BlahBlahCafe - Jean-Michel Jarre forum

DarkVoyage wrote:Swapped channels is not a problem really. Are you sure that they are not corrected in 1997 as it was intended, while all others are wrong? One never knows...

all LPs, CDs and other media released before the 1997 remasters had left and right as it was originally released. Singles released from the albums too. Heck, even the Mobile Fidelity remasters (still my favorite releases) are like that.

It was never really re-recorded.

The remastered version is closer to how it should sound. The 2007 re-recorded version sounds more amateurish, due to the way the reverb has been used.

Also the bass boosts are unneeded. This kind of music is not dance floor ear popping music.
It's supposed to be akin to classical music, only using electronic instruments.

Eh, my opinions on the matter probably have changed since the last time (a few months ago?) but still, I don't hate the 1997 remasters like some people do. Switched channels doesn't really bother me because I tend to wear headphones in a way where the cord passes over my right shoulder, so for most time I think I have the left channel on my right ear and vice versa.

I still maintain that the 1997 Cities in Concert remaster of Rendez-Vous 2 is probably the best one in all of his repertoire (in my opinion anyhoo'), because it truly sounds like an electronic orchestral track with the correct amount of power and definite live sound (mainly percussions). The worst part (which applies to the whole album) is that someone has been adding the same live audience noise all over the place and realizing that it's been added afterwards is a bit disturbing (similar loops can be heard in Jarre Live and - when other artists are concerned - Roger Waters' The Wall Live in Berlin). The extra audience noise is missing from the 1987 In Concert version, but boy does it sound flat.

The 1997 remaster of Zoolook is also pretty good (and thank goodness it has the non-remix versions of Zoolook and Zoolookologie). While I have most of JMJ's albums on vinyl and 1997 CD remasters and the former sound much warmer, I don't really mind the 1997 ones. Or maybe I've just got too used to them.

The 2007 remaster of Oxygene is kind of iffy because, for example, there's previously unheard noise in several effects during Oxygene 1... but I prefer its version of Oxygene 4 because the bubbly sound effect that marks the transition to Oxygene 5 starts much later in that one. Otherwise, MFSL is the way to go for me.

As for the 2014 remasters, eh, I guess if you don't have any other releases and don't want to spend too much time finding them, sure, why not. Orient Express is sort of a guilty pleasure of mine, it can be fun to listen to it at times with headphones on and just wanting to get some OOMPH in your ears. ;]

And yet all of this reminds me, has Oxygene 7-13 been remastered at all since 1997?

Finaero wrote:And yet all of this reminds me, has Oxygene 7-13 been remastered at all since 1997?

It has not been a victim of the Loudness War yet.

That's good (for now). Sadly, my vinyl version of it has annoying skips during Oxygene 8 (and it was the 25 € copy I retained, whereas I sold the 4€ one I had for 70 € a few years back!) and I'm not a fan of the fadeout at the end of Oxygene 9, but still, it sounds pretty great on both formats IMO. :]

Finaero wrote:The 2007 remaster of Oxygene is kind of iffy because, for example, there's previously unheard noise in several effects during Oxygene 1... but I prefer its version of Oxygene 4 because the bubbly sound effect that marks the transition to Oxygene 5 starts much later in that one. Otherwise, MFSL is the way to go for me.

2007 release is completely new recording from scratch. I don't understand, why many people think that this is some kind of trick with original recordings. Jarre gathered 95% of his original gear and played it by notes again, very closely to original, but different enough to hear the difference. I was really impressed by such skills. Who else can make such magic? Nobody.

MFSL remasters are of no special interest, they sound dull and too much cleaned.

So, basically which mastering versions of each album is the best?

DarkVoyage wrote:

Finaero wrote:The 2007 remaster of Oxygene is kind of iffy because, for example, there's previously unheard noise in several effects during Oxygene 1... but I prefer its version of Oxygene 4 because the bubbly sound effect that marks the transition to Oxygene 5 starts much later in that one. Otherwise, MFSL is the way to go for me.

2007 release is completely new recording from scratch. I don't understand, why many people think that this is some kind of trick with original recordings. Jarre gathered 95% of his original gear and played it by notes again, very closely to original, but different enough to hear the difference. I was really impressed by such skills. Who else can make such magic? Nobody.

Because no human on this planet can do what you are describing, use vintage analog gear and create a 100% replica, which is what that album is. Aside from the differences in mixing. Also because people are intelligent enough to know what they are dealing with and talking about, to say the things they say, which is why they say them.

On the other side of the coin, many other people can do such a thing, ie to get it close to an original recording. Many people have done it. With many artists. So that's no toughie.

So on both fronts you appear to be completely incorrect.

al wrote:So, basically which mastering versions of each album is the best?

You have a choice, either the 1997 Scot Hull remasters.
Or this year's remasters if you wanna shake da hood!

Analog-Umph wrote:Because no human on this planet can do what you are describing
...
Many people have done it.

You are inconsistent with yourself.

Dr_Jones wrote:

Finaero wrote:And yet all of this reminds me, has Oxygene 7-13 been remastered at all since 1997?

It has not been a victim of the Loudness War yet.

Actually it is, but by 1997 standards. The audio was pretty loud, but it was mastered at the same time that the remasters were being made so yeah.

al wrote:So, basically which mastering versions of each album is the best?

The original releases

Analog-Umph wrote:It was never really re-recorded.

You guess the statement in booklet it was re-recorded in high definition 24/96 is lie? So it was remixed from old 8-track tape to 5.1?

Voyager37 wrote:

Analog-Umph wrote:It was never really re-recorded.

You guess the statement in booklet it was re-recorded in high definition 24/96 is lie? So it was remixed from old 8-track tape to 5.1?

Honestly I don't think JMJ dusted off all the old moogs and physically recorded Oxygene again note for note - neither did FDM.

"Original score re-recorded and mixed by Jean Michel Jarre" can be interpreted as "once again recorded from the original format to a new medium/format, and mixed once again on top of that". In other words, he probably took all the multitrack recordings from 1976 and just re-recorded them in a new way (where Oxygene 5's bubbling sounds start later than usual). After all, he used them in a new non-album way in AERO and the Miming Era live performances as well (e.g. Oxygene 4 @ Houston).

But that's not the point here (and after all, the "first 5.1. CD ever made" marketing tag on Aero wasn't exactly true either). Jean-Michel really did re-record the entire Oxygene album from scratch in 2007. It's known as "Live In Your Living Room (3D)" and this feat was repeated on multiple occasions in the 2007-2008 Oxygene Tour (from an artistic point of view, it definitely is one of the highest points in his career, if not the highest).

And it proves that when you dig up all the old analog synthesizers used to make the album in the late 1970s, the results sound very similar but still not exact to the original versions. Prime example: the RMI solo in Oxygene 4. The original one still sounds distinct from any other version afterwards, because the very original can never be replicated. Even the most talented replica makers on these forums (Radek Tymecki, VinceBlood et al) have never succeeded in doing that, and from 2007 onwards JMJ has proved that even he can't pull it off. As a non-Oxygene example, there's the ARP robot sounds from Equinoxe 4, the recent tours showcase something very similar but still no cigar... in fact, it's very far away from "cigar" since it just sounds like random sounds instead of even attempting to be the same.

So in my view, there's no way the 2007 CD is anything more than yet another remaster (with some unique mixing in certain tracks like the end of Oxygene 4), and it's not even that bad of a bad remaster at that in my view (aside from the noise bursts in Oxygene 1). However, the live DVD is where the true magic lies, featuring one of the best JMJ performances ever. Immediately after watching the DVD, I ripped the audio and made a separate CD of it that I listen to it just about once a month (or once per 2 months).

Also with regards to MFSL's dullness, when it comes to the CD versions I quite agree, I was quite disappointed with the Equinoxe MFSL CD. On vinyl, however, analog electronic music truly shines and thus I think the MFSL vinyls of Oxygene and Equinoxe are the #1 remasters of those albums available. Or at least for Equinoxe.

Finaero,
I mean 5.1 mix of studio album, not Live in my living room. Was it really mixed from 8 channels to 5? Or 8 channels were transfered to 24 or 48 or... etc.?