Man, they knew what they were doing in the 80s

[MichaelK]

I've been listening to three 80s CDs in my car this past couple of days, all very different musically:

Roxy Music, Avalon, remastered 1999
The Smithereens, Green Thoughts
Roger McGuinn, Back From Rio

What I love about these CDs (and what I loved about the Avalon LP when I had that), is that you can crank these guys up LOUD and they sound spectacular from beginning to end (try cranking My Chemical Romance up loud, see how you feel after 30 seconds). The highs shimmer like no CD you hear today, while the lows still grab you by the cohones and don't let go. The mixes have sonic depth and fullness. They are such a pleasure to listen to, effortlessly delicious to my ears.

I miss that. I haven't heard a rock album in years about which I felt that way. I've heard some Americana, acoustic and classical albums that I love from start to finish, but not rock. Rock albums now, overcompression issues aside, are too perfect, repetitive and lifeless for my tastes. There's no "juice" in the arrangements. I love M.C.R., Green Day and all that, but their CDs sound flat as a board to me. THAT's a real crime: that instead of being outraged by what guys half my age are doing, I'm f*cking bored as hell, numb, yawning at the radio. One exception: XTC. But they're my age, not young, and they haven't made a new CD in what, five years...? :(

I won't even go into what a musical masterpiece Avalon is – that's for another thread. :D

Just venting. I'm done. Fire away!

[Red Ant]

Avalon is only one of the best recorded albums of all time :)

I can't take a lot of it these days - if i'm gonna go Roxy i'll pull out "For Your Pleasure", or any of Manzanera's 70s solo efforts, BUT: "Avalon" stands with "Aja" as one of the pinnacles of recording and production :dude

[joseph]

Another incredible SOUNDING record from way back is/was David Crosby's first solo album "If only I could remember my name."
The vinyl was great....but even the MP3s sound excellent.
The engineer Stephen Barncard is still active; a year ago I emailed him saying what a terrific album that was, and he emailed me back a thanks!!
http://barncard.com/barncards/sqb/SQBhtml/sqb_RandyBio.html

[MichaelK]

Originally posted by Red Ant
Avalon is only one of the best recorded albums of all time
Engineered and mixed by Bob Clearmountain. :)

[justicetones]

+1 on Avalon and Aja being two excellent sounding albums in every way. I am sure I will get stoned for this but I will go for it anyway. ANALOG TAPE. There is nothing like it. I am sure they both were done on Analog tape. I Don't remember the timeline but I don't think that the Mitsubishi digital multitrack was out for either of those. Soory I am tired and can't think straight right now. What do you guys think? Also not to cut Bob Clearmountain short. He is a genius.

Don't get me wrong. I love Protools for the benefits of recall and writing and some production but it has made many of us not think linear from beginning to end anymore. I work in Protools everyday and for fast turnaround you can't beat it.

Also as it was said already all of the mojo , music, spontaneous things, excellent arangements and production just seem to be lacking as a whole nowadays.

I am just about to do an acoustic christmas album on 2" tape and mix through a console. I can't wait. On a Stevens machine also that came out of an old famous studio in L.A.

[elambo]

Originally posted by justicetones
+1 on Avalon and Aja being two excellent sounding albums in every way. I am sure I will get stoned for this but I will go for it anyway. ANALOG TAPE. There is nothing like it. I am sure they both were done on Analog tape. I Don't remember the timeline but I don't think that the Mitsubishi digital multitrack was out for either of those. Soory I am tired and can't think straight right now. What do you guys think? Also not to cut Bob Clearmountain short. He is a genius.

Don't get me wrong. I love Protools for the benefits of recall and writing and some production but it has made many of us not think linear from beginning to end anymore. I work in Protools everyday and for fast turnaround you can't beat it.

Also as it was said already all of the mojo , music, spontaneous things, excellent arangements and production just seem to be lacking as a whole nowadays.

I am just about to do an acoustic christmas album on 2" tape and mix through a console. I can't wait. On a Stevens machine also that came out of an old famous studio in L.A.

No, I don't think you'd get stoned for liking analog tape. Most people do, but digital has advanced so far in terms of sound quality that digital's editing abilities make it the choice for most projects. The small improvement in sound that analog offers now isn't enough for most, and tape is getting to a point where it's hard to come by.

[KungFuLio]

Originally posted by justicetones
On a Stevens machine also that came out of an old famous studio in L.A.

May you posess many maintainence skills or have a great tech on hand. Great sounding machines but boy do you have to baby them!

[Bassomatic]

Originally posted by MichaelK
Engineered and mixed by Bob Clearmountain. :)

And produced by Rhett Davies....:dude

[sears]

Another Clearmountain mix that I love is "Victim Of Love" by Bryan Adams. Not a terribly exciting song but the mix is exciting, immense and detailed. Love the bass.

[joseph]

On a related note, I read where most of the mastering house engineers will bounce digital tracks into analog for mixing and mastering, then bounce back to digital for the final 'glass' product.
Does this really make a difference in how the final product (ie digital) sounds?

[justicetones]

originally posted by elambo No, I don't think you'd get stoned for liking analog tape. Most people do, but digital has advanced so far in terms of sound quality that digital's editing abilities make it the choice for most projects. The small improvement in sound that analog offers now isn't enough for most, and tape is getting to a point where it's hard to come by.


The sound difference is not huge but it is still there. I totally agree. Digital editing is far to useful, especially with the lack of talent and ability in some artists that get record deals now. That is a whole other subject. My favorite way to work but I rarely get to anymore is to track basic tracks to analog feeding Protools at the same time so that I can keep multiple takes and not have to change the reel of 2". Then all else is done "In The Box". You really can't beat those 5 minute recalls as opposed to a day.

By the way KungFuLio. I think my friend babies those Stevens (He has 2) because they don't breakdown that often but I will also disclose that John Stevens himself maintains them for him. Boy that guy is a genius but a real interesting dude. I also do have some very limited analog maintenence skills which helps.

[justicetones]

originally posted by joseph On a related note, I read where most of the mastering house engineers will bounce digital tracks into analog for mixing and mastering, then bounce back to digital for the final 'glass' product.
Does this really make a difference in how the final product (ie digital) sounds?

Yes, I know alot of guys that still use analog tape for this. For me, I will bounce my final mixes to 1/2" analog either at the time of printing or later from an already printed mix stem for delivery to the mastering session. It does sound different. I won't say better because in some cases the digital print is what feels better to some. I think for big rock and roll I prefer the analog bounce but with some R&B the digital Protools stem had more nuts. It just depends....

[DANOCASTER]

It's not as "convenient" and it wont work in yer car:D But VINYL makes almost everything from the early 80's and earlier sound MUCH PHATTER - given you have a nice turntable and nice pressings

I have a vintage system that is KILLER for listening to the classic stuff. Marantz / Linn / Big Ol Klipsch speakers, etc..Listening on this system reminds me WHY I got into rock n roll in the first place. Putting on a cd - well...DOESNT

I cant tell you how many times I got a cd that was HUGE to me in my youth - and I thought "huh..not as good as I remember" - only later to find it on Vinyl and pop it on and then say "WOW - listen to how AWESOME that is !!"

Doesnt work the same w/ new stuff. It's really just when it was tracked, mixed, mastered, and pressed in the analogue domain

[covert]

Originally posted by joseph
On a related note, I read where most of the mastering house engineers will bounce digital tracks into analog for mixing and mastering, then bounce back to digital for the final 'glass' product.
Does this really make a difference in how the final product (ie digital) sounds?

I think if you do more research, you'll find that this is very uncommon, at least in teh sense of bouncing to tape and back. You may find somethat will pass stuff through some analog processing, especially eq. Most will try to avoid adding conversions.

[Impulse 101]

Another big problem with production today is that durning mastering they squash every ounce of dynamic range out of the music. Everyone wants it louder, but louder isn't better.

JT

[rockon1]

Dark side of the Moon. As far as Im concerned still one of the best recorded albums of all time!:)

[MichaelK]

Originally posted by joseph
On a related note, I read where most of the mastering house engineers will bounce digital tracks into analog for mixing and mastering, then bounce back to digital for the final 'glass' product.
People sometimes mix a hi-res digital multitrack down to tape, but I don't know of anyone who transfers a digital final mix to tape for mastering...?

Mastering houses don't make the glass master. That's done at the duplicating facility.

[MichaelK]

Originally posted by Impulse 101
Another big problem with production today is that durning mastering they squash every ounce of dynamic range out of the music. Everyone wants it louder
This was my point - which is why it not possible to listen to a "loud" CD at loud volume for more than a few seconds.

They're meant to sound loud at very low real-world levels. CDs with more natural dynamic range can be cranked up to where I personally like to listen.

But there are mastering engineers who are such artists that they can make an album "loud" without the accompanying ear fatigue. Bob Ludwig and Greg Calbi do it best, IMO. The 1999 remaster of Avalon is louder than the other two I mentioned, but it can still be cranked.

[Mike Dresch]

Originally posted by Impulse 101
Another big problem with production today is that durning mastering they squash every ounce of dynamic range out of the music. Everyone wants it louder, but louder isn't better.

JT

That's the biggest problem with a lot of todays music. Everyone wants their album to sound as loud as their favorite bands disc. I do a lot of small indie discs and recently had a band that wanted to buck the trend. One of their favorite sounding discs is Metallica's Black Album so we kind of used that as a reference point when mastering it (the band is called Nodes Of Ranvier (http://www.nodesofranvier.com/) if you're interested). The beauty of matering it a little bit softer is that you turn up the mix and it just keeps blooming and sounding bigger. You turn up a lot of recently released recordings and it just farts out due to the massive amounts of peak limiting and compression.

[justicetones]

I think if you do more research, you'll find that this is very uncommon, at least in the sense of bouncing to tape and back. You may find somethat will pass stuff through some analog processing, especially eq. Most will try to avoid adding conversions.

Completely wrong. I know many records that have arrived on analog tape of late to some of my friends. Also, One of the reason's they master in the analog domain is also so that they can covert back to digital with converters that most anybody cannot afford. Mastering Engineer's at Bernie Grundman's and Ocean Way that I know always go in to their analog domain and back through some of the best converters on market. A good conversion is worth every bit of another conversion because of the extremely low or non existant jitter in their systems. The end result is a wider smoother sound stage in the mix. Also more open high end and tighter low end. All from a good clock no matter if it involves a conversion. There is more damage from what I have heard in example from copying of files over and over again. I could not believe the difference I heard when mastering from a file burned to DVD then copied to the Mastering house's Computer vs. the one played directly off of RADAR. I was shocked. Digital copies are not always exact. :(

On another note: It is however a shame that most producers or usually A&R only allow the Mastering Engineer to leave a dynamic range of a few dB.:confused:

[Bassomatic]

>>Completely wrong. I know many records that have arrived on analog tape of late to some of my friends. <<

Yeah, but that's not what was said...Joseph talked about the mastering house doing a bounce from digital master to tape (yielding a loss of generation) in house. He wasn't talking about mixing from a tape master, which is still very common.

So not at all wrong, actually.

[justicetones]

What I had originally said about the analog tape was that the transfer of that from digital was something that was happening before it even goes to mastering. Usually by the mix engineer or producer.

[LSchefman]

>>"Avalon" stands with "Aja" as one of the pinnacles of recording and production <<

Both of those albums sound great, don't they?

In my humble opinion, you actually have to know what you're doing to get a great record with analog tape, more so than with digital recording.

I remember when I got my first digital recorder; everything seemed so much easier than tracking and mixing on my analog machine. I loved it, even though I thought analog sounded better. There weren't as many audio problems, such as hiss, etc., to overcome.

But 24 track 2" tape just sounds so nice and squooshy, the slight crosstalk between the tracks and the ability to record into the red does something for music that it's hard to put one's finger on. But it's often very nice.

Another nice thing is that any analog machine of the same format will be able to play back a tape. If you have a machine, you're in business.

I already have stacks of backups for ad tracks done on digital hardware and software I haven't owned for years, due to obsolescence, and I doubt they'll be recoverable in the future (not that anyone will want them, but still...). Old computers, with outdated operating systems, and outdated software seem to become doorstops.

[MichaelK]

Originally posted by LSchefman
...any analog machine of the same format will be able to play back a tape... Old computers, with outdated operating systems, and outdated software seem to become doorstops.
So do tape machines... and 78 RPM record players, wax cylinders, player piano rolls, etc. No matter what the technology, archived data is only useable as long as it's retrieveable by a machine of the same format.

Granted, analog has it over digital if there's physical damage.

[muddy]

how about the job david lord did with "the big express?" you know, "wake up?" "bless you, bless you...?" "ah well, that's this world over?" :cool:


ml

[85db]

Originally posted by justicetones
I could not believe the difference I heard when mastering from a file burned to DVD then copied to the Mastering house's Computer vs. the one played directly off of RADAR. I was shocked. Digital copies are not always exact. :(


Wow. I wonder why and how this could happen. My understanding a CD or DVD might have corrupted blocks of data which the player will "cover up" through extrapolation. This is why a scratched CD usually sounds worse. But I don't think this extrapolation is supposed to happen when copying the track off the CD/DVD to the computer. Would be great to get to the bottom of this...

[MichaelK]

Originally posted by 85db
Wow. I wonder why and how this could happen. My understanding a CD or DVD might have corrupted blocks of data which the player will "cover up" through extrapolation. This is why a scratched CD usually sounds worse. But I don't think this extrapolation is supposed to happen when copying the track off the CD/DVD to the computer. Would be great to get to the bottom of this...
Copying files doesn't result in a deterioration of audio quality. If data is incorrectly read or written during the copying process then the result is a corrupted file which quite possibly will not play back at all. It's either an exact duplicate or it's unuseable.

I'm not sure what justicetones is saying.

[justicetones]

OK Let me clarify. I recently was on a very large project that originated on analog tape that was over 35-40 years old. We transfered tracks to RADAR ( a high end hard disk recorder similar to tascam's and mackie's units.) We overdubed and then mixed back to RADAR. I exported the two track mixes to a DVD but Bernie had commented that the tracks sounded very different in sonic quality to the first round of masters we brought him. That first session I took RADAR there and we mastered playing the tacks from RADAR, clocking off his gear through his converters.

So I took the RADAR to Bernie Grundman's for mastering and we set up justr as we did the first time. We came out of the RADAR digitally into his system so the converters we listened through were the same. The DVD was previously loaded on and we compared. The difference was huge and I commented on it. The bottom was tighter and more clear and the top end had far more detail and less distortion. Bernie stated that he has always experienced this in where the best way to do it is to work from the most original digital files. I.E. try to copy and rewrite as little as possible.

This is what I was saying is that there is much belief in the professional community that degredation CAN occur in the digital realm from copying files in different methods. One would assume it is from read and write errors and media defects because of the fact that digital is all 1's and 0's.

I hope this clarifies exactly what I meant. Please know that I don't want to come across as an audio snob. I just think there is much misconception of the fact that people think digital is not subject to loss through copying or different generations of copies.

:)

[MichaelK]

Where I'm losing you is here:

>> I exported the two track mixes to a DVD

and here:

>> We came out of the RADAR digitally into his system

I don't know what either one means. If either process involved real-time playback by RADAR, then that's different from copying. Did the RADAR play back the files, or did he import them into his system from RADAR?

If RADAR played them back (i.e. read them in real time), then you're not comparing apples to apples. The only way to compare the sound quality inherent in the files (assuming the files are supposedly identical, i.e. same name, same format, same size, etc.) would have been for him to import both sets of files and read them both from the same machine - his.

[jcground]

Originally posted by justicetones
I am sure I will get stoned for this but I will go for it anyway. ANALOG TAPE. There is nothing like it.

+1. My studio training was all on Studer analog machines, and I love 'em. What I didn't love was buying the 2-inch tape. When I was in college, that stuff shot holes in my budget really fast.

To me, that's the big advantage of digital. You can get good sound in a project studio on a comparitively tiny budget, but I don't think it has the magic of a great analog setup.

[justicetones]

If RADAR played them back (i.e. read them in real time), then you're not comparing apples to apples. The only way to compare the sound quality inherent in the files (assuming the files are supposedly identical, i.e. same name, same format, same size, etc.) would have been for him to import both sets of files and read them both from the same machine - his.

I would agree that a 100% direct comparison is not what I am giving as an example. Although I would bet alot on the fact that from what he has said and what I heard it would have still sounded different. I would also say that Bernie's system could not in any possibilty sound that much worse than RADAR from what we heard. 100% not possible. OK now onto to the exact situation.

1. Yes the 2 track mix played realtime out of RADAR digitally clocked to his system playing through his converters


2. The 2 track mix was exported to a DVD-ram, copied onto his system and then played clocked from him through his converters.

The only things that were different were the file was copied to DVD and back to his system and played from his platform. Both RADAR and His platform are PC based systems. RADAR is a BE-OS proprietary operating system. With only 2 tracks playing back from either system there is no discrepancy of multiple tracks summing either. I would also argue that Bernie's computer based system is the best that can be had. They do alot of research and build alot of custom gear including some computers that you could not believe.

SO the RADAR 2 track playback sounded better than the 2 track that had been copied to DVD and then to his computer based system to playback. Both clocked from the same source with the same converters.

[justicetones]

MichaelK

I agree that a fun test would have been for Bernie to import the tracks from RADAR directly into his system.

[MichaelK]

My point is that any perceived difference in quality is not from having made a copy. Either it's because something during playback was different (as you confirmed), or the files on the DVD were not exact copies.

When you say "exported to DVD-ROM" what do you mean? What type of files? Were they exact copies of the files in RADAR: same format, same names, same extensions, same sizes? Or was the audio re-sampled to a different format?

If you're saying that repeated re-sampling degrades audio quality, then you're correct. But that's not copying.

[justicetones]

They were in fact exported in the same format, same name, same length, etc.

They were exact copies and NOT resampled.

I do know that many audio professionals that I know think that the notion of exact digital file copies (not resampled) are a bad practice and the idea of digital file copies being the same a few generations down is misleading.

[NuSkoolTone]

Originally posted by Impulse 101
Another big problem with production today is that durning mastering they squash every ounce of dynamic range out of the music. Everyone wants it louder, but louder isn't better.

JT

+1

Let's not forget Drum replacement taking the soul out of drums (And losing the art of getting a good drum sound), and Autotune (remember when people could sing?)

The silver lining is, as a hobbiest I can do a LOT cooler stuff than I could 10 years ago!

[justicetones]

I totally agree with the sound replacement and Autotune. Unless they are used as a special effect or last ditch effort to save something. Although they would have fixed it the right way in the 80'S. They would redo it.


I love Sound Replacer and Autotune as tools for certain situations but not for mandatory effects or band-aids.

[MichaelK]

Originally posted by justicetones
I do know that many audio professionals that I know think that the notion of exact digital file copies (not resampled) are a bad practice and the idea of digital file copies being the same a few generations down is misleading.

I have to say, this is the first I've heard that. I'll keep an open mind, but my gut reaction is that it just doesn't make sense. I don't mean to denigrate your opinion at all... I'm just being honest about what I think.

There are other possible explanations for why that may seem to be the case that need to be ruled out before I'd be convinced. Such as file fragmentation or other playback error correction issues.

[justicetones]

There are other possible explanations for why that may seem to be the case that need to be ruled out before I'd be convinced. Such as file fragmentation or other playback error correction issues.


I think there is many opinions and I don't blame you for not jumping in and believing this theory 100%. I agree. I was skeptical at first but after having a few situations where I was mixing from a files that were one to multiple generations down that is why I feel differently. I had those clients bring me their drive and I copied the files from them and or used their drive as the file source. In Both instances I could swear that it sounded different. Bernie and his staff always urge everyone to bring in the most original generation possible of the digital stuff if possible.

I will say that I am not a die hard stickler about this but whenever possible I don't work from copies or copy files. Sometimes though it is not practical to get the originals.

I want to do some real concise testing soon at some point to try to recreate this theory with controlled circumstances with my Protools rig at home. I will get back to you with what I find. :dude

[MichaelK]

Just one other thought: whenever you do a sample-level edit, the file is re-written. Whenever you de-fragment, the file is re-written. Do that 20 times and you have a 20th generation copy.

I have never experienced degradation in quality from either one.

[justicetones]

Agreed. I never defrag so that is no problem for me.

What do you mean by sample-level edit?

[MichaelK]

Originally posted by justicetones
What do you mean by sample-level edit?

Like in ProTools when you magnify the wafeform to where it's a line and you can edit the line with the pencil tool. That's a destructive edit, a permanent change to the file.

I realize I was mistaken when I said the file is "re-written." It's modified and further fragmented, but the entire file is not re-written as far as I know.

[justicetones]

Ah 100% agreed. I think it is modifed like a fade file as a chunk that is referenced upon playback but I am not 100% sure on that one. It may rewrite the whole file.

[justicetones]

Let me just add I have really enjoyed this exchange. Where is Chelm. In noticed that as your location.

I think none of us ever know it all and I am always searching to refine my knowledge. Or gain back what I used to know but forgot:D

[MichaelK]

Originally posted by justicetones
I think it is modifed like a fade file as a chunk that is referenced upon playback but I am not 100% sure on that one. It may rewrite the whole file.
Put it this way... a fade creates a separate file, as you know. But a sample edit does not. The original audio file retains the same name and size (since it is uncompressed) but the modification date changes. I can tell the whole file is not re-written because those audio files are big, and I don't hear the hard drive re-writing 120 megs every time I erase a little click or pop.

If you make an edit then go back and forth between undo and re-do, the modification date changes each time. So you can undo what you've done (within the parameters of how many undos are allowed by ProTools). But once no more undos are allowed, it's permanent... unless you restore an older version of the same file from a backup. Which I've had to do more than once. :)

[justicetones]

Cool. So my first impression that it is a chunk type of modification rather than the whole file is accurate.
Of course the whole undo path makes sense to me. That is what is great about DAW's


:)

[Bravin Neff]

Originally posted by MichaelK
So do tape machines... and 78 RPM record players, wax cylinders, player piano rolls, etc. No matter what the technology, archived data is only useable as long as it's retrieveable by a machine of the same format.

Granted, analog has it over digital if there's physical damage.

When you put it that way, almost any analog tape from almost any era can be played back in almost anywhere in the world.

By contrast, in the digital era, technologies have become all but obsolete almost overnight and have rendered a LOT of master archives almost entirely unreadable in just a matter of years. How many dash machines still exist from the 80's? And if you find one, is it a Sony, or a Mitsubishi? A Studer? How many systems can read Paris .paf files? Sound Designer I files?

What do you think has a chance of greater persistence: the total recall of a mix based on a computer whose operating system is replaced every 5 years and whose application is constantly being "updated and crossgraded" to other systems, or track and recall sheets written by pen, tucked away in a file folder?

Then there is the archive lifespan of digital audio: DATs, CD-Rs, digital tape and harddisks. To my knowledge, none of these media have anywhere near the archivability of analog tape. And in today's paradigm, if you archive to harddisk, what are the chances that when you go to open that harddisk, say, 20 years from now, that there will still exist IDE, SATA, Firewire, or [insert whatever is the fashionable connection of choice today] connectivity? Hell, I have a Roland W-30 keyboard from 1991 that needs 720 KByte (double density) floppy disks, and I am having a hell of time finding them. And that's only from 14 years ago. By contrast, any 2" analog tape from 30 years ago, if properly cared for, is just as playable today as it was then.

Analog tape has it over digital in many ways more than just physical damage. It makes a lot of sense to backup your digital audio to tape, if you really want it to last.

[MichaelK]

You're 100% right. Digital archival is a serious problem.

[TheAmpNerd]

Originally posted by MichaelK
I've been listening to three 80s CDs in my car this past couple of days, all very different musically:

Roxy Music, Avalon, remastered 1999
The Smithereens, Green Thoughts
Roger McGuinn, Back From Rio

What I love about these CDs (and what I loved about the Avalon LP when I had that), is that you can crank these guys up LOUD and they sound spectacular from beginning to end (try cranking My Chemical Romance up loud, see how you feel after 30 seconds). The highs shimmer like no CD you hear today, while the lows still grab you by the cohones and don't let go. The mixes have sonic depth and fullness. They are such a pleasure to listen to, effortlessly delicious to my ears.

I won't even go into what a musical masterpiece Avalon is – that's for another thread. :D


Hmmm,

Well now that I've aquired two of the three you
mentioned, I'm dissapointed. The presention
and the mix seems pretty straight forward.

I picked up the Rio and Green Thoughts.
While the music is nice, I don't think their
engineering nor production value are
anything special.

I'm waiting for Avalon, the Remix.
I did pick up a compilation,
More than this, The Best of
Bryan Ferry + Roxy Music.

What am I'm impressed with are the following,
(EXCLUDING what others have aforementioned):

Tim Finn, the one with the.
"There's a waffle in the woodshed and
it's keeping me awake at night." That is a pretty amazing
disc, with SFX that add to everything kinda like
pink floyd only different. Many different layers
and the more you listen the more you hear.

Then there is the Boy George's greatest hits.
Holy Smokes, I was never really a BG fan, but
my old girl friend turned me on to this and
there is some damn nice stuff here. Dynamic,
layered and I could swear that Tina Turner has
a few vocals here as well.

Madonna, the later tracks in the Immaculate
Collection are amazing!

There are some others. But I just bought a bunch
of music and I need to listen to others....
I did pick up a great WHO, Who's Next Deluxe
edition w/ two disks the original 9 tracks plus
20 other tracks. We'll see how it tounds.

I happened across a 2002 remix of the Stones
Beggers Banquet. This sounded good at the
2nd hand store, I can't wait to hear it on my
reference system. : ) EDIT: yeah this is great!

I'll keep ya posted.

[MichaelK]

Originally posted by TheAmpNerd
Well now that I've aquired two of the three you mentioned, I'm dissapointed. The presention and the mix seems pretty straight forward.

I picked up the Rio and Green Thoughts. While the music is nice, I don't think their engineering nor production value are anything special.
I agree, actually. I didn't mean that they were exceptionally produced milestones like Avalon. I just love the songs and production on both albums (straight forward though they may be) and I love cranking them up in the car.

Unfortunately, I can't think of a single pop or rock album made since 2002 that I can crank up loud, much less listen to all the way through at ANY volume. Which is a damned shame, because it's not from a lack of (what should be) good material.