The Doors: 1968 Hollywood Bowl
 

I DVRed it over the weekend. Not only is it a great show, but the sound mixing is perfect. It transcends through the digital world we live in now.

* * *
“I believe in a long, prolonged derangement of the senses to attain the unknown. Our pale reasoning hides the infinite from us.”

James Douglas Morrison

Superb show, glad to see it finally get a proper treatment.

Awesome love the Doors

awesome show.

Dude, no offense, but it's been digitally remixed and remastered. If it hadn't, it would have sounded like pure and utter dogshit.

If you don't believe me, here's a link.

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/the-d...t-the-bowl-68/

Hey Stewie, I just looked it up and the concert on Palladia is the remastered version.

The original VHS can still be found on eBay and Amazon but what they're airing is the new version.

It's showing again later in March so be sure to set your DVR. I will for sure and thanks for the heads up!

:D

That article doesn't say anything about turning dogshit into gold.

I saw this concert long before the transformation to digital and it's just as good. I'm not sure where you came up with your opinion on it vs. previous analog versions. It wasn't dogshit in 1985 on tape.

My point was that the new digitization held up the analog integrity... especially Manzerek's, Krieger's and Densmore's subtleties as musicians.

Cool. We'll just agree that this is a great concert that Manzarek had the forethought to film.

Dude, analog tapes transferred to digital from that era are ridiculously noisy. There's hiss and hum and buzz and digital only exacerbates that noise. It's not that what was recorded was poor or bad or wrong, it's the tape medium that's at issue.

That's why nearly every record from the 60's, 70's and 80's has been meticulously re-mastered for the digital medium. For one, analog tape degrades with every single pass on the heads. For a digital transfer to occur, tapes have to be baked in an over at a certain temperature, even tapes that have been in humidity free vaults for decades, or the tape would shed and crumble.

Every mastering engineer, or in this case, Bruce Botnick, a famed recording engineer, takes great care in preserving the original sound. There are all kinds of De-Humming, De-Noising, De-Buzzing and similar noise reduction programs that can remove all of the noise without destroying the audio but even they need to be used carefully, as to not destroy the integrity of the original recording.

This process can take months, even years (look no further than the Beatles catalog remasters at Abbey Roads) but this art has been nearly perfected.

It's not called the National Academy of Recordings Arts and Sciences for nothing. :D

So, why is my VHS tape of the concert not a whole lot different than the remastered digital version?

Did JDM drink or do drugs?

He was a drunk. I've heard he was allergic to alcohol and within 2-3 drinks he'd turn into a monster. I'm not sure I believe that. He had demons, for sure.

He came from a strict upbringing. His dad was a rear admiral in the Navy.

SMH

Because VHS players had built-in noise reduction circuits and used analog connections. If you were to transfer that VHS into a digital audio work station, all of the noise and artifacts would be revealed, especially after the gain has been raised to the decibel level that's standard today.

A good example would be to take a CD from the 80's (non-remastered version - original transfer), put it on your stereo, then pop in a CD or audio file from 2012. What you'd hear is that the newer CD is anywhere from 6-12 decibels louder and has much more bottom end. That's because analog tape could only be pushed so hard before distorting.

Also, LP's (albums) were mastered with far less bass because more bass would make the needle from your phonograph jump out its grooves. That's why everyone had big giant speakers with 10", 12" or 15" speakers in their home stereo whereas today, you can get a giant, full sound from a docking station or even decent mini-headphones. Digital has allowed recording engineers the ability to raise the signal to close to zero DB and include a ton of bass because there is no needle necessary.

This is nothing but digital limitations. Analog is infinite in its sound.

If you work with a digital signal it's always limited to the x-bit conversion. If it's analog the signal is infinite and unobtrusive.

The '60s Hammond organ is a perfect example of an analog sound that musicians crave today.

No. The best thing about digital is that it has a dynamic range of as much as 144db, depending on the convertor. Analog has about an 80db dynamic range at 3% THD. Hence why when cassettes and 8 track tapes are cranked, there's a massive amount of hiss and noise.

And without noise reduction, whether it's DBX, Dolby A, B, C or SR, it's unbelievably noisy.

If I were to take a signal and record it at 120db, it would be massively distorted on analog tape, regardless of the machine used. But if I record that signal through high end digital convertors (Apogee, RADAR, Lynx, Metric Halo, etc.), that signal is clean and undistorted.

When that signal is then mixed with other signals that are properly gain-staged, it's much easier to create a truer, cleaner, undistorted reproduction.

Of course, although you'd be surprised at how many records and movie scores have used the Native Instruments versions B4II and Vintage Organs, because they're nearly indistinguishable from the real thing. Vintage C3's and B3's have been meticulously sampled and there's far more control (including tuning!) in the digital domain than it's analog counterpart. Plus, it's about 400 or so pounds lighter! :)

But that type of "analog" instrument isn't congruous with digital or analog recording. Choosing to mic up a Hammond organ is a matter of taste.

I have both vinyl pressings; the single LP put out in the 80's and the double 180-gran reissue that just came out.

I think the one from the 80's sounds better.

I go to as many concerts as I can in KC. The Hammond B3, etc. is a staple in live shows. Off the top of my head it's the centerpiece keyboard for Springsteen, John Legend, Sade's band and others. I even think Roger Water's band had a B3. It's that "sound" that's unmistakable.

That would not surprise me, at all.

Sometimes, guys overthink things.

But, I'm sure that the remastered DVD sounds much better than the direct-to-digital transfer.

Let's face it: 98%, a good old album on a great stereo is going to sound better, richer and deeper than the same CD.

People are used to hearing harmonic distortion because it's pleasing to the ear.

Of course it is: It's a mainstay of rock music. There's nothing better than a B3 and a Leslie cabinet, as long as they're properly maintained.

:D

So, how does the richness of a B3 in a live performance translate to digital? Is it even possible?

Some of those older CDs still sound better than the 'Remastered' versions - a good example would be Exile On Main St :

the original 80's CD put out by CBS sounded like dogshit.

the first remaster by Virgin in 1994 sounded GREAT.

The one they put out recently, that had the bonus disc of outtakes...sounded worse than the one from the 80's. The bass is boomy and it's just LOUD - it's stripped of all dynamics.

So glad that a lot of the records coming out have backed off from the 'hot mastering/loudness wars' trend. It's all fine with nû-metal or raps musics (music that generally lacks dynamic subtlety), but when they start doing all that with old analog music from the 60's and 70's, it changes the way the music actually sounds.

Hell, the original Crowes CDs sounds way better than the Remasters that came out in that Box Set, and those were recorded within the past 25 years.

That being said, the original Van Halen and Black Sabbath CDs sounded like DOGSHIT, and the remasters that Rhino put out are amazing. I'm pretty impressed with the care Rhino takes.

And I definitely do like my Beatles Mono Remasters box set...

What do you think of Pono??

Yeah, absolutely. Rami used the N.I. B4 for all of Jakob Dylan's records and he used on pretty much everything since. It's amazing. It's used every day in studios around the world.

There are very few people working professionally (especially those on deadlines) that aren't using digital emulations of analog organs and synths.

As Trent Reznor put it "Arturia has made a Vintage Synth bundle that sounds exactly like the original, except it works flawlessly". :D

Direct transfer

Finally remastered for digital.

Money grab. Seriously.

Labels don't make much money from bands anymore due to piracy. So, the turn to the next best thing and continually remaster their legacy catalogs for income.


It's getting better but it's not over yet. And you can't blame the mastering engineers: They're just doing what they're being told to do by A&R people and band managers.

Yep

One of the guys responsible for archiving and mastering there is a friend. The guy is meticulous when it comes to re-mastering legacy, especially music as beloved as Van Halen.

Yeah, the mono set is the only way to go. I understand why Capital request EMI do stereo versions but to my ears, it just sounds wrong.

Hey, more power to Neil Young but I think it's a little silly considering the masses listen to music on their mobile devices with .5" speakers.

I hope it's successful but I just don't think people care. Music has become disposable to two generations of people and soon, there won't be many people around that care about sound quality because 128 is just fine.

It's actually sad but reality.

Most people don't care because they don't know. They haven't been offered anything other than brick walled, crushed dynamic range music outside of "audiophile" remasters of '70's/60's/50's analog master tape stuff that was recorded right in the first place. Sure there are a handful of mastering engineers who have tried to do it right, like Ted Jensen, Bob Katz and the like, but they are few and far between and often have to battle artists and record execs who only care about if their shit is loud enough. ****ing stupid CDs.

The one hope that the "new" higher resolution 24 bit/whatever sampling rate download formats gives (other than potentially better quality end user material) is that they help the industry start trending away from the "loudness war" that has plauged it and subsequently the consumer for the past 20+ years.

Anywho, back to what I was originally looking for:

Has anyone downloaded the PONO music app?

It looks like they require it for the hi-res music downloads on their site, but I'm not overly excited about another clunky music player on my machine. Unfortunately, their hi-res downloads cost approximately 10 to 20% less than HDTracks.

I've been pretty satisfied with MusicBee as my player/organizer and MediaMonkey as my downloader. I don't really want to switch to a whole new operation with Pono just to save a couple of bucks on my hi-res downloads.

Anybody using the Pono app that can offer an objective analysis of it's operations?

This is not going away any time soon. It's reality.

I highly doubt that the masses will even notice the difference, let alone, care enough to make the change.

As I've mentioned so many times, music has become disposable. It's background noise. It's become completely devalued the past 20 years and unfortunately for people like me, it will only become worse.

I don't know. The whole "hi-res" thing has a definite vibe to it and Pono has helped push it along faster than what was initially expected, imo.

Storage is insanely cheap at this point and will only get bigger and cheaper - e.g., they just released the 200 gb micro-sd cards, the 128's are under $100 and the 64's are now at $25!

I think it's a real deal. Downloads are what the future of music is vs. hard copy stuff which is a dinosaur in every respect of the word. People know MP3's suck - they just haven't been given a viable, known option at this point and Pono has done that (even though hi-res music downloads have been around for a while). It's put the "hi-res" formats in front of the consumer and given them an option. And they've responded - see the $8,000,000 that Pono raised on Kickstarter as proof. That's the "masses" supporting it, not some investment team or corporation or big music label. People do want better sound. They just haven't been given it until now. And I think that the 24 bit format helps engineers make a better product as well - or the potential to anyway.

Hi-res downloads are available on the grassroots level on Bandcamp (Hey Kyle, where's my A Light Within 24/96 btw?) and there are now a pretty large number of sites offering them.