Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music ›  Original vs. Remastered Albums?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Original vs. Remastered Albums? - Page 10

post #136 of 144
Oh, you're right. Please, continue discussing this very important subject. My bad.
post #137 of 144

He was disputing also that the re-remastering was any better in quality than the earlier original mastering . But in the intervening time as I found in the previous post the US got different versions of the box sets I did not know this.Under the Capitol label there was issued {the Beatles] Volume 1 and volume 2-2004 and 2006.as well I take that to mean these were in addition to the main re remastering? According to posts on another website also was talk about how the US actually got better re-remastering than the UK issue. This seemingly applied to the early recordings which were done in a more faithful version than the UKs but the later Beatles recordings were very good[in his opinion] . So there seems to be some mystery over this . The poster I think gave 4+ a half stars to the latest re remastering marked down because of the earlier re recordings. Although the US version got better marks for the earlier     re recordings . Maybe some body can figure this out . Its getting complicated and the recording field isn't my strong point. --Maybe I should point out to save confusion we are talking about all the re recordings on the one box set  and by earlier recordings I mean --Please Please  me and the next several original LP recordings into CDs  in  the same box set. 

Edited by duncan1 - 8/25/13 at 8:25am
post #138 of 144
I keep saying it, but there are only two remasterings of Beatles material. The original flat transfers done for individual CD release in the late 80s, and the recent Stereo Box set. Of those, most audiophiles prefer the flat transfer because the Stereo Box is slightly compressed.
post #139 of 144

I read the Beatles Wiki by James N Periman who seems to go along with what you said as to the remasterings although he quotes other pressings from Japan. But he also says  listening on Naim Amps and Quad electrostatics that some of the vinyl  LP early pressings are better than the some of the CDs that wont go down well in objectives cafe. So that would make any comment from him suspect including his agreement with you? I looked at the mono scope graphs  and they looked better than the stereo versions of two songs with more detail showing. So I have to agree with the scope display.  

post #140 of 144
The MFSL LPs were well mastered and pressed on high grade vinyl. Those would probably come the closest. But if you take the original CD release and do a little bit of judicious equalization, you can make them sound just as good or better than the MFSL LPs.

In the recent remasterings, the mono box was much better than the stereo box.
post #141 of 144
This is a really old thread, and I'm sorry for bringing it back, but duncan1 is a hell of a trip
post #142 of 144

I've heard it said in this thread that CD's & DVD's are a wonderful medium for audio.  There isn't any audio on them - just ones and zeros, and they sound like it!

post #143 of 144

There isn't sound on LPs either, just tiny little wiggly scratches in the plastic. And there isn't music on musical scores, just funny little ink blots on lines.

post #144 of 144

bought the box set of beatles stereo remastered . i think it came out in 2009, anyway, it sounded MUCH clearer and crisper than original, 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music ›  Original vs. Remastered Albums?