maxpower
For me they sound louder, not better initially it seems The Beatles people did a far better job
Thread
Posts in chronological order
FRIPPERTRONIKS
Hi people, I was hearing GH1 the weekend, and I'm now more pleased with the sound.
I don't want to bore you: the overall sound is better (clarity) in all terms, voices and instrumental stuff.
I expected something like the Genesis and Crimson remasters (CD + Audio DVD , so forgive my first opinions.
I don't want to bore you: the overall sound is better (clarity) in all terms, voices and instrumental stuff.
I expected something like the Genesis and Crimson remasters (CD + Audio DVD , so forgive my first opinions.
stefanoxer
If you listen to "One Vision", in the part "-no wrong, no right" there's no gong sound at the end of the sentence, compared to the album version and in the climax "i have a dream", is all plain, the impact is missed, the dynamic is lost
eYe
The gong sound isn't on the original gh2 either, I think only the album version has it.
NOTWMEDDLE
Ouch! My eardrums hurt from the samples. Bob Ludwig sold his soul to the loudness war devil (same person who used to do excellent remastering and mastering jobs (Rush, The Rolling Stones, Dire Straits, AC/DC, Ozzy Osbourne 1995 remasters, half of The Who's reissues) but he's getting older and older so I believe he upped the volume and the last Eagles album (which he mastered) and the reissue of Song Remains from Led Zeppelin (which he also did) was horrendous and he upped the volume on Iron Maiden's last album The Final Frontier).
Everything is done to be louder and louder. Glad I didn't spend the cash. I'll stick with EMI imports thank you.
I agree with Doug Sax (who remastered Pink Floyd's catalog), James Guthrie, Steve Hoffman and Alan Parsons who all think that the newest forms of remastering are a joke.
Everything is done to be louder and louder. Glad I didn't spend the cash. I'll stick with EMI imports thank you.
I agree with Doug Sax (who remastered Pink Floyd's catalog), James Guthrie, Steve Hoffman and Alan Parsons who all think that the newest forms of remastering are a joke.
Erik Viking
I've bought them yesterday. For me it's 25% louder, 20% more bass, bit cleaner. Overall 15% improvement.
Farrokh The Great
Sorry for this but the fact is:
No 24 bits (o even more) transfers …. No progress
Queen Productions are only “MASKING” the sound and most people don’t notice that
No 24 bits (o even more) transfers …. No progress
Queen Productions are only “MASKING” the sound and most people don’t notice that
atom murray
Absolute Greatest was released in '09 and mastered by Bob Ludwig. He also did the new GH1 & GH2, as well as the entire studio output, so AG are the same remasters only the record label has changed.
AG is EMI getting it's last slice of pizza! The 3LP box set sounds great though. I think people complain a lot about remastering and blame the engineer, but hang on, what audio systems do they play the CDs on?
If it's a boom box, then you won't be able to tell the difference except for the fact that modern masters are louder. If it's a mediocre hi-fi with plastic speakers, then you're out of luck too. Unfortunately, just like coffee,
in the hi-fi world you only get what you pay for. So people complaining about this sound and that sound is pretty skeptical in my mind. I think CD is a flawed music carried because it is 16bit and that's pretty low these days,
but back in the 80s people thought it sounded great. The higher the resolution the better the sound. So even thought they say 24bit it's still stepped down to 16bit for CD. SACD AND DVD-A are the big boys in digital audio now,
but that's another matter I don't have time for here.
The CD was designed to save record companies money, the cost of reproducing vinyl is expensive, so they wanted bigger margins as record sales were falling after the 70s. I never really liked CDs as I don't like formats that have to be 'upgraded' every time technology takes a step forward. So that's why you have '1992 remasters', '1999 remasters', '2005 remasters' and so fourth. It means once every decade or so, the music fan has to 'buy 'em again'. A very clever marketing idea that eventually makes you wonder why you have four copies of an album on CD. Whereas vinyl is vinyl. It has a rich, warm sound with plenty of detail in the high end. You put this on a good turntable, say a Rega Planar 2 and then you're ready to rock! CD is only a convenient digital facsimile of a recording so I wouldn't take it too seriously, all this remastering malarky. Remastering is industry spiel for bringing a production master up to date so it can be repackaged and sold, again and again. Sometimes they do it right, and sometimes they do it wrong! Just enjoy the music!
AG is EMI getting it's last slice of pizza! The 3LP box set sounds great though. I think people complain a lot about remastering and blame the engineer, but hang on, what audio systems do they play the CDs on?
If it's a boom box, then you won't be able to tell the difference except for the fact that modern masters are louder. If it's a mediocre hi-fi with plastic speakers, then you're out of luck too. Unfortunately, just like coffee,
in the hi-fi world you only get what you pay for. So people complaining about this sound and that sound is pretty skeptical in my mind. I think CD is a flawed music carried because it is 16bit and that's pretty low these days,
but back in the 80s people thought it sounded great. The higher the resolution the better the sound. So even thought they say 24bit it's still stepped down to 16bit for CD. SACD AND DVD-A are the big boys in digital audio now,
but that's another matter I don't have time for here.
The CD was designed to save record companies money, the cost of reproducing vinyl is expensive, so they wanted bigger margins as record sales were falling after the 70s. I never really liked CDs as I don't like formats that have to be 'upgraded' every time technology takes a step forward. So that's why you have '1992 remasters', '1999 remasters', '2005 remasters' and so fourth. It means once every decade or so, the music fan has to 'buy 'em again'. A very clever marketing idea that eventually makes you wonder why you have four copies of an album on CD. Whereas vinyl is vinyl. It has a rich, warm sound with plenty of detail in the high end. You put this on a good turntable, say a Rega Planar 2 and then you're ready to rock! CD is only a convenient digital facsimile of a recording so I wouldn't take it too seriously, all this remastering malarky. Remastering is industry spiel for bringing a production master up to date so it can be repackaged and sold, again and again. Sometimes they do it right, and sometimes they do it wrong! Just enjoy the music!
KevoM
Wise words atom murray and spot on. Totally agree.
There's only so much you can do with lacklustre technology like CD. So increase the VOL, that'll fool em. It's a bit like increasing the brightness on LCD Tvs with backlit leds which tries to improve the crap pq on a lcd tv!
There's only so much you can do with lacklustre technology like CD. So increase the VOL, that'll fool em. It's a bit like increasing the brightness on LCD Tvs with backlit leds which tries to improve the crap pq on a lcd tv!
earwig
I agree too atom murray.
There's a presumption that every new remaster of the same album will be better than the last. Not always true! Has anyone heard the remaster of Whitesnake's 1987 from about 5 years ago? Horrible! Peak distortion and flabby bass.
One thing I would like to throw into the pot: some people think that some remasters are too loud. Well - devil's advocate - perhaps previous or original masters were too quiet??!!
But yes - Innuendo 2011 remaster sounds amazing!! SO much better than the original master.
There's a presumption that every new remaster of the same album will be better than the last. Not always true! Has anyone heard the remaster of Whitesnake's 1987 from about 5 years ago? Horrible! Peak distortion and flabby bass.
One thing I would like to throw into the pot: some people think that some remasters are too loud. Well - devil's advocate - perhaps previous or original masters were too quiet??!!
But yes - Innuendo 2011 remaster sounds amazing!! SO much better than the original master.