If Mr.Shirley re-mastered AMOLAD so its like FF...

I love AMOLAD, but I've always had an issue with the production..
If Kevin Shirley remastered it to the quality of FF, would you re-buy it, and do you think you would like it more?

I know that some people think Bruce is a bit high in the mix for FF, but I love the production tbh.. so in answer to my own questions - yes and yes!

Interested to know what your opinions are.
 
FilthweaselUK said:
I love AMOLAD, but I've always had an issue with the production..
If Kevin Shirley remastered it to the quality of FF, would you re-buy it, and do you think you would like it more?

I know that some people think Bruce is a bit high in the mix for FF, but I love the production tbh.. so in answer to my own questions - yes and yes!

Interested to know what your opinions are.

I think you are a bit confused what mastering is.  AMOLAD isn't even actually mastered.  Steve Harris decided it against it.  In short, mastering is a process that is applied to the finished recording before it is pressed.  A mastering engineer applies compression, gain, EQ, and other techniques to make all the songs on the album even so you don't have each song at a different volume, fix issues in the mix, and makes the album sound good on both  your home stereo and your car stereo among other things.  It can also be used to raise the overall volume of the album once everything has been made to sound consistent which ends up being a key culprit in the "loudness wars".  But it has nothing to do with the recording or mixing process, and is usually done by a mastering engineer who had nothing to do with the recording.  BNW was mastered by one of the more respected engineers, George Marino, DOD, was mastered by Tim Young.

Kevin Shirley is actually an excellent producer, with many fantastic sounding albums under his belt.  The reasons Maidens album sound the way they do is because that is what Steve Harris wants, even when Shirley disagrees with him.  Regardless of his talents as musician, Steve has admitted to suffering from severe hearing damage.  Someone who has sever hearing damage should not be making the final decision on what an album sounds like, even if it is his album.  If you are unhappy with the sound of anything off the reunion era albums sounds, it is not the fault of Kevin Shirley.
chaosapiant said:
I'm not an audiophile, so the production doesn't bother me at all.

Chaospoint, hearing production value differences has nothing to do with being an audiophile.  The production of an album is what gives an album it's overall sound, feel, and vibe.  It is intended that you can hear the difference of production from one recording to the next, it compliments the music and makes each album sound unique.  Surely you can tell that just from a sonic standpoint SIT sounds nothing like Killers.   There's nothing about production that requires critical listening session to hear, it is as much a part of the album as the songs themselves.  
 
Are the two that radically different sonically?

(only heard the first two songs)

I liked the production on AMOLAD just fine.  To be honest, if they are truly going for the live no frills sound, Shirley gets that onto disc just fine.  It means the albums themselves end up slightly less polished than they used to be, but these songs sound EXACTLY like their studio counterparts live. 

My only issue with the lack of mastering is how great it would sound on some stereos and how muddy it would sound on others.  Mastering tries to even a bit of those inconsistencies out.
 
Donner said:
Are the two that radically different sonically?

Obviously it's hard to tell from the mp3's, but they sound pretty different.  I read that because Steve didn't master AMOLAD, Shirley prepared for that possibility this time by mixing the album in a fashion that wouldn't suffer if Steve chose no mastering again, though it sounds like it has been mastered.  The overall production is different though.  It's a more crisp album, and Bruce is definitely out in front of the mix way more this time around.  Beyond that, I won't judge until I've heard the actual CD.
FilthweaselUK said:
Thanks for clearing that up Twarkle :)

**scuttles off to hide under a rock**

No need to scuttle. :)  I wasn't trying to make you look bad, I was just trying to point out that sometimes terms get used incorrectly and blame gets laid at the feet of the wrong person. 
 
As far as I know The Final Frontier isn't mastered either, I read it somewhere...
Yet it's clearly appears so, when listening to mp3 version, but as you told you can not trust those mp3 too much.
 
Twarkle said:
Obviously it's hard to tell from the mp3's, but they sound pretty different.  I read that because Steve didn't master AMOLAD, Shirley prepared for that possibility this time by mixing the album in a fashion that wouldn't suffer if Steve chose no mastering again, though it sounds like it has been mastered.  The overall production is different though.  It's a more crisp album, and Bruce is definitely out in front of the mix way more this time around.  Beyond that, I won't judge until I've heard the actual CD.

Cool, sounds good to me.  I recall Kevin not being terribly thrilled with Steve's decision last time, so him preparing for that this time makes sense.  I'd have to imagine that he went in with a different mindset this time.

I thought the El Dorado preview track sounded like a cross between AMOLAD and DOD production wise.

In the end, the songs are the most important part of the whole package though.  
 
Will-I-Am said:
As far as I know The Final Frontier isn't mastered either, I read it somewhere...
Yet it's clearly appears so, when listening to mp3 version, but as you told you can not trust those mp3 too much.

That would make sense.  A few more days until I have the real thing.    :edmetal:

Edit: TFF vinyl was mastered by Bob Ludwig, another esteemed mastering engineer.
 
I think what im trying to say is that, with FF , to my ears, there's a certain clarity not defined im AMOLAD - whereby more subtle nuances are more distinguishable - its hard to articulate exactly what I mean tbh lol - AMOLAD seems in comparison a bit muffled, and the vocals aswell seem a bit lost in the mix - gah - perhaps im not making any sense, I just would love to hear the songs on AMOLAD with said clarity - if ya know what I mean, I think it would do them more justice.
 
FilthweaselUK said:
I think what im trying to say is that, with FF , to my ears, there's a certain clarity not defined im AMOLAD - whereby more subtle nuances are more distinguishable - its hard to articulate exactly what I mean tbh lol - AMOLAD seems in comparison a bit muffled, and the vocals aswell seem a bit lost in the mix - gah - perhaps im not making any sense, I just would love to hear the songs on AMOLAD with said clarity - if ya know what I mean, I think it would do them more justice.

Yup, I know what you mean, and I think you gave a pretty good description.  The vocals are buried and it was Steve Harris' decision, and a strange one at that.  On the Making of AMOLAD DVD, Steve at one point says that yeah the vocals on some songs are buried but that's the way it sounded best to him.  I think most everybody found that to be a very odd choice.
 
Twarkle said:
Regardless of his talents as musician, Steve has admitted to suffering from severe hearing damage.

I'd like to read/hear that. Source? And when exactly did the damage happen? From which record you think this had any consequences?

Twarkle said:
Someone who has sever hearing damage should not be making the final decision on what an album sounds like, even if it is his album.

That's a very principle, theoretic stand. Didn't the last (couple of) album(s) prove you wrong?
I mean: there are results to judge.
 
Forostar said:
I'd like to read/hear that. Source? And when exactly did the damage happen? From which record you think this had any consequences?

That's a very principle, theoretic stand. Didn't the last (couple of) album(s) prove you wrong?
I mean: there are results to judge.

It's a well known fact that Steve has hearing damage, just Google it.  And no, I'd say the last few albums proved me right, especially AMOLAD.  But that's just my opinion obviously. 
 
Apart from a few audiophiles (and/or anonymous friends of Kevin Shirley?), I haven't heard any complaining.
 
Forostar said:
Apart from a few audiophiles (and/or anonymous friends of Kevin Shirley?), I haven't heard any complaining.

Yeah, you have to be an audiophile to dislike the sound of an album.  ::)
 
I seriously have noticed that only audiophiles have been complaining. You, Jeffmetal and that's about it.

About the reply with your advice that I should Google search: that's too easy.

You know where it came from, you back it up yourself if you can. I quickly searched and found a comment on Blabbermouth. Very reliable.

I am not saying I don't believe you, but help convincing us that you know what you're talking about.
 
link=topic=20001.msg260858#msg260858 date=1281535538 said:
I seriously have noticed that only audiophiles have been complaining. You, Jeffmetal and that's about it.

About the reply with your advice that I should Google search: that's too easy.

You know where it came from, you back it up yourself if you can. I quickly searched and found a comment on Blabbermouth. Very reliable.

I am not saying I don't believe me, but help convincing us that you know what you're talking about.

Actually I wasn't quoting Blabbermouth.  I didn't Google it myself, I had assumed it would come up.  He has said in many interviews so I made an assumption, my mistake.  I spend zero time at Blabbermouth for obvious reason.

Forostar, I'm not trying to come across as pompous, and I sincerely apologize if I do, it's not my intent.  Obviously I feel a different way about the way the albums sound than you, but I am not claiming my ears are better.  It's possible that we both like vegetables, but I hate Broccoli and you think it's great, right?  That's all I'm saying.
 
I don't see how it's even conceivable how someone who's been performing in bands for nearly 40 years doesn't have severe hearing damage.
 
Thus everyone being in a band for about 40 years is not allowed to make decisions in the production zone.
 
Back
Top