Latest on MJJC

Dolby Atmos Remixes of all albums to be released

SmoothGangsta said:
Really wondering what happened here. Did the estate give them different tracks or something? Atmos mixes don't usually include stuff not in the original right?
Click to expand...
I'm hoping someone can answer this. I don't recall hearing those additional vocal noises at the end of Black or White in the multitracks, unless that's not the full file. Like how State of Shock has a track where he sings Mick's lines
 
innuendo141 said:
I'm hoping someone can answer this. I don't recall hearing those additional vocal noises at the end of Black or White in the multitracks, unless that's not the full file. Like how State of Shock has a track where he sings Mick's lines
Click to expand...
iirc, Leaked BoW package is premixed stems only.
 
Fuzball said:
Leaked BoW package is premixed stems only.
Click to expand...
Ah, that explains that then. Same for WYBT then, we know that MJ had an alternate line recorded for "And care enough to bear me" and "strong enough to hold me" so I wasn't surprised to hear mold rather than scold - as silly a decision it was.
 
I wonder if they would also mix the posthumous albums. An atmos mix of SWLM (original) can't get worse than the released flat mono mix.
 
Fuzball said:
I believe there was a reason why Michael didn't approve mulichannel/surround mixes of his albums. I wish his estate and also his record label would have respected this decission.
Click to expand...
It totally changes the albums, this is no small update. It just upsets me because people will discover these albums sounding like this and probably question why they got such a good response.
 
Regarding using alternate vocal takes - some of MJ's multis can be confusing. I was working with Blood on the Dance Floor over the weekend and his main lead vocal appears to be shared across some tracks.

Also, the "It was blood on the dance floor!" vocals are hidden on a track that contains and is named "handclaps" or something similar (which made me realise that in 1997 it was overlooked for all the BOTDF remixes that were released because none of them have this part of the vocal in the song).

So it could just come down to the person doing the Dolby mixes just not being familiar with the song, maybe?
 
Dorian said:
A lot of his decisions were questionable. This prolly one of them
Click to expand...
It’s for the best really..

Music in multi channel / Atmos is pretty senseless!
In any natural circumstance you would listen to music in a live setting, the band/performance is in front of you.
You’re never in the center with the band/performance around you.

With stereo, the sound(s) already can be placed everywhere between the 2 front speakers.

MJ and his team worked with so many layers, so many different tracks, that it’s pretty difficult to come up with a coherent mix, still representative of it’s original form.

Atmos in music is a gimmick.
And it will always sound gimmicky.
 
MJJuniorSinceMW said:
MJ and his team worked with so many layers, so many different tracks, that it’s pretty difficult to come up with a coherent mix, still representative of it’s original form.

Atmos in music is a gimmick.
And it will always sound gimmicky.
Click to expand...
If you know what you're doing, it is actually fairly easy to do a proper Dolby Atmos Remix that is still very faithful to it's original stereo mix. But apparently, they don't know how it's done properly
 
Guys, I need some advice. Is this kind of CD player worth buying?

I'm thinking about getting one of Michael Jackson's albums when they get re-released soon on vinyl and CD. As I understand it, vinyl has lower sound quality, and I'd like to own a physical copy with the best audio fidelity possible. Does that mean I should go with the CD?

In that case, I'd also need to buy a CD player. I came across this video today and was wondering if this device is worth it. Can it be connected to full-sized speakers?

 
Paul MCC said:
Guys, I need some advice. Is this kind of CD player worth buying?

I'm thinking about getting one of Michael Jackson's albums when they get re-released soon on vinyl and CD. As I understand it, vinyl has lower sound quality, and I'd like to own a physical copy with the best audio fidelity possible. Does that mean I should go with the CD?

In that case, I'd also need to buy a CD player. I came across this video today and was wondering if this device is worth it. Can it be connected to full-sized speakers?

Click to expand...
Comparing a freshly pressed Vinyl with a CD, which uses the exact same source master and playing it on very high-end gear, you actually won't really hear a difference in terms of actual sound information (if actually all the equalization and mastering are exactly the same, just optimized for both formats). Vinyl might still sound better to someone subjectively due to it's texture, which is what digital is missing. Objectively, a CD will provide the better sound quality but due to the current trend of applying very harsh compressors and limiters (see loudness wars), the CD might even sound worse. Considering Bernie Grundman remastered the songs on the Michael companion album, and the fact they actually sounded quite good, I would just wait and see if we are in fact getting new remasters. If they're done properly, get the CD. If not, maybe go for a 90s pressing, they're cheap to find and retain most of their dynamic range
 
Paul MCC said:
Guys, I need some advice. Is this kind of CD player worth buying?

I'm thinking about getting one of Michael Jackson's albums when they get re-released soon on vinyl and CD. As I understand it, vinyl has lower sound quality, and I'd like to own a physical copy with the best audio fidelity possible. Does that mean I should go with the CD?

In that case, I'd also need to buy a CD player. I came across this video today and was wondering if this device is worth it. Can it be connected to full-sized speakers?

Click to expand...
I'd get a CD Player of a known brand if going the CD route. If going for CDs I recommend first presses or if you want to splurge a bit, first presses from Japan. Anything from before the 2001 Special Editions will sound great though. Discogs is a good site for buying different pressings.

Vinyl is arguably better but more costly and you will want original vintage pressings, not represses. These were pressed analog from the master tapes vs represses will be from digital files.

Theres so much MJ inventory it's not hard to track down first presses at a good price.
 
mjfp said:
Comparing a freshly pressed Vinyl with a CD, which uses the exact same source master and playing it on very high-end gear, you actually won't really hear a difference in terms of actual sound information (if actually all the equalization and mastering are exactly the same, just optimized for both formats). Vinyl might still sound better to someone subjectively due to it's texture, which is what digital is missing. Objectively, a CD will provide the better sound quality but due to the current trend of applying very harsh compressors and limiters (see loudness wars), the CD might even sound worse. Considering Bernie Grundman remastered the songs on the Michael companion album, and the fact they actually sounded quite good, I would just wait and see if we are in fact getting new remasters. If they're done properly, get the CD. If not, maybe go for a 90s pressing, they're cheap to find and retain most of their dynamic range
Click to expand...
Toby34 said:
I'd get a CD Player of a known brand if going the CD route. If going for CDs I recommend first presses or if you want to splurge a bit, first presses from Japan. Anything from before the 2001 Special Editions will sound great though. Discogs is a good site for buying different pressings.

Vinyl is arguably better but more costly and you will want original vintage pressings, not represses. These were pressed analog from the master tapes vs represses will be from digital files.

Theres so much MJ inventory it's not hard to track down first presses at a good price.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm planning to buy Invincible. I already have good speakers, but I don't have a player yet. So, I'm trying to figure out which one would be the best to buy
 
Paul MCC said:
Guys, I need some advice. Is this kind of CD player worth buying?

I'm thinking about getting one of Michael Jackson's albums when they get re-released soon on vinyl and CD. As I understand it, vinyl has lower sound quality, and I'd like to own a physical copy with the best audio fidelity possible. Does that mean I should go with the CD?

In that case, I'd also need to buy a CD player. I came across this video today and was wondering if this device is worth it. Can it be connected to full-sized speakers?

Click to expand...
i have one like this (cuz it was cheap) the built in speakers arent good but i plug it into my speakers anyway
 
found a way to listen to the new mixes on my tv. i pay for a server that i upload music, movies, etc to, and Plex can use it as a source to pull content from. i uploaded the dangerous album so far, listening to it on my surround system, i personally can’t say it sounds bad tbh. but also haven’t listened to the whole album this way as of writing this
 
Hi webslinger,

is the file for the Album Bad, Dangerous,.. in Dolby Atmos, here available for download?
 
Paul MCC said:
Thanks. I'm planning to buy Invincible. I already have good speakers, but I don't have a player yet. So, I'm trying to figure out which one would be the best to buy
Click to expand...
Looks like the best economical option for CDs is getting a bluray player! Sony, LG, or Panasonic are all nice brands. If you must get a dedicated CD player look into Onkyo, Sony, Phillips.

For new record players unless you want to spend more than 500, go with Audiotechnica. I'd recommend the AT-LP120 so you can change cartridges but the AT-LP70 is pretty decent too (and lets you change styluses).

I think the 120 comes with the AT95E cartridge and needle already but if you get the 70 get an official ATN95E stylus for your unit to replace its default. This budget stylus/cartridge to this day I still prefer for MJ music despite me also having more expensive ones.

If you can find vintage turntables, Kenwood, Pioneer, and Technics are all nice brands in my experience, just make sure the tonearm is curved and not a straight line.

Never get the Crosleys or Victrola brand turntables even if they are cheaper.

If you have other vinyl questions feel free to reach out.

For Invincible get the 2001 vinyl it is much punchier than the represses.



edit: Just saw how much he Invincible original is worth now, yeeesh, in 2011 they were worth maybe 50 now they are 200. The difference isnt that revelatory to be worth the price gap.

Definitely get vintage original pressings though for OTW, Thriller, Bad, and Dangerous though! Those are a huge difference verse the represses and are pretty plentiful anyways. The Jacksons/J5 stuff is also very cheap and easy to find (find a discogs seller that has a bunch of items you want to bundle shipping).

OTW and Bad both have differences in the very first pressings that were changed over time.

I have HIStory and BOTDF originals as well but those are very very pricey now.
 
Last edited:
Toby34 said:
Looks like the best economical option for CDs is getting a bluray player! Sony, LG, or Panasonic are all nice brands. If you must get a dedicated CD player look into Onkyo, Sony, Phillips.

For new record players unless you want to spend more than 500, go with Audiotechnica. I'd recommend the AT-LP120 so you can change cartridges but the AT-LP70 is pretty decent too (and lets you change styluses).

I think the 120 comes with the AT95E cartridge and needle already but if you get the 70 get an official ATN95E stylus for your unit to replace its default. This budget stylus/cartridge to this day I still prefer for MJ music despite me also having more expensive ones.

If you can find vintage turntables, Kenwood, Pioneer, and Technics are all nice brands in my experience, just make sure the tonearm is curved and not a straight line.

Never get the Crosleys or Victrola brand turntables even if they are cheaper.

If you have other vinyl questions feel free to reach out.

For Invincible get the 2001 vinyl it is much punchier than the represses.



edit: Just saw how much he Invincible original is worth now, yeeesh, in 2011 they were worth maybe 50 now they are 200. The difference isnt that revelatory to be worth the price gap.

Definitely get vintage original pressings though for OTW, Thriller, Bad, and Dangerous though! Those are a huge difference verse the represses and are pretty plentiful anyways. The Jacksons/J5 stuff is also very cheap and easy to find (find a discogs seller that has a bunch of items you want to bundle shipping).

OTW and Bad both have differences in the very first pressings that were changed over time.

I have HIStory and BOTDF originals as well but those are very very pricey now.
Click to expand...
Thank you!
 
mjfp said:
Comparing a freshly pressed Vinyl with a CD, which uses the exact same source master and playing it on very high-end gear, you actually won't really hear a difference in terms of actual sound information (if actually all the equalization and mastering are exactly the same, just optimized for both formats). Vinyl might still sound better to someone subjectively due to it's texture, which is what digital is missing. Objectively, a CD will provide the better sound quality but due to the current trend of applying very harsh compressors and limiters (see loudness wars), the CD might even sound worse. Considering Bernie Grundman remastered the songs on the Michael companion album, and the fact they actually sounded quite good, I would just wait and see if we are in fact getting new remasters. If they're done properly, get the CD. If not, maybe go for a 90s pressing, they're cheap to find and retain most of their dynamic range
Click to expand...
The soundtrack for the movie got remastered by Bernie? What?
 
Fuzball said:
If there's no need to hurry, wait for a MoFi release of Invincible.
Click to expand...
Agreed, Invincible would be one of the worst sounding CD's in my rotation. The remaster from HD tracks a few years ago (which I think uses the same MOV masters) is much less abrasive on the ears.
 
MJJuniorSinceMW said:
It’s for the best really..

Music in multi channel / Atmos is pretty senseless!
In any natural circumstance you would listen to music in a live setting, the band/performance is in front of you.
You’re never in the center with the band/performance around you.

With stereo, the sound(s) already can be placed everywhere between the 2 front speakers.

MJ and his team worked with so many layers, so many different tracks, that it’s pretty difficult to come up with a coherent mix, still representative of it’s original form.

Atmos in music is a gimmick.
And it will always sound gimmicky.
Click to expand...
It would be more ideal if a song's multis were mixed to album specs, then each individual track was played on their own separate speaker lol. That's why Atmos sounds so bad on anything else other than surround systems
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top