[Stephonovich]

I'd like to get Piper at the Gates of Dawn (in CD format), as would my friend. I was looking around, both on Amazon, FYE, and eBay. eBay has some up right now that are pretty decent.
The newest ones have been re-mastered. Uh-oh. I personally don't like most re-mastering; I think it should be left as the artist intended. There is a U.K. import version of Piper that is original, but monoaural. I've heard some mono Beach Boys, and it's not too bad. Anyway, there's also a Japanese version that is stereo, but claims to be much closer to the original version than the new one.

Any ideas/comments?

(-:Stephonovich

 

[Ebonyks]

I don't get what you're asking, could you please say that again?

There is no non-remastered piper CD as far as i know.

 

[Braver]

well, if you're going to buy the CD, there's no way around a remaster...

 

[Noesis]

Um. Remastering is done through the original recording, but better technology is used to print it to CD. That's how they are able to make SACDs and DVD-As without having to have the artist come in to re-record. So, your logic is off.

The artist wants it to sound as close to live...they don't "intend" (or, in your context, "want") for it to sound worse then it can be.

-Chad

 

[Stephonovich]

Sorry. I was feeling a bit confused when I wrote it. Lack of caffeine, likely.
From reviews I've read, the newer re-masters are butcherings (is that a word?) of the original. And yes, I realized that a CD is re-mastering. Again, I wasn't running at full power...


(-:Stephonovich

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephonovich Sorry. I was feeling a bit confused when I wrote it. Lack of caffeine, likely. From reviews I've read, the newer re-masters are butcherings (is that a word?) of the original. And yes, I realized that a CD is re-mastering. Again, I wasn't running at full power... (-:Stephonovich

First of all, yes, it is a word.

Secondly -- I would disagree that all remasterings are butcherings. I think you're thinking of "remixes" (either of the disco variety, or of the multichannel variety), which is entirely different.

A couple of albums that I was really glad were remastered:

Alan Parsons Project, I, Robot (on classicrecs.com DAD)
the entire Supertramp catalog

In both cases, the original transfers to CD were muffled or obscured, and the remasters were more clear and delineated (and the bass wasn't as missing).

I would say, go for the remaster, and just pretend like it's an original issue CD. You won't notice the difference.

PS A Saucerful of Secrets rules, too.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Secondly -- I would disagree that all remasterings are butcherings. I think you're thinking of "remixes" (either of the disco variety, or of the multichannel variety), which is entirely different.

I didn't say I think all re-mastering is bad. I agree that early transfers have been known to suck. It's just that several people on Amazon said the original sounded better. However, I've learned that Amazon reviews can be sketchy at best, and wanted to know if anyone up here had any experience with it.

Ah yes, a final word on re-masterings: The SACD re-master of DSOTM is a re-master, correct? That's one I wouldn't mind

Must... get... 93SA...

(-:Stephonovich

 

[Noesis]

Quote:

I didn't say I think all re-mastering is bad.

And he didn't imply you did.

Quote:

It's just that several people on Amazon said the original sounded better. However, I've learned that Amazon reviews can be sketchy at best,

To understand why, you have to understand the following about people:
-The "cooler" it is, the better. It's "cool" to say the original is better then the remaster. If it is or not, is another story. You can apply this to other aspects of audio as well as life in general.
-Like anything: A few winners, a whole lot of losers.

Regards,
-Chad

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

And he didn't imply you did.

Quote:

Secondly -- I would disagree that all remasterings are butcherings.

I think that implies a bit. Anyway, it's not really an issue

It's the same on ePinions. Depending on what type of product you're looking at, you might find all very well-written reviews that actually say something useful, you might find some good and some bad, or all crap. CD's, for instance, are usually more bad than good reviews. (by bad, I don't mean they rated it badly, I mean the person is an idiot who doesn't know what he/she is talking about, nor how to write properly) Instruments are almost always very well written reviews. PDCP/CDP and other audio equpiment reviews are usually half and half. Headphone reveiws aren't bad, as long as you aren't looking at the $10 crap ones, where the reviews go something like this...

"OMG dude these phones r0x0r when i hve my bass boost maxed out. dude they totaly shake you out."

(-:Stephonovich

 

[Noesis]

He was responding to:
Quote:

From reviews I've read, the newer re-masters are butcherings (is that a word?) of the original.

Reviews need to be taken with reserve. You can typically tell how much the review should influence you by their ability to write. Some fellow who spells 'you' as 'u' is normally a moron. I find the exception to this are engine and American automotive products, where often there are some very intelligent people who simply didn't get a lot of schooling. They know a lot what they are talking about, they just never learned to write correctly.

Regards,
-Chad

 

[Stephonovich]

Ah. My apologies.
Yes, there are people who are very brilliant in what they do, but don't write so well. There are also people who are very good at writing, but are morons. My mom was on a mailing list once that had one of those. This guy was a complete jerk. But he wrote like nothing else.

(-:Stephonovich