamic range of the recording gets totally squashed. If everything it LOUD there is no dynamics there, no room. In case of metal this is not such a big problem - as said I still buy Divebomb stuff or Heaven and Hell Records stuff. I skip only in the case of me already owning an album and liking the production on that - as I said I think that Slammer album sounds pretty good in non-remastered form. But you can look at the Megadeth remasters - those have been met with negative opinions in most cases. You can go overboard in remastering. But it is all personal preference - if I think a remaster butchered a recording I will go back and get the original. Simple as that.

What I do like is making stuff that is hard to get available again. THAT is what is most important to me if we are talking reissues. Some of this stuff is EXTREMELY rare or the reissue made it available on CD for the first time.

Which Megadeth albums? I know some of them (maybe the first 4?) were remixed AND remastered which I think where the real complaints come from is Dave messing with the original mixes before remastering them. Because sonically Rust In Peace sounds amazing, aside from the remix itself which isn't too terrible in my book.

 

[Zdan]

Matt: The remasters of the first four Megadeth albums were met with rather negative opinions. And indeed Dave remixed and remastered them - some track were found missing so he put in new vocal tracks etc. People felt cheated etc. Plus the remaster was found to be too hot and loud for most people. This is an extreme case though. Rust In Peace (the original release) has an awesome production and does not need any remastering to these ears.

J: With those 70's and 80's releases I agree the remastering is often needed and wanted. The problem with those is that the originals may be a little quiet and muddy but they also tend to be very dynamic sounding. Lots of space in those recordings. The way some companies remaster - having only loudness and compression in mind, they kill those dynamics outright. However there can be examples of EXCELLENT remaster works - the 1999 Vic Anesini remasters of Stevie Ray Vaughan albums. Or the stuff Steve Hoffman does with the Dio, Bad Company etc. albums. Dynamic, louder, clear sounding stuff.

I guess my only point in all of this is that the overall tendency is to go with LOUD and compressed. The "loudness wars" did not come from nowhere. But I also know most heavy metal labels do not bend their knee to that trend and for that I am grateful.