[markl]

From the best that I can determine, the most recent AC/DC re-masters are circa 1994. Is this correct? 1994 is a little earlier than I'd like to constitute the best that re-mastering can do. Can anyone comment on these '94 re-masters with regard to sound quality? Do they compare to the best that today's (2002) re-masters can offer?

Mark

 

[Mr.PD]

I just checked out all my AC/DC cd's. They don't even give the remaster date. They just say remasterd by Ted Jenson (or Gearge Marino) at Sterling Sound. All of the later ones I have like after 1985 aren't even remasters. As far as sound goes I don't think they are up to todays standards. They are well done. I find them quite listenable, unlike unremastered Judas Priest or Ratt. To be honest I didn't notice any poor quality sound on any of my AC/DC, and I have them all. The only reason I say not up to todays standard is because, after listening to the new Rolling Stones, I think the standard has been raised a bit.

 

[kerelybonto]

My AC/DC albums don't even say they're remastered. I assume they are, though, because they're all pretty new. They all sound pretty decent, though -- let's be honest here, AC/DC doesn't need to sound like a Telarc symphony to be worth the purchase.

kerely

 

[radrd]

You mean you guys didn't pick up the Deutshe Grammophon DDD remaster of Back in Black.

 

[kerelybonto]

How is it DDD if it was recorded anologly? (Is that a word?) DDD recordings rarely sound very good anyway. ...

kerely

 

[radrd]

Quote:

How is it DDD if it was recorded anologly? (Is that a word?) DDD recordings rarely sound very good anyway

Are you serious? (because I wasn't). Obviously it wasn't recorded digitally. I don't know if there is any rock music that is recorded digitally. There hasn't been any remaster of Back in Black AFAIK, and it wouldn't be on the Deutsche Grammaphon label.

I do know that my digital classical recordings all sound quite good, but I chose ones that are known for their good sound. AFAIK I haven't heard any poor digital recordings.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by radrd I don't know if there is any rock music that is recorded digitally.

Duran Duran's "Notorious"
Metallica's Black album is to an extent.
Judas Priest's "painkiller"

I'm sure there's more if i looked thru my collection.

 

[Mr.PD]

Back in Black is remastered by Ted Jensen at Sterling Sound. Thats what the one I have says.
At Amazon.com they say this; Quote:

AC/DC's 1980 album remastered and reissued in a special digipak. 2000 release

. Now, I haven't seen that remaster in person yet. So I don't know if it is a more recent remaster than what I have or not.

 

[kerelybonto]

Okay, stop playing with me, radrd. I don't know a damn thing about damn German highbrow labels.

There are plenty of rock albums recorded digitally, mostly late eighties stuff. I don't have any jewel cases/inserts with me, but I've seen plenty of DDDs lying around. Maybe my impression of digital recordings being generally bad comes from the bad early digital recording equipment. But, really, why would anyone record digitally anyway? Wouldn't it always be better to have a master that has all the music on it? You aren't going to seeing any SACD pressings of those DDD classical performances you mentioned.

kerely