[Calexico]

All I'm really interested in is the actual tracks on the album. Apparently the album was remastered for the re-release. Which one has better SQ? Or whichever isn't as terrible, considering how horrible the original sounds.

I haven't read anything about remasters for the other 3 re-releases, are they remastered editions or the original?

 

[priest]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calexico /img/forum/go_quote.gif All I'm really interested in is the actual tracks on the album. Apparently the album was remastered for the re-release. Which one has better SQ? Or whichever isn't as terrible, considering how horrible the original sounds. I haven't read anything about remasters for the other 3 re-releases, are they remastered editions or the original?

They are all remastered and sound pretty great to my ears, in each case better than the original obviously. Plus, the extras are pretty worth it on each one.

 

[Calexico]

Okay, any other opinions?

 

[priest]

About what?

Other Pavement albums? S&E is the best by far, although their original vinyl 7 and 10 inches are pretty close.

Archers of Loaf?

 

[Calexico]

No I'm asking about the re-releases, are they remastered and do they sound better?

 

[tintin47]

The original sounds pretty damn good to me, so I am not sure what the problem is. One of the things that you have to consider is that mid 90s rock isn't really supposed to be hifi, so you have to take that for what it is worth.

 

[priest]

Yes they are all remastered. That's what I meant by "they are all remastered." I think they all sound noticeably better than the originals, although the remastering is not as dramatic as it is with, say, remasters of CDs that were first generation transfers.

I also think the extras are pretty great on the Pavement reissues and would recommend getting any one that piques your interest. Model reisssues IMO.

 

[priest]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tintin47 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The original sounds pretty damn good to me, so I am not sure what the problem is. One of the things that you have to consider is that mid 90s rock isn't really supposed to be hifi, so you have to take that for what it is worth.

And I should say that I whole-heartedly agree with this assessment. The original CD master sounds pretty good to me. If you think it sounds like crap, you are probably objecting to early Pavement sonics in general, which is supposed to be rough. If that's the case, I would not suggest that you listen to "Spizzle Trunk" or "Recorder Grot."

 

[Calexico]

I think it sounds fine, but I mean, as head-fi'ers, why wouldn't we want better if we could? The only one I complained about was S & E, because it's really a shame how poorly recorded it is.

 

[tru blu]

This being Head-fi, my guess is that quite a few members listen on headphones. I don't, which sometimes is why I think a lot of SQ talk around here goes right by me. I'm listening to the original Slanted & Enchanted right now for the first time in years, and it sounds OK, though I must admit that this is the first time I noticed the smudgy compression. It's not bothering me so much that I want a new one, though. It's still the music I fell in love with…I'm tryin', I'm tryin', I'm tryin'…

 

[tintin47]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calexico /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it sounds fine, but I mean, as head-fi'ers, why wouldn't we want better if we could?

I don't think that wanting better quality is always the answer. It is certainly nice when bands do record well, and certainly I would always wish that there is as little compression as is possible, but there is also something to be said for somewhat lo-fi recording. Pavement knew what they were doing, so I would assume that they meant the albums to sound the way they do.

I also don't think that pavement would be the same band without the somewhat gritty sound. When I think about that it always reminds me of Neutral Milk Hotel. In the Aeroplane is really lo fi, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[priest]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tintin47 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think that wanting better quality is always the answer. It is certainly nice when bands do record well, and certainly I would always wish that there is as little compression as is possible, but there is also something to be said for somewhat lo-fi recording. Pavement knew what they were doing, so I would assume that they meant the albums to sound the way they do. I also don't think that pavement would be the same band without the somewhat gritty sound. When I think about that it always reminds me of Neutral Milk Hotel. In the Aeroplane is really lo fi, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

I think tintin47 and I are of the same mind on this one. Personally, starting with Crooked Rain, I think their music lost its absolute vitality, maybe partly because they started using fancy-pants production techniques.

And I certainly bought every one of the remasters, so despite my appreciation of lo-fi, I think the quality of that lo-fi can always be improved, if that makes sense.