[ChristianT]

 

[xylin6]

'The Make-Up was an American post-punk band from Washington, D.C. formed in 1995, consisting of ex-Nation of Ulysses frontman Ian Svenonius on vocals, James Canty on guitar and organ, Steve Gamboa on drums, and Michelle Mae on bass guitar.The Make-Up were joined in late 1999 by a fifth member, Alex Minoff (of the groups Golden and Extra Golden), who played guitar with the group until the band's dissolution in early 2000.The Make-Up combined garage rock, soul, and a self-styled liberation theology to make a new genre they called "Gospel Yeh-Yeh- Wikipedia

 

​

 
 

 ​

 

[markm1]

I think it's a mistake to assume that remasters sound better than original masters. Dark Side of the Moon is a good example of an album that has been re-released/remastered numerous times over the years and "the best" version is subject to great debate. Kind of Blue is another very good example of this.

If I am buying an album and not sure which version to purchase, I research it on the web to form my own opinion and then roll the dice and choose a version.

I did this most recently with my purchase of Foreigner 4 and Head Games. I ultimately went with the MoFi versions because I have been happy with the other MoFi remasters I have owned over the years (too many to mention).

In the end, as long as there are no glaring faults with the recording (and very few have these), I think its not a big deal.

Sound advice no doubt. I guess I figured the latest technology would be superior.

 

[ms3902]

 

 
I really enjoyed this album. Who would have thought that they would be able to go on without Scott.

 

[Hi-Finthen]

 TALKING HEADS 
 
 Popular Favorites 1976-1992/Sand In the Vaseline
 

 
 
 

 

[longbowbbs]

 

 

 
I really enjoyed this album. Who would have thought that they would be able to go on without Scott.

Luckily Chester had time....I hope Scott gets himself together.

 

[TJ Elite]

  Yes, you are correct on that part. It really isn't a bad thing though. Of course the original recordings were made in Mono, but it is much better than the CD pressings I have (which are horribly panned to recreate the "stereo" effect. Leaving it Mono makes you enjoy Miles Davis' groovy trumpet and Coltrane's enigmatic saxophone, so I'm really happy on that part.
 
I'm glad to see you like it. Kacey sure is a great artist, and her Grand Ghosts album is just a jewel that deserves attention.

---

Very interesting process. I had no idea the release had so much polarity of reactions from those who invested in it. Mind me asking, what would your comments be on it? I am not a huge fan of MFSL, though I do enjoy some of their pressings (especially for those recorded directly onto tapes). I do like that he tries to retain much of the original master from records instead of manipulating it heavily. It really provides this real "analogue" sound, which I can't argue against.

 

I much prefer mono mixes to most early stereo mixes so the album being in mono is no issue at all. I believe the Legacy Edition I have on CD is in mono as well if I'm not mistaken.

 

I have similar impressions on MFSL. Some people seem to regard them as the best people in the business (not sure if this is name recognition due to good marketing or what), but based on my personal experience I'm typically least impressed with their releases in comparison to other audiophile labels whose products I buy on a regular basis. I would agree with them being one of the labels a vinyl lover can turn to when looking for quality pressings. Again, not necessarily the best in the business, but typically satisfactory in my limited experience.

 

I took a listen to The Yes Album today on my speaker setup – something I don't think I've done before – so I could give a fair assessment of it. The MoFi version is the only version I've heard mind you, so I can't compare it to any other issue and can therefore only talk about the sound in absolute terms. As many people seem to have stated, the overall volume level of this disc is quite high. But mere level alone does not equate loudness in the case of a recording and the real question is does it sound compressed. To my ears, no. I can't hear any obvious signs of a stereo bus compressor being used. Individual tracks might've been recorded or mixed through a compressor during the production and the mix itself isn't all that dynamic although it's not a bad mix by any means. The sound on this issue is very clear and everything is very well defined. I found the music very easy to follow on good speakers and the sound showed musicality in the form the album being rhythmically very engaging. The mentioned high level of low-end only drew my attention during some parts of Starship Trooper. On other tracks I don't remember having any issues with the amount of bass. If I came to this release having listened to a different CD master I might feel differently however, which might be the case with some people who have criticized the MoFi CD. The CD isn't something I'd go as far as to call reference quality in terms of sound, but it still sounds much better than a lot of CDs I own and is a very enjoyable listen.

 

Edit: A good example of other CDs that have a quite high playback level but still sound phenomenal came to my mind and those are the XRCD24 versions of classic Blue Note albums released on the Blue Wave label and mastered by one of my favorite mastering engineers Mr. Alan Yoshida. Those albums like the MoFi version of The Yes Album play back a lot louder than one would expect from an audiophile release, but the sound is absolutely on par with anything I've heard on CD, with their version of Hank Mobley's Soul Station being without question one of the best sounding albums I've heard thus far on any digital format. Those XRCD reissues truly push the capabilities of the format, yet at the same time manage to play surprisingly loud proving good-sounding records don't necessarily have to be quiet.
 

---

 
Now playing:
 

Tomomi Ukumori - Humble & Radiant
 
CD rip complete with the five Beatport exclusive bonus tracks, all in lossless. Almost 1h 50min of music. 

 
 

 

[limpidglitch]

 

 

 

[SaigaJS]

Emarosa - Emarosa (album)

 

[moriez]

 
God of loOp

 

[ogodei]

 

[MIKELAP]

  With a live version of Maggot Brain.                                                                                                                                                                                                         

 

[Oregonian]

I think it's a mistake to assume that remasters sound better than original masters. Dark Side of the Moon is a good example of an album that has been re-released/remastered numerous times over the years and "the best" version is subject to great debate. Kind of Blue is another very good example of this.

If I am buying an album and not sure which version to purchase, I research it on the web to form my own opinion and then roll the dice and choose a version.

I did this most recently with my purchase of Foreigner 4 and Head Games. I ultimately went with the MoFi versions because I have been happy with the other MoFi remasters I have owned over the years (too many to mention).

In the end, as long as there are no glaring faults with the recording (and very few have these), I think its not a big deal.

I was wondering this.  A friend said the 30th anniversary DSOTM had nothing on the original '70's pressing.  Is this remaster thing just a gimmick to sell us more music?  I'm fine with the originals recorded by the band as it was intended. 
 
I doubt the 1975 Aja album I have could be improved upon but that's why I'm asking.  When they remaster, what exactly does that mean? 

 

[palmfish]

 
I was wondering this.  A friend said the 30th anniversary DSOTM had nothing on the original '70's pressing.  Is this remaster thing just a gimmick to sell us more music?  I'm fine with the originals recorded by the band as it was intended. 
 
I doubt the 1975 Aja album I have could be improved upon but that's why I'm asking.  When they remaster, what exactly does that mean? 

 
I think that a lot of albums that were re-released on CD in the 80's were transferred to digital without properly compensating for RIAA equalization that was applied to the original master. This resulted in many CDs sounding overly bright and lacking in bass (I have always thought Donald Fagen's "The Nightfly" was a victim of this). Remastering these "old" CD's is pretty much mandatory to make them listenable IMO.
 
And then, I think, there are other recordings that get remastered to "breathe new life" into sales. For example, "25th Anniversary" editions, or when a new label obtains the rights (Rhino, for example). I also think recordings made during the early days of digital were "tweaked" by the studios to sound crisp and dynamic so as to differentiate them from LP's. We all fell for the "digital sound" back then but now we hear it for what it is - a screechy mess.
 
I also think that tastes change over the years. Kind of like fads, I believe we as consumers tend to shift our preferences in sound, just like we do with fashion and music in general. Just look at how cinematography has evolved over the years, or how old classical performances tended to be faster than new ones.
 
Finally, I think sometimes the artists themselves took a page from George Lucas' playbook and want to go back and do it "how they always wanted to." Alan Parsons and Mike Oldfield are two examples that come to mind - not only remastering old albums but removing old tracks and dubbing in new performances/instruments. 
 
Those are my opinions anyways...

 

[longbowbbs]

 

 
I was wondering this.  A friend said the 30th anniversary DSOTM had nothing on the original '70's pressing.  Is this remaster thing just a gimmick to sell us more music?  I'm fine with the originals recorded by the band as it was intended. 
 
I doubt the 1975 Aja album I have could be improved upon but that's why I'm asking.  When they remaster, what exactly does that mean? 

 
I think that a lot of albums that were re-released on CD in the 80's were transferred to digital without properly compensating for RIAA equalization that was applied to the original master. This resulted in many CDs sounding overly bright and lacking in bass (I have always thought Donald Fagen's "The Nightfly" was a victim of this). Remastering these "old" CD's is pretty much mandatory to make them listenable IMO.
 
And then, I think, there are other recordings that get remastered to "breathe new life" into sales. For example, "25th Anniversary" editions, or when a new label obtains the rights (Rhino, for example). I also think recordings made during the early days of digital were "tweaked" by the studios to sound crisp and dynamic so as to differentiate them from LP's. We all fell for the "digital sound" back then but now we hear it for what it is - a screechy mess.
 
I also think that tastes change over the years. Kind of like fads, I believe we as consumers tend to shift our preferences in sound, just like we do with fashion and music in general. Just look at how cinematography has evolved over the years, or how old classical performances tended to be faster than new ones.
 
Finally, I think sometimes the artists themselves took a page from George Lucas' playbook and want to go back and do it "how they always wanted to." Alan Parsons and Mike Oldfield are two examples that come to mind - not only remastering old albums but removing old tracks and dubbing in new performances/instruments. 
 
Those are my opinions anyways...

That would explain my 6 versions of I Robot....