[Svperstar]

I came to headfi in the first time in forever just to read up on this. Not into the hobby since late 2007 but I wanted to see what some fellow audiophiles would think. Nine Inch Nails is my favorite overall rock band, I worshiped Trent Reznor when I was like 13-14 and still own several NIN tshirts. 
 
I was afraid it would be brickwalled. I haven't bought it because I didn't trust any of the other reviews since they don't know what to listen for. Too bad he just compressed the crap out of it. I have all of the NIN cds on my iPod already, think I will just stick with what I already have.

 

[wilyodysseus]

This bums me out, particularly since my Amazon order is already in the mail. 
 
Has anyone actually heard the recording yet? Is it bad enough to return unopened?

 

[Commanderloochy]

I'm really disappointed in Trent, out of all the artists I would expect him to make sure this sort of thing didn't happen.
 
Does anyone know of the vinyl is mastered any better?

 

[iamoneagain]

I have this and think it sounds better than the original.  Felt the original had no dynamic range.  I'm not sure how the brickwalling negatively effects the sound but everything sounds clearer and the bass has more presence.  Also seems to have better stereo separation.  I've noticed some things I've never heard before too.  Have the feeling that a few things have been changed from the original besides just a remaster.
 
I enjoy this for the nostalgia more than anything.  It definitely sounds dated, but in a good way.  

 

[evanft]

The original had no dynamic range? Oh what the eff.

 

[iamoneagain]

Quote:

The original had no dynamic range? Oh what the eff.

Well, just seemed like the bass was lacking in the original especially compared to the remaster.  Plus it seems like most are making opinions without even comparing the two.  So you may not agree with me in the end, but at least I've actually heard both.
 
I am curious about what to listen for to hear the effects of brickwalling.  I'm not hearing any distortion and it seems more dynamic than the original.  I would think everything would just sound louder without as much range, but that's not the case on my system.  But my setup leans more to being a fun setup, so even bad recording still sound good.  Maybe need to compare the two albums with an HD800 or something like that.

 

[Commanderloochy]

Quote:

Quote:

The original had no dynamic range? Oh what the eff.

Well, just seemed like the bass was lacking in the original especially compared to the remaster.  Plus it seems like most are making opinions without even comparing the two.  So you may not agree with me in the end, but at least I've actually heard both.
 
I am curious about what to listen for to hear the effects of brickwalling.  I'm not hearing any distortion and it seems more dynamic than the original.  I would think everything would just sound louder without as much range, but that's not the case on my system.  But my setup leans more to being a fun setup, so even bad recording still sound good.  Maybe need to compare the two albums with an HD800 or something like that.

 
Well I admit I haven't heard both but just looking at the waveforms the original looks like it has way more dynamic range. And the trouble with brickwalling is that it destroys the dynamic range and distorts the recording. Whenever a song clips it distorts.
 
Original

2010 "Remaster"

 
In my opinion there's no way the 2010 remester could sound better just based of these waveforms.

 

[iamoneagain]

Well based on those graphs, I'd think it sounds awful too.  I just know without really trying to analyze sound, I enjoyed the remaster better.  It could be that I hadn't listened to the original in a long time, so I was just enjoying hearing it again.  But when I did some quick back and forth, I also sided with the remaster.  I'll give it another listen though.
 
Edit: The remaster has a warmer sound and vocals sound more natural.  The original has a more sterile sound to it.  The overall bass in the mix was too low.

 

[Commanderloochy]

Quote:

Well based on those graphs, I'd think it sounds awful too.  I just know without really trying to analyze sound, I enjoyed the remaster better.  It could be that I hadn't listened to the original in a long time, so I was just enjoying hearing it again.  But when I did some quick back and forth, I also sided with the remaster.  I'll give it another listen though.
 
Edit: The remaster has a warmer sound and vocals sound more natural.  The original has a more sterile sound to it.  The overall bass in the mix was too low.

Well I may have to give it a shot then. I'm actually comparing the two right now. The remaster definitely has a lot more bass so far, but it's hard to a/b the two because i have to keep changing my volume back and forth.

 

[Achmedisdead]

I don't have the original release to compare, but just look at the foobar-applied replaygain values.

 

[necropimp]

Quote:

Quote:

Well based on those graphs, I'd think it sounds awful too.  I just know without really trying to analyze sound, I enjoyed the remaster better.  It could be that I hadn't listened to the original in a long time, so I was just enjoying hearing it again.  But when I did some quick back and forth, I also sided with the remaster.  I'll give it another listen though.
 
Edit: The remaster has a warmer sound and vocals sound more natural.  The original has a more sterile sound to it.  The overall bass in the mix was too low.

Well I may have to give it a shot then. I'm actually comparing the two right now. The remaster definitely has a lot more bass so far, but it's hard to a/b the two because i have to keep changing my volume back and forth.

it's easier to a/b brickwalled/non-brickwalled with replaygain
 
 
also i'd be interested to see some spectrum comparisons if the new remaster has the same cutoff at about 20KHz then it's not too far a stretch to assume they sourced this remaster from the existing cd master and not the original analog tapes

 

[iamoneagain]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Well based on those graphs, I'd think it sounds awful too.  I just know without really trying to analyze sound, I enjoyed the remaster better.  It could be that I hadn't listened to the original in a long time, so I was just enjoying hearing it again.  But when I did some quick back and forth, I also sided with the remaster.  I'll give it another listen though.
 
Edit: The remaster has a warmer sound and vocals sound more natural.  The original has a more sterile sound to it.  The overall bass in the mix was too low.

Well I may have to give it a shot then. I'm actually comparing the two right now. The remaster definitely has a lot more bass so far, but it's hard to a/b the two because i have to keep changing my volume back and forth.

it's easier to a/b brickwalled/non-brickwalled with replaygain
 
 
also i'd be interested to see some spectrum comparisons if the new remaster has the same cutoff at about 20KHz then it's not too far a stretch to assume they sourced this remaster from the existing cd master and not the original analog tapes

 
it's supposed to be remastered from the original master tapes.
 

 

[batphink]

At least Duran Duran have enough sense to apologize for their remasters.

 

[spookygonk]

For $8 it's still a no-brainer. From what I've read on other forums, despite what the waveforms look like, the sound is better.
I suppose we'll have to see how the vinyl pans out...

 

[Commanderloochy]

Yea I'm looking forward to the vinyl.