Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Tubular Bells 2009 remaster, so what do we all think?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Aug. 24 2009, 16:30

Quote (trcanberra @ Aug. 24 2009, 07:03)
 So, it looks like the 1973 version is a remaster from the original CD release, so the question then is: the same remaster as the Virgin CD from circa 2000 or yet another new one?  :)

Well, I can't answer this one as I haven't got the 2000 remaster - I've got the Virgin original, its 1990 Disky correspondent and the version on Elements. The last two sound slightly better than the first, but just slightly. I've no idea how does the 1990 remaster sound. Maybe someone else in here who has it may answer this... :)

--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
lostrom Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: Feb. 2006
Posted: Sep. 13 2009, 22:21

...
Back to top
Profile PM 
lostrom Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: Feb. 2006
Posted: Sep. 13 2009, 22:23

Quote (captainjjb @ June 11 2009, 16:55)
when people are talking about "druken hornpipe" are they talking about the version originally on "boxed"?

Yes, but here it's remixed and shortened.
Back to top
Profile PM 
lostrom Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: Feb. 2006
Posted: Sep. 13 2009, 22:42

Question:
Does anyone know if "Ommadawn-excerpt" and "Incantations, part 4-excerpt" on CD 2 is the same as the original singles?
("Ommadawn single remix" was released in France as a-side in 1975 and "Incantation, part 4" as a B-side to "Guilty" in -79)
Back to top
Profile PM 
dobyblue Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: May 2009
Posted: Sep. 22 2009, 09:34

So is it only the EU version that has a dts 5.1 mix on it?
The US ones are all 448 Kbps Dolby Digital?
Is the dts track 768 Kbps or full lossy 1.509 Mbps?
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
ZombieEaten Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: Sep. 2009
Posted: Sep. 27 2009, 14:52

Does anyone know if the Deluxe Edition version available for sale in the UK with the 5.1 disk will work in American, NTSC DVD players?
http://www.bandstores.co.uk/shop....0980701

UK/EU disks are usually PAL and it seems that this is really a DVD with a 5.1 DTS/DD soundtrack and so might not work.

The versions of the 2009 edition available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Borders etc are ~$40 and are imports so same applies for those versions.

Thanks in advance

Z-E-
Back to top
Profile PM 
dobyblue Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: May 2009
Posted: Oct. 22 2009, 11:02

There are plenty of DVD-A/SACD players that play both PAL and NTSC discs and convert them on the fly.

The Pioneer DV-48, DV-58, DV-49, DV59 and Oppo 980H players definitely do.
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
bob Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: Dec. 2008
Posted: Mar. 24 2010, 09:27

I really like the 2009 remaster with one exeption the tubular bells at the end of part 1 they must be (IMHO) the weakest sounding bells on any version of TB ind Ive got a few (origional version,boxed the picture disc,the 25th aniversary and Elements remasters ) and they all soun far superior
   Bob
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sonilink Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 393
Joined: Jan. 2005
Posted: May 26 2010, 06:42

It's alright  ;)

--------------
Take the Time
Back to top
Profile PM 
InsideOfYou Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: July 2010
Posted: July 26 2010, 04:43

It's impressive at first listen, but like all the new remixes does not stand the test of time like the old mixes for me.

Analogue desk and analogue tape bound these recordings together into a warm, coherent blanket, where as these digital remixes have scattered the tonal subtleties of the original recording onto a unknowing, unloving, sonic highway, stripped of its 'voltage'.

Personally I would have greatly preferred remixes on automated analogue consoles like SSL or Neve and mixed to analogue tape with Dolby SR (or 30ips Dolby A) noise reduction which would have kept the original production intact, allowed for an easier mix, and kept the noise floor to a minimum.

IOY
Back to top
Profile PM 
familyjules Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1190
Joined: May 2004
Posted: July 26 2010, 06:43

I think the Tubular Bells remix is by far the most successful of the three done so far.

Jules


--------------
I like beer and I like cheese
Back to top
Profile PM 
knife edge Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: May 2003
Posted: July 30 2010, 14:18

Quote (familyjules @ July 26 2010, 06:43)
I think the Tubular Bells remix is by far the most successful of the three done so far.

Jules

I agree.

And, imho is for two main reasons:

1. TB strongly needed a remix with some tweek, because the original was (my opinion) so "rude" and probably made in a hurry, but HR and Ommadawn no;

2. TB remix has warmed and smoothed (in a good way, without losing "power") the sound of the original, which I always found "shrill" (at least the cd versions, never listened to the original vynil). Not so HR and Ommadawn, which were "enlightened" by a big light, and they probably don't need it.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Thea Cochrane Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 445
Joined: Nov. 1999
Posted: Sep. 05 2010, 11:43

If anyone still hasn't got the big boxset (with vinyl, book and signed bit inside) HMV in the UK seem to be selling them for about £30 now.

I've already got one and I was tempted.
Back to top
Profile PM 
RadioactiveTangerine Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: Mar. 2011
Posted: Mar. 18 2011, 04:26

Wow, the boxset is at half price (even lower than this!;). I would have to pay for it around 300 zł (~65 Ł!;). And You have it for 30 Ł (138 zł - it's a big improvement including that Deluxe Edition cost ... Lucky You!.  I wish I could have arranged buying it with my parents & someone else (I've got nearly 100 zł). It's a great bargain.

And when in comes to listen to TB (not the 2009 Mixes, I don't have them) I've to listen to it in Mono (Pink Floyd's discography is also in mono, except rips from my CDs). I've impaired hearing so I' one-ear only (Don't hear anything on the second). In first part I didn't hear the MC in stereo version. So I've converted it to mono (even my own rips but in HQ - 320 kbps Mp3).

Edit: Please remove this post. I haven't notice that is very old :(

Matt to Patryk: I could delete it but the second half of the post seems pretty interesting and relevant to the thread, you could edit out the fiirst paragraph? Let me know if you still want the whole thing deleted!
Back to top
Profile PM 
InsideOfYou Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: July 2010
Posted: Mar. 27 2011, 13:12

Too 'dry' sounding to my ears. Where's the hiss? That was essential to the ambience and atmosphere of the recording.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Mar. 27 2011, 18:14

Quote (InsideOfYou @ Mar. 27 2011, 19:12)
Too 'dry' sounding to my ears. Where's the hiss? That was essential to the ambience and atmosphere of the recording.

This is the very same thing that people who reviewed the remasters in Kraftwerk's The Catalogue complained about: all the hiss on the original analog recordings is gone. :D

--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
AlexS Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 194
Joined: Nov. 2005
Posted: Aug. 07 2012, 04:59

I only heard this recetenly, and I have to say I think the 2009 stereo mix might be the best yet. For me it has all the earthiness and organic feel of the original, but in a less muddy way and it's also nice to hear the odd extended section.

I think he's made the best possible version from the original that he could have.

Has the "hoover" section been reintroduced?


--------------
http://www.thelightdream.net
http://thelightdreams.bandcamp.com/
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Aug. 07 2012, 19:17

Quote (AlexS @ Aug. 07 2012, 10:59)
Has the "hoover" section been reintroduced?

No, the "Hoover" section is in one of the demos on the DVD-A disc. It's nowhere in TB at all, not even in the 2009 mix.


--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
Cavalier (Lost Version) Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 598
Joined: Nov. 2010
Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 10:29

TB overkill is all too easy to achieve.  If I hear the introduction in an unusual place, I will be excited and will document the experience  (although on that note, I begin to suspect that a Radio 1 example two years ago was a cover version).  By contrast, in selecting some twenty of the CDs that currently surround me, that same tune can wash over me and those versions that are essentially the same run the risk of being skipped.

It's partly for that reason that the discs contained within The Collection have had a fairly easy life.  I've reached for the collection part of The Collection a couple of  times, mostly when I felt like a bit of Taurus II.  For some reason, despite liking it when I first played it, the 2009 stereo remixes have barely been touched.  Certainly not since my registration at Tubular Net otherwise I feel certain I would have produced such a patch of purple prose as you presently peruse!

If Mike started a re-mastering or a full blown re-mix today, it would not turn out the same as the one he starts next Saturday ( don't anyone direct him to this - I don't want him to get ideas! ), even if it just turns out to be subtle adjustments of faders.  We infinite number of Tubular monkeys would in turn create our own unique interpretations if presented with the master tapes.  The composer has had the opportunity to re-imagine his work in about fifteen of the previous forty years, whether live or within existing recordings, to thrilling results sometimes.  What I get from the choices made for the 2009 stereo version is another set of better-worse-and-much-the-same criteria that intrigue, infuriate and fascinate while listening, and make for tricky comparative analysis.  I almost don't want to think too hard about what makes it different from it's original source.  So a review could be "intro best in 1973, flute better in Boxed, organ stabs best in 1998" and so on for the whole album.  My appreciation of TB2003 and 2009 (and in a bizarrely similar vein, the slightly less officially sanctioned The Best of Tubular Bells) is hard for me to quantify.  I know where I think they succeed and fail as I listen, and a few seconds later that order may reverse.  I dread the idea of  starting a complete analysis... :/

Like Matt before me, the words that make up Mike Oldfield's Single automatically suggested what that meant to me, and I was blown away this variant.  Mike liked this version in 2009 - he might hate it now ( ! ) but by now I think we are getting used to the idea that he is reluctant to re-issue material that no longer satisfies him.   Likewise, re-inventing Viv Stanshall's inebriation to suit the original plans for immersive listening.  What I think sums the efforts up most is an idea that he at some point whilst recording the original of Part Two that got over-ridden by others and which he didn't feel the need to change for TB2003, but when presented with his masters for 2009 made perfect sense.  To cite another of my predecessors in the topic (whilst quoting 2003 track names) I'm with Sir Mustapha in having the segue from Bagpipe Guitars to Caveman as one of my all-time favourite moments and it gets truly outstanding in 2003.  I should hate the suppression of the timpani and the lack of impact that leaving the piano out brings.  But in its place, where we had the double-speed guitars noodling away in exquisite discord, 2009 reveals that he's effectively re-visiting Basses.  Good on yer, Mike! :D


--------------
"Who was that?"
"That was Venger - the force of Evil!  I am Dungeon Master - your guide in the realm of Dungeons & Dragons!"
Back to top
Profile PM 
Joe Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: June 2014
Posted: July 04 2014, 11:01

I think I must be the exception to the rule on this one, unless I'm missing something.  Why did Mike feel the need to mess about with his masterpiece?  I have listened to it several times now just to give it a fair trial but I'm afraid I just can't raise any excitement for this 2009 re-mix at all.  

The Original could make your hair stand on end but I'm afraid this version comes across as very flat in places and I must admit it lost my attention.  I appreciate that Mike is a perfectionist and wants his audience to experience his true vision when it comes to his music and I applaud him for that but please, your audience loved the Original 1974 version and still do to this day, that's why it was such a huge success.

As with Hergest Ridge & Ommadawn.  Yes do a slightly different mix for the "Boxed" set if you must but let us true fans have the Original 1970's versions that we all know and love!!....Respect.
Back to top
Profile PM 
120 replies since June 10 2009, 16:28 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 >






Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact

Mike Oldfield Tubular.net
Mike Oldfield Tubular.net