I have an original Verve/Folkways Richie Havens Mixed Bag - stereo mind you - which, is on my list of go to records whenever I make a change in my system and want to here the improvement/deterioration.
Great record.
Great record.
Why do I keep torturing myself with remasters?
Post removed |
I agree ehto I lost thousand of albums to a house fire ,replacing them is virtually impossible.I shop in the obvious places and see something I had used for 50 bks to hundreds .That puts alot in prospective for me ,I think to myself "if i could just shop from my old collection i would be stoked" Unforntunatley i was bit like many in the early 90s to let the lp12 sit and start collecting the ultimate sound! compact discs lol (many thousands were lost). I am rebuilding my collection again and I don't think i've bought 10 cd (used at that),and hundreds and hundreds of albums,That said i do have probly 10,000 albums in mp3 :( I still say original and japanese if i can get it. I just popped open a sealed Steely Dan Aja tonight lmtd original ,it was warped pretty bad when playing on bside even with my clamp.I shot the guy an email (ebay purchase) he told me to keep the album and he refunded my money back to paypal.I thought that was pretty cool because it was sealed and that can be a gamble sometimes because of age yannow |
Not another analog digital debate, please.. not the topic A friend of mine received some pristine 1950s and 60s jazz from a friend who’s dad had passed away. He knew a few of the names but had no idea what he was holding. Treasure troves like some small label Duke Ellington. As I was updating him on what he had I told him this would be a flash forward to some music lover picking through our extensive collections Really put it in perspective |
While the quality of some (most?) of the early digital recordings were limited by the equipment available at the time, it is very easy now for a modern digital (DSD) recording to match (or, in some cases, exceed) vinyl in terms of frequency response. Admittedly, this has no bearing on whether or not you prefer the sound of vinyl over digital. The fidelity of one's playback system exerts a large influence in this as well. But recordings stored on analog tape are subject to degradation due to how the recording was made in the first place (i.e. magnetism). The longer an analog tape is stored, the more 'bleed through' of the signal to adjacent parts of the tape you get (unless you take proactive measures from the beginning). Alan Shaw (of Harbeth speakers in the UK) did interesting experiment. Here's a link to it: http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?1477-Early-analogue-recordings-amp-an-evaluation-of-analogue-technology. He analyzed 30 year old tape recordings spectrally and found instances of pre and post echoes in quiet parts of the tape (i.e. where you'd normally expect silence). This was unnoticeable in the busier passages but it was still there. So remastered recordings that use the original master analog tape will have some unwanted signal introduced into the new recording. Removing it can contribute to a degradation of the original recording. Direct-to-disk recordings would obviously not have to deal with this issue. |
Sorry to hear your terrible loss :( Your bro is mad. However, `hi-res´ files are really something else in today´s digital audio and worth to try. In fact one of the very famous and serious `professional´ audiophiles says that those files mops all analog audio in sound quality, including those priceless original pressings. That leads to conclusion: digital has finally surpassed analog ? |
I had left about 15 boxes of my LPs in my parents basement when I moved out. After 10 years of a lot of moving around the country, I finally settled down. I went to my parents to pickup my LPs only to find my kid brother had sold them at one of my parent's garage sales for 10 cents an LP!? I had been collecting LPs since the late 60's (lots of jazz, big band and rock) and they were mostly first issues. Man, I was pissed! It's been a slow (and expensive) process re-establishing my collection. Nowadays, with my current digital rig (Esoteric DV-50S or pc feeding into a Teac UD-501), I'll only buy the LP if: a). the digital recording is complete shiite, or b). it's only available on LP. But, like 'hi-res' files, I've become wary of the marketing of re-mastered LPs. Not all remastered LPs are sonically superior to the original. Although, admittedly, finding decent copies of LPs pressed in the 50's is becoming really difficult. |
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Remastering has come to be synonymous with overly aggressive dynamic range compression. It’s gotten SO bad, in fact, that remasters that used to be say orange, red, green (Average, Lowest, Highest) are now red, red, red. Forget about it, Jake, it’s Chinatown. Add to that the fact that most CDs are in reverse absolute polarity and what you wind up with is a steaming pile of compost. |
One of the things that everyone seems to forget is that each company that does re-mastering is setting up the cutting lathe (slightly) differently and you will have to adjust your VTAs to eliminate the brightness and bass emphasis. One you do this you will notice the improvement that most re-mastering makes. For example, the difference between the VTA adjustment for an acoustic sounds re-master and mobile fidelity re-master is about 0.013. The good thing is the two companies seem to setup their lathes consistently and you can adjust the VTA the same for each family of pressings. |
Ole- you might enjoy reading this, both as to pressings and for the interview that is included as a link within this piece. (There is also another link in the piece to an extensive shoot-out I did a year or so ago on a number of different pressings of Aqualung). [url]http://thevinylpress.com/early-tull-on-vinyl/[/url] best, bill hart |
I think it is tough to generalize about original v remaster or country of origin of record- it really comes down to the specific recordings, masterings and pressings. On the Boston record, my listening notes published from about a year ago- comparing a "Wally" mastered copy to one done by Zentz- indicate that I preferred the ballsiness of the Wally even though it was bright. (Both were top flight mastering engineers with long careers of many good sounding records). Although I "generally" search out early pressings over new remasters, I don’t think you can say all remasters suck or they don’t have a place. Yesterday, I listened to a re-do of The Human Beast, Vol 1. This is not a record that I would buy as an "original" pressing for a simple reason- the Decca is now astronomically priced. I was surprised by how decent the re-do (on Sunbeam, itself now out of print) sounded (granted, nothing to compare it with, but I took a wild stab, given that the alternatives on vinyl were "unofficial" or from sources like Akarma or Si-Wan). I’ve also gradually changed my view about Japanese pressings- which are "generally" of very high quality manufacture, but in the past I often found too bright. Some are, but as I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, the 3d Japanese of Zep 1 is pretty nice sounding, as is a Japanese first of Bowie’s "Man Who Saved the World." Quality of manufacture today- all over the place. The higher quality reissue houses, like Chad (Analogue Productions), the new MoFi, Speakers Corner all pretty good. Classic- a mixed bag given the QC problems with the switch from 180g to 200g and "flat profile"; others are harder to predict- most people shy away from MOV or GZ pressed records because the source is often a digital file, but the quality of the vinyl itself is pretty good, and for records that began life as digital recordings, can be OK. My experience with some of the limited run stuff pressed for RSD has been all over the lot- -from warps to non-fill. The Bowie 40th Ziggy is a very good sounding record, but there was a defect on the track "Star"- i had multiple copies that simply would not play, a problem that was apparently rectified on a later run. (I still prefer the UK 6E/4E, but finding a quiet unmolested copy isn’t easy or necessarily cheap). I guess my point is that you’ve got to get down into the weeds to really make the assessments. The anecdotal comments of others (mine included) may be colored to a degree by listening bias and playback system. One reason that I think buyers opt for the remasters--at least from the "better" houses--is having a fresh copy that doesn’t require extensive research or the time, money and effort involved in making comparisons for oneself. (A reason why people rely on reviews too). And sometimes the re-do does better the "original." If you have the 45 rpm set of SRV-Texas Hurricane- and cue up Tin Pan Alley, you know what I mean. Good hunting! |
There are many ,some of which we have spoken about earlier in the thread.I steer clear of reissues if possible and go japanese press if possible. If i want zip and pow i can play a cd ,i want open and natural anolgue sound. Some of these sound like i pushed an imaginary loudness button and pushed my speakers about a foot apart.lol |
I think it´s all just for the money. To sell those Pink Floyd masterpieces over and over and over again. Quality true analog reprints ? Who cares, buyer gets new pristine vinyl and cover, inserts etc. anyway, that makes him/her happy. To be honest, I do have one very high quality (audio) reprint, Yes´ "Fragile" by AcousTech, US 2006. Some Classic Records reissues (US) are great too. I highly recommend original Japanese vinyl albums for those who truly are interested in quality, both audio and album covers. |
Not much to add as I concur with most of what has preceded. My comments are strictly related to vinyl because in my world CDs are for the car. Has anyone noticed that the sound of the re-issues everyone is complaining about are exactly what you would get if you tried to make the LP sound like a CD? IE. bass levels that could never exist in reality, highs going octaves beyond what the instruments and gear in use could produce etc. Could it be that the people in charge are trying to nullify the differences between the two mediums to wean us away from that oh so problematic vinyl format or perhaps it is so long since they heard anything not digitally sourced they forgot what live sound is? Another possibility is the engineers are unconsciously compensating for their hearing loss and nobody has the guts to tell a studio god his creation sucks. Of course these are just general comments and quite a few re-masters are great it's just that too many aren't. One topic I have been trying to get going for nearly a decade now is physical quality of the records. There is some comment about warps (I see you ehtoo) but nobody seems to want to talk about haw quickly these high priced heavy weight pressings develop noise. The 180 gr are bad and interestingly the 200 gr seem even worse. Analogue Productions are giving a lot of press to their new Clarity vinyl but don't seem to putting much on it. Does anyone care to comment on their impressions of durability, good or bad, of new pressings? |
Pink Floyd´s Japanese "Meddle" ( 2nd edition at least) smokes UK original in dynamics on eBay:http://www.ebay.com/itm/PINK-FLOYD-Meddle-NM-NM-JAPAN-70s-LP-EMS-80322-G-F-w-OBI-BOOKLET-INSERT-/302... |
I have all the Nick Davis Genesis , can't remember which ones ,wind and wuthering, trick of the tail, selling england 180s etc .The trick i just got as original japaneese nm sounds great far better imo. The remixes by davis sound good they are very quiet which was never Genesis there early days they had very little money in there setups.I have not had good luck with the remastered 180 g "audiophile" vinyls.They just sound too digitized and usually very bass heavy.Almost every time i go back and grab the original in vg or better it smokes it,minus the obvious use on the lp.I have just started to go after any original or close,The pink floyds etc are just outrageous,300 up for a 77 wall etc. |
If a simple remaster then I do not buy them usually. Now a REMIX I will buy as usually they are much better than the original, considering the mix technology then and now...A current remix can be more defined, especially if the remix pushes/retracts certain sounds to make the overall recording better. ie the Genesis remixes by Nick Davis, the original issues are so veiled its almost unlistenable, he lifted the veil. So it depends, but we need to understand the difference between REMASTER and REMIX. |