Out of pointless curiosity, does anyone who picked up the remasters still listen to the originals? Any reasons for or against?
I find myself keeping the originals for "car use", as I keep the discs in my car in a small binder, and have the normal front-loading car player, both of which where they may risk small surface scuffs over time.
What's scary is that I ripped them all to MP3 for my office computer, both versions.
Was wondering if anyone remains faithful to the originals, or has tossed them completely in favor of the new versions.
I've since chucked my old copies of Three Imaginary Boys, Seventeen Seconds, Faith, and Pornography; I got them all at the same garage sale, and they were very much beat up.
I reckon that it would be interesting to listen to say One Hundred Years from both versions one after the other with headphones on to see the difference. I wonder if the sound is any clearer [no doubt someone's scoffing at my stupidity here] .. it's probably louder though...
I know little of the whole frequencies and other sound wave thingies..
I would hope we've all paid for clearer sounding cds... along with the second discs of course..
but no, I haven't listened to the old versions since buying the new ones... just packed them all away in with my old cds...
i still regularly listen to my vinyl versions, especially the early 80s albums, sometimes up until 'disintegration'.
i grew up with vinyls, they are full of memories and i like the "process" of listening to a vinyl recording: all those "annoying" little tasks you have to perform, using the cleaning brush, flipping the record over. i like vinyl records as objects, i like the concept of having real A and B sides.
i also always preferred the sound on the vinyl versions. that's why i didn't even buy CD copies of all the old stuff (as for the vinyls, i confess i did end up buying several editions though - that was nuts: but yes at some point it did indeed seem to be great to have different copies with different colored labels and different serial numbers - ha! :lol:).
i remember how disappointed i was when i bought my first CD copy of 'seventeen seconds' and listened to it - there was something instantly wrong with it, it was like a spell had been broken... i think i never listened to that CD again. i never bothered to make any detailed comparisons on the sound though, i just instantly knew i didn't like the way the old CD versions sounded like so i didn't bother. maybe strangely i never bothered making any vinyl>CD transfers though, so the next time ever i listened to 'seventeen seconds' on CD was when the remasters came out...
i've been pretty pleased with the remasters. i admit i never bothered to make any detailed comparison between the remasters and the vinyls either, but i guess the convenience of listening to a CD has grown on me so i listen to them a lot more now. but i still do listen to the vinyls too, just because i sometimes enjoy the process of listening to a vinyl record.
so anyone feel free to consider it as some silly nostalgic rant only, but i just like that moment, the sound when the needle is dropped on the record, when it pops and crackles for a moment, then gets stabilized, the first song hasn't started yet but you literally can hear that the "tape is rolling, it's about to start...soon...."
i guess one loses that magic with CDs - the price of getting rid of the background noise, little pops and cracks, tape hiss etc.
(just for the record: i definitely don't mind getting rid of all those annoying flaws on bootlegs/live recordings - sure, the less hiss and pops the better! no doubt about that.
but with the official albums, i can strangely enjoy it: it literally takes me back in time, and the CDs can't quite achieve that...)
(anyway i never ended up throwing any of those crap old CD versions away either - maybe because i still couldn't make myself to throw away a cure record... hmm.
i always thought i'd give the old CDs to someone but since the remasters came out it's become rather useless.)
In case of TIB and The Top I'd definitely stay with my original CDs, because the remastered versions have cut The Weedy Burton and Shake Dog Shake.
Actually, I have burned my own version the first album, containing the tracks from both TIB and BDC. And the original version of World War sounds a hundred times better than the so called remastered version. And it has Killing An Arab on it!
Agreed on TIB & The Top for the stupid cuts. Especially the Shake Dog Shake cut. I mean, it's right at the beginning - how did that slip through?!? Also, as much as I think Bananafishbones really benefited from the pitch/speed fix on the remaster, I like having the old version as well.
I'll have to compare the World War versions at some point. Not a favorite track, however.
Also agreed about Seventeen Seconds. I had only ever owned it on CD, and hardly ever listened to it. It sounded absolutely gross and boring. However, the remaster (the first one I was really excited about) seemed to breathe some life into it.
I've still held onto my originals - as I said, they're mostly for car-use and other "hazardous conditions". I've considered giving them to friends who are just casual Cure fans (I've done it with other remasters), but cannot quite part with them for some odd reason.
At least I'm not alone/insane in this!
edit: For one, KMx3 is totally replaceable - the original CD version is way too quiet and maybe a little muddy. The remaster, as far as I noticed, doesn't seem to cut anything, includes "Hey You!!", and you can even hear Robert count off before "Catch". Can you hear that on the vinyl?
Yes, Kiss Me is the only album that really benefitted from the remastering process, where it REALLY makes a difference.
Although I could hear Robert counting in on "Catch" on the vinyl as well as on the first cd, the remaster sounds much clearer, especially "Fight". And "Hey You" is back again, I almost didn't believe it would be ... after all those disappointments with the previous Deluxe Editions.
I think Kiss Me is the only album that was was actually remastered, while the other albums only sound louder and somewhat treated with an equalizer.
all my cure albums are vinyl with the exceptions of bloodflowers and disintegration (dont have self titled yet and concert and greatest hits dont count) but im going to buy wish on cd just so i have it, i can always rebuy on vinyl and probably will. is it like 17 seconds worse on cd? (please reply quickly, im buying tomorrow when i got to cinema w/ friends)
Quote from: Oso Blanco on April 04, 2007, 20:44:09
Yes, Kiss Me is the only album that really benefitted from the remastering process, where it REALLY makes a difference.
'seventeen seconds' is another one. the old CD version is a lot worse than the vinyl ever was, so the remaster (or "remaster", whatever) is really an upgrade when compared to the old CD version.
there are certain moments on pornography and faith too that do greatly benefit from the remastering.
@farquad: i'd say just see you don't go and buy the old CD pressing. if you don't want the 2 cd deluxe remaster then just go and buy the re-issued version without the bonus disc.
Quote from: japanesebaby on April 04, 2007, 21:26:18
@farquad: i'd say just see you don't go and buy the old CD pressing. if you don't want the 2 cd deluxe remaster then just go and buy the re-issued version without the bonus disc.
And that's really the worst part of it. The old CDs are slowly going out of print, so that very soon those butchered versions of The Weedy Burton and Shake Dog Shage will be the only versions officially available!
Quote from: Oso Blanco on April 04, 2007, 21:36:36
Quote from: japanesebaby on April 04, 2007, 21:26:18
@farquad: i'd say just see you don't go and buy the old CD pressing. if you don't want the 2 cd deluxe remaster then just go and buy the re-issued version without the bonus disc.
And that's really the worst part of it. The old CDs are slowly going out of print, so that very soon those butchered versions of The Weedy Burton and Shake Dog Shage will be the only versions officially available!
what comes to those two songs, that's right of course. i don't disagree.
so i wasn't talking about 'the top' or 'TIB' but about 'seventeen seconds' only here. as i see no such great flaws in that remaster so i just see no reason why anyone should go and buy the old CD pressing today - unless for some strange reasonone really prefers to have a copy with crappier sound. ;)
(old vinyl pressings have been out of print too for a long time, yet they are thankfully still pretty easy to find (and even in well kept copies) if one wants to - thanksfully they used to sell enough copies back then! :))
Quote from: japanesebaby on April 04, 2007, 22:13:49
unless for some strange reasonone really prefers to have a copy with crappier sound. ;)
With the exception of Kiss Me, I don't think the older versions sound any crappier than the new ones. Different, perhaps ... but not crappier.
Quote from: Oso Blanco on April 04, 2007, 22:38:00
Quote from: japanesebaby on April 04, 2007, 22:13:49
unless for some strange reasonone really prefers to have a copy with crappier sound. ;)
With the exception of Kiss Me, I don't think the older versions sound any crappier than the new ones. Different, perhaps ... but not crappier.
again, i was talking about 'seventeen seconds' only. i do agree with rjl that the old CD pressing of that album is notably poorer than vinyl version ever was. i said 'crappier' because to me the way it's different is also inferior to what can be heard on the original vinyl.
i also remember reading robert commenting this somewhere too (can't remember where). he said something about how the original CD pressings for all the pre-CD era albums were in his opinion made in a bad way, i remember he said something about how at that time there was only one guy who alone was pretty much in charge of all the mastering of CDs and how he did anything and everything according to his own taste - which nearly always wasn't nowhere near what the artists would have preferred.
Quote from: rjl on April 04, 2007, 01:39:33
Out of pointless curiosity, does anyone who picked up the remasters still listen to the originals? Any reasons for or against?
I find myself keeping the originals for "car use", as I keep the discs in my car in a small binder, and have the normal front-loading car player, both of which where they may risk small surface scuffs over time.
What's scary is that I ripped them all to MP3 for my office computer, both versions.
Was wondering if anyone remains faithful to the originals, or has tossed them completely in favor of the new versions.
WELL THEORETICALLY ORIGINALS ARE FAR MORE VALUABLE THAN REISSUES.
ORIGINALS ARE TRUE ARTEFACTS.
THE STUFF YOU KEEP FOREVER (OR SELL IN 20 YEARS FOR A FAST BUCK)...
REISSUES HAVE BETTER SOUND BUT THEY HAVE NO SENTIMENTAL VALUE...
SO IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO LISTEN TO REISSUES IN THE CAR, WHILE KEEPING THE ORIGINALS IN THE VAULT SOMEWHERE...
:-D
Quote from: Janko on April 04, 2007, 23:07:42
WELL THEORETICALLY ORIGINALS ARE FAR MORE VALUABLE THAN REISSUES.
ORIGINALS ARE TRUE ARTEFACTS.
THE STUFF YOU KEEP FOREVER (OR SELL IN 20 YEARS FOR A FAST BUCK)...
REISSUES HAVE BETTER SOUND BUT THEY HAVE NO SENTIMENTAL VALUE...
SO IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO LISTEN TO REISSUES IN THE CAR, WHILE KEEPING THE ORIGINALS IN THE VAULT SOMEWHERE...
:-D
That's one way of looking at it, but I have no plans of selling them, and doubt they'd appreciate in value, being widely-released albums and all.
Oh well, time will tell. I am neurotically careful with my discs and LPs anyhow...
No plans on selling them (maybe one day giving them to a friend in a random fit of mania), unless the going price climbs unreasonably fast and I can't not sell them.
(When I had an attention span and free time, I'd watch what rarities of certain bands were going for, and then try to find them and turn them around really fast. Or at least see what bands were doing well generally in the rarities market, and just go to town. In one case I bought a Misfits record for $30, and turned around and sold it for $180. The next week the band (well, the re-formed Misfits) "found" a stack of copies, selling them on their site for $80. :) )
Quote from: Janko on April 04, 2007, 23:07:42
WELL THEORETICALLY ORIGINALS ARE FAR MORE VALUABLE THAN REISSUES.
ORIGINALS ARE TRUE ARTEFACTS.
THE STUFF YOU KEEP FOREVER (OR SELL IN 20 YEARS FOR A FAST BUCK)...
REISSUES HAVE BETTER SOUND BUT THEY HAVE NO SENTIMENTAL VALUE...
SO IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO LISTEN TO REISSUES IN THE CAR, WHILE KEEPING THE ORIGINALS IN THE VAULT SOMEWHERE...
I agree. Since the original CDs will soon be unavailable, I would never ever use them in a car or put them in any other danger. Actually, I would never use ANY CD in a car ... that's what CD-Rs are for!
Quote from: Oso Blanco on April 04, 2007, 21:36:36
Quote from: japanesebaby on April 04, 2007, 21:26:18
@farquad: i'd say just see you don't go and buy the old CD pressing. if you don't want the 2 cd deluxe remaster then just go and buy the re-issued version without the bonus disc.
And that's really the worst part of it. The old CDs are slowly going out of print, so that very soon those butchered versions of The Weedy Burton and Shake Dog Shage will be the only versions officially available!
I actually thought the re-mastered version of The Top was the best, Shake Dog Shake sounds brilliant........the older versions sound much more muffled in comparison....just my thoughts.... ;)
I still hold onto the old ones, but I don't listen to them anymore.
I do think that 17 seconds got some special attention though. The original CD was virtually "dead" compared to the vinyl (may as well have been a machine). The re-issue seems to be more believable, almost as if it was flawed deliberately to make it so.
However, the re-issues are still no way near as good as the vinyl (IMHO).
I would be very interested to hear a DSD transfer of the re-issues on SACD though. ;)
I'm going to have to snag a copy of 17 Seconds on vinyl from ebay.
As I said above (and in total agreement with others), the first CD version was just gross/cold/dead/flat. The re-issue was everything I'd hoped it would be.
I can't wait to dust off the turntable, now. :smth023
:-D :-D :-D
THE QUESTION I'M INTERESTED IS:
WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO IN 15 YEARS WHEN 'UNIVERSAL' OR WHOEVER'S IN CHARGE PUTS OUT ANOTHER "SPECIAL", "REMASTERED", OR "COLLECTOR'S" REISSUE OF ALL ALBUMS...
AND THEN AGAIN IN 20 YEARS AND THEN AGAIN IN 25...
ITS LIKE - CCA 250 EURO'S EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS!
THERE'S A SCAM!!!
:D :D :D
As long as there's some noticeable improvement to the sound (although, what more can they really do at this point?), I'd buy it. Call me an idiot, but as long as its new product, than sure, go ahead. No one's making you buy it, after all.
As far as the re-issues go, however, the Cure has, so far, done a better job than most bands. There's slick packaging, a nice booklet, in some cases a real improvement in sound, and a second disc packed to the gills with unreleased material.
When they released a Greatest Hits package, they also released a second disc full of acoustic arrangements.
And let's not forget Join The Dots... four attractively packaged discs, with a slick book of commentary and photos, packed full of b-sides and unreleased material, a lot of which not available on CD until then.
Most bands/labels tend to phone this kind of stuff in. Maybe give you an extra track or two. Or maybe a DVD with two videos. Or even just the same batch of songs with little to no discernible improvement.
There are far worse offenders than Cure here: that stupid Nirvana "hits" package that you had to buy to get the one new track and the Depeche Mode re-issues come to mind.
If this is a total cash-grab, it's one of the most benign I've seen. Some work went into these releases.
Besides, isn't it nice to see some new Cure product on the market, instead of having to wait a few years in between albums? It makes the wait a lot more bearable. And it's not like they are over saturating things, either.
I hope didn't come across too strong -- or as too much of a blind Robert apologist. I'm just thrilled by these releases, and have been as excited about these as I am a new album. In fact, I think I was more excited about hearing a decent 17 Seconds, and the bonus discs for The Top & KMKMKM (sigh), than I've been for a new album.
I think the Cure fans have it pretty good. :smth023
Quote from: strange_day on April 05, 2007, 13:02:23
I actually thought the re-mastered version of The Top was the best, Shake Dog Shake sounds brilliant........the older versions sound much more muffled in comparison....just my thoughts.... ;)
It may sound better, but the fact that "Shake Dog Shake" is cut at the beginning completely ruins it for me.
Maybe the missing few seconds will be a bonus track on a future release. Or maybe a fan club 7" with the rest of The Weedy Burton as the b-side :D
Seriously, though, it's a poor start to a great album (IMO), with a great intro song (pretty much an indis****ble fact ;) ). I wonder if anyone has written to Rhino and told them that they are, in essence, defective. I doubt that they have any control over the mastering process (I plead ignorance, however), but I imagine that if their name is on the product, it's a good place to start with complaints, and see where it ends up.
When the 5.1 version of the Flaming Lips' "The Soft Bulletin" album was accidentally released with the wrong version of the CD portion of the release, people were able to send it back for a replacement. Of course, the Lips went overboard, and apparently some people received handwritten apologies from their bassist, and Wayne offered to personally apologize to people at one point. They're cool like that.
Some versions of an old Foetus CD were susceptible to CD rot, and replacements were issued for those with afflicted discs.
Some pressing of a Skinny Puppy (I believe) compilation came labeled and packaged as such, but was actually an acoustic/folk record, I think. Again, replacements.
So recognition of a mistake and replacement of a defective release are not without precedent...
There are others that I am not thinking of at the moment...
I dunno... just rambling.
THE ANOTHER ISSUE I HAVE WITH REISSUES IS THE PROBLEM WITH NEW BANDS
THE CURE REISSUES ARE GREAT AND I THINK THAT WITH SUPERB SOUND AND BONUS CD OD UNRELEASED MATERIAL THE CURE SETS THE STANDARDS FOR ALL BANDS!
WHO COULD EVER THINK OD ADDING BONUS UNPLUGGED HITS CD TO SOME STUFF THAT MOSTLY TURNS OUT LIKE "HASTLY COBBLED FOR A FAST BUCK" CD?! ROBERT IS A GENIUS!
BUT
INSTEAD BUYING A CD BY SOME NEW BAND PEOPLE ARE OPTING FOR REISSUES OF STUFF THEY ALREADY HAVE...
IMAGINE IF IN 1981 PEOPLE OPTED FOR A REISSUE OF SOME CRAP CD BY "EMERSON LAKE AND PALMER" INSTEAD OF CURE'S "FAITH" !
I REECKON ITS BETTER TO BUY AND SUPPORT YOUNG BANDS THAT HAVE THEIR FIRST CD IN THE MARKET...
Who's to say you can't buy both? Or to tell you which one to buy? If you'd prefer to support younger or local artist, then by all means, do it... :)
It's all about choice. And the concept of opportunity cost: what is forsaken/forgone by making a decision. Such it life. :?
Besides, if ELP stole sales from the Cure (however unlikely) is it really their fault? I understand your reasoning (esp. when I look at my shelf and see how many of my Cranes discs could have easily been discs from other artists), but it's a choice I made.
There are plenty of artists whom I don't collect every single rarity and re-issue (including the Cure, to some extent), and I spend that money on other artists.
Besides, I don't think any band has any responsibility towards other bands and their success. They may do favors (bringing a smaller band that they love on tour as a support act), but they certainly don't have to...
Now, when they do the opposite and screw with each other (e.g. the Red Hot Chili Peppers and the crap they pulled on Mr. Bungle years ago), that's pretty lame.
Along a similar vein, what does get me are the multi-part singles. Lush, another favorite of mine, are total culprits when it comes to this. Well, 4AD, really. Instead of 2 singles with 4 tracks, 1 of which spent on the song itself (so technically 2 tracks spent on 1 song), why not just condense it all into an EP... Price it a little higher than a single, and you'd probably make more money, as you only need to manufacture, package and truck around half as many discs.
But that's totally straying from the topic at hand at this point.
i bought the glove reissue yesterday and am pleased with it even if it was stupidly priced. IMO blue sunshine is fantastic and the extra disc just makes it even better.
i plan on getting the kiss me one soon because its cheaper for some reason and i dont listen to it too much on vinyl because its so long. i disagree about buying reissues stifles young bands, lately ive been buying older bands and thats it. for example my next order is going to be kiss me, a beach boys album and joy division surely by janko's logic this is as bad as buying 3 reissues.at the end of the day i just prefer finding older bands to hear for the first time rather than new ones because most of them simply arent as good and i would rather further my musical knowledge of the past
Quote from: farquad92 on April 06, 2007, 19:48:22
i bought the glove reissue yesterday and am pleased with it even if it was stupidly priced. IMO blue sunshine is fantastic and the extra disc just makes it even better.
i plan on getting the kiss me one soon because its cheaper for some reason and i dont listen to it too much on vinyl because its so long. i disagree about buying reissues stifles young bands, lately ive been buying older bands and thats it. for example my next order is going to be kiss me, a beach boys album and joy division surely by janko's logic this is as bad as buying 3 reissues.at the end of the day i just prefer finding older bands to hear for the first time rather than new ones because most of them simply arent as good and i would rather further my musical knowledge of the past
about blue sunshine: the bonus disc for that one is definitely one of the all bonus discs that i've listened to most. i've surprised myself with this too. i could never really stand the howling woman's singing so i never listened to that album a lot. i liked to music but i couldn't stand the way they were interpreted vocal-wise - because there was hardly no interpretation there. :roll:
it's completely silly that robert likes to claim they are 'demos' since they are clearly very recent - anyway, i haven't let that bother me simply because i've noticed that i've so truly enjoyed it, finally hearing these songs done properly! i don't really care when they were recorded - although bogus info IS bogus info... hmmm. anyway, to me it's pretty marvellous - definitely worth a purchase for anyone!
about reissues in general:
sometimes it's a rip-off, sometimes it's not: anyway i agree that old fans can choose whether or not to buy the new re-releases. nobody's forcing you. then again these can be important for newer fans, people still at the process of finding things, getting to know them. there's no harm done in updating the releases every once in a while. i think it's pretty easy to notice whether it's been done with this sincere idea or whether it's just a record label trying to profit a bit more. and accordingly, everyone can choose whether to buy or not.
i also tend to buy quite a lot old music. most of "new" albums that i get are actually pretty old. i'm terminally behind with most of the new music all the time. i'm faintly aware of things when they come out but still i very often "find" things only years after they were first released. and often regardless of whether they were originally hyped a lot or not. i guess it's unintentional and it's intentional from my part: i could say i simply don't have time to follow everything, i'm too slow to catch up with it all when it's happening. but at least part of it deals with preferring to find things at my own pace, when it suits me. to get to know things when it feels like showing green light to this or that and not when someone's constantly telling me "you've got to listen to this, this is amazing, whooa!!" etc.
so, what comes to the older groups, i think i generally do appreciate re-issues - there's just so much music out there waiting to be found! and since the art of audio mastering has improved since early days so why not use that knowledge and update the releases?
Quote from: japanesebaby on April 07, 2007, 11:15:06
and since the art of audio mastering has improved since early days so why not use that knowledge and update the releases?
I wish they would make use of of this "new and improved art of audio mastering". But sadly, most remasters are just louder and maybe treated with an equalizer, and that's it. In many cases, I find the old versions better sounding than the new ones. Especially when the "remastered" versions have the "clipping problem".
Quote from: Oso Blanco on April 07, 2007, 11:30:09
Quote from: japanesebaby on April 07, 2007, 11:15:06
and since the art of audio mastering has improved since early days so why not use that knowledge and update the releases?
I wish they would make use of of this "new and improved art of audio mastering". But sadly, most remasters are just louder and maybe treated with an equalizer, and that's it. In many cases, I find the old versions better sounding than the new ones. Especially when the "remastered" versions have the "clipping problem".
hehe i already knew you'd say that. ;)
of course, i should have added "as long as it's done properly" - and most of the time it clearly isn't, that's no secret. and it's certainly annoying in many cases. yet the hope remains someone somewhere has the knowledge, skill, taste and understanding and these people do it right every once in a while... so not all remasters are doomed.
but the volume boost phenomenon is ridiculous for sure, especially when some "professional" people somewhere are just displaying their sheer stupidity while taking it up to the point of clipping.
it seems to be a global phenomenon though, nothing new. someone somewhere said that in today's world it's
"
not about the subject matter of your message anymore but simply about who shouts out loudest, regardless of whether he/she had anything to say".
so just be obnoxious, arrogant and especially
as loud as possible - those seems to be the key words to "success" these days. :(
Quote from: japanesebaby on April 07, 2007, 11:15:06
it's completely silly that robert likes to claim they are 'demos' since they are clearly very recent
:lol: yeah the whole demo claim has amused me. just 3 more studio albums to complete my cure collection now (faith, wish, the cure) and the boxset and a couple live albums :smth023
In the case of the Cure re-issues, I don't really mind LOUDER. Especially if you compare the original and re-issued KMKMKM CD releases. It really helps there, in my opinion.
Maybe my ears aren't in their best shape, but no glaring, awful clipping ever came to my attention. It's not to say that it's not there, however...
I mean, it's not a tenth as bad as the "Raw Power" re-issue that came out maybe 10 years ago (I think there's since been another) that Iggy "remastered" - which means that all he did was walk into the studio, shove all of the sliders up and create a noisy distorted mess. And it's digital distortion.
It sounds nasty. In my limited experience, analog distortion can work well in a recording situation. Digital distortion just seems to result in really really gross clipping/buzzing.
On another note, however, all of this talk about the Glove re-issue has convinced me to finally pick it up. I had always wanted to pick up the original CD out of curiosity, but never did. After hearing a few tracks (via a friend, most likely), I was glad that I didn't. But all of the talk about the bonus disc has sold me.
Robert & Severin's dubious claims and all.
i don't notice any alarming volume boost on the cure remasters either. the references i made there were meant to be references in general.
but i got truly curious about this vinyl vs. CD thing again and dug out some vinyls for more detailed comparison (also because i wanted to make sure i'm not just saying things out of memory only).
i listened to 'pornography' and KMKMKM from original CDs, remastered CDs and from vinyl, and i definitely haven't changed my mind about the sounds quality. on the contrary, i'm certain about it now. regardless of the volume boost (which also has happened, but in these cases i too see it being rather beneficial for the end result).
there's just something that's overall "wrong" with the the old CD versions when compared to how the vinyls sound like. the old CDs sound pretty blunt and flat, simply dull, flattened. like they were packaged by pouring the sound into a mold that's definitely of different shape than the sound itself. all songs are packaged into this same mold while none of them fits. one could say they sound only "different" and not "bad", but i do hear striking differences when compared to the vinyls - which i think one could more or less rightfully consider as being closer to how it all was supposed to sound like.
for me, the spaciousness of the sound found on vinyls gets totally butchered on those original CDs. together with that, there're simply a lot more all kinds of details found on the vinyls. the CDs sound simply muddy. and yes i could always perfectly well hear robert counting in the beginning of 'catch' on vinyl - all the details are there whereas on the old CD pressing it all got strangely muffled and muddy somehow. :(
then again, i don't find such huge difference between the vinyls and the remasters. i'd be willing to say there's more improvement on 'pornography' for the benefit of the remastered CD over the vinyl, but that could also be because my old vinyl copy is simply a bit battered already - it's maybe not the most ideal copy one could find...
i remember listening to the pornography remaster for the first time and being just totally thrilled by the time i got to 'a short term effect'. i remember it was really awesome, to hear it sounding like that, it was almost frighteningly gorgeous.
i'm now convinced that it really suffered really badly from the crappy way it was originally mastered on CD. with the start of '100 years' you could hear this spacious booming huge mass of sound pouring out on you when you used to put on the vinyl. you can hear this even better with the remaster - but the old CD pressing sounds to me almost like you were trying to listen to a record via phone or something.... well ok, maybe not that bad... but definitely like the sound came through some kind of invisible, flattening obstacle that washed out the details and somehow packaged it in the process.
or try 'cold' for instance - the difference between original and remastered CD version is just huge. the spacious, three-dimensional sense of the soundscape is just totally flattened on the original CD pressing.
(and damn i love that record!)
even with the remasters on my shelves, i definitely wouldn't even think of parting with my vinyls, no way. even with KMKMKM i'd still choose to listen to the vinyl version over the original CD version - neverminding those multiple flips and other inconveniences. i don't want to over-nostalgisize the vinyl era though, it's definitely not a perfect format. but in this case it's surely a winner.
i have to say thanks for extra inspiration for this thread for making me pay more attention to the vinyls once again! :D
besides they are beautiful anyway - the whole concept of album cover art still meant something then. or it was an altogether different concept, with different cabapilities. it had near poster-like expressiveness and poster-like artistic possibilities.
just look at robert's mouth and eye on the cover of KMKMKM in vinyl cover size, then compare it to a CD booklet/cover. easy to see which one presents the way it was designed to look like, the way it was thought of...
Quote from: rjl on April 07, 2007, 17:56:07
In the case of the Cure re-issues, I don't really mind LOUDER. Especially if you compare the original and re-issued KMKMKM CD releases. It really helps there, in my opinion.
If you don't really mind "louder", I'm sure you have a volume knob somewhere on your equipment?
But you are right, Kiss Me is the album that benefitted most from the remastering process. Actually, I think it's the ONLY album that has really improved so far. And as far as I can tell, nothing has been cut! They even did something I had never believed they would do ... they put Hey You back in! So maybe there is hope for future Deluxe Editions after all.
Oof. I totally forgot to mention "A Short Term Effect". I agree, that stood out AMAZINGLY on the remaster. Always a favorite, and it just got better. A close second is "Bananafishbones" on "The Top" re-issue. I was thrown by the speed-change (back to the original, intended speed, right?) for a second, but it just sounded much clearer, spacious and pretty in-your-face (although that could be attributed to volume).
Still, I think I'm going to have to start assembling all of the LPs now.
This thread inspired me to fire up the turntable while cleaning this morning, and I forgot how great some things can sound (Elvis Costello's "Armed Forces", for example... wow).
Quote from: Oso Blanco on April 07, 2007, 20:11:37
Quote from: rjl on April 07, 2007, 17:56:07
In the case of the Cure re-issues, I don't really mind LOUDER. Especially if you compare the original and re-issued KMKMKM CD releases. It really helps there, in my opinion.
If you don't really mind "louder", I'm sure you have a volume knob somewhere on your equipment?
Yes, of course, but it's pretty irritating when you have, say old-KMKMKM, and a few other discs in a CD changer and you want to play it all on random. Besides, the louder you have to turn something up, the greater chance you have for some noise being amplified (I know that right now one of my speaker wires is being tweaky, or there's some ground-loop interference or something... and my PC speakers at work have some noise I'd rather not hear, just to hear the quiet passages).
Then again, if they didn't amplify the volume, it wouldn't be the end of the world for me. But isn't a wider range of volume always better? Even if you don't necessarily use it all the time?
Quote from: rjl on April 07, 2007, 22:28:20
Oof. I totally forgot to mention "A Short Term Effect". I agree, that stood out AMAZINGLY on the remaster. Always a favorite, and it just got better. A close second is "Bananafishbones" on "The Top" re-issue. I was thrown by the speed-change (back to the original, intended speed, right?) for a second, but it just sounded much clearer, spacious and pretty in-your-face (although that could be attributed to volume).
hehe yes i should have mentioned 'bananafishbones' too, that's surely a close second. the remaster takes it back to Bb, whereas the "original" is 75 cents too slow (that's 3/4 of a tone). and listen to the original after the remaster and it sounds like everyone had their lungs half full of water there... robert's voice sounds weird.
i wonder how it ever ended up being slowed down like that. if robert wanted if slowed down just because of the tempo then they should have bothered to record it again.
because it's an interesting thing to notice that they actually used to play it live in A, not in Bb. so they played it closer to the pitch of the original album version than the remastered version - although not exactly in either one. but since they also used to play it a lot faster than the original album version was, the remastered version might sounds somehow "more familiar" (although well, they used to speed up a lot of songs live then, of course). anyway, especially if one has listened to the live version enough to have somewhat memorized the pitch and tempo of those, then the remastered version might sound almost like it's aiming to correct the tempo, and not the pitch. because in order to correct the pitch according to what it was live one should actually slow it down even a bit more... which would be murder of course.
anyway, a rather strange case!
Aaaah vinyl.
Brings back some good memories.
But, when I moved to Hungary, I put all my vinyl into storage (should see if I can get it shipped here).
I like the idea of the re-masters, as technology has certainly moved at a rapid pace & I would expect more benefits than just volume increase.
The re-issues do sound a lot fresher than the old discs, but I am still left a little cold by CDs in general.
I think I said earlier, that I would dearly love to see a SACD edition of these LPs. The technology is available, so why not make full use of it.
Just the thought of a high res version of A Forest makes me grin from ear to ear.
Without wanting to go right off topic, does anyone have the Psychedelic Furs re-mastered discs?
Saw them on Amazon yesterday & was severely tempted.
I'D ONLY SAY THAT FIRST FOUR REMASTERS WERE GREAT:
SUPERB SOUND
OUT IN TIME
GREAT BONUS STUFF
:rocker
WHILE THE SECOND BATCH WAS A BIT RUSHED:
SOUND IS JUST GOOD, NOTHING MINDBLOWING
ROBERT COULD GIVE IT ANOTHER FEW YEARS
BONUS STUFF WAS BELOW AWERAGE
:(
Quote from: Steve on April 08, 2007, 08:27:53
Aaaah vinyl.
Brings back some good memories.
But, when I moved to Hungary, I put all my vinyl into storage (should see if I can get it shipped here).
I like the idea of the re-masters, as technology has certainly moved at a rapid pace & I would expect more benefits than just volume increase.
The re-issues do sound a lot fresher than the old discs, but I am still left a little cold by CDs in general.
I think I said earlier, that I would dearly love to see a SACD edition of these LPs. The technology is available, so why not make full use of it.
Just the thought of a high res version of A Forest makes me grin from ear to ear.
Without wanting to go right off topic, does anyone have the Psychedelic Furs re-mastered discs?
Saw them on Amazon yesterday & was severely tempted.
THE VINYL WILL ALWAYS BE THERE.
I WAS NEVER TOO ATTACHED TO IT BECAUSE WHEN I STARTED TO LISTEN TO MUSIC THE CASSETTES WERE THE MAIN STUFF FOR ME, BUT I STILL OWN COUPLE OF SINGLES AND ALBUMS ON VINYL...
Quote from: Janko on April 08, 2007, 18:44:04
Quote from: Steve on April 08, 2007, 08:27:53
Aaaah vinyl.
Brings back some good memories.
But, when I moved to Hungary, I put all my vinyl into storage (should see if I can get it shipped here).
I like the idea of the re-masters, as technology has certainly moved at a rapid pace & I would expect more benefits than just volume increase.
The re-issues do sound a lot fresher than the old discs, but I am still left a little cold by CDs in general.
I think I said earlier, that I would dearly love to see a SACD edition of these LPs. The technology is available, so why not make full use of it.
Just the thought of a high res version of A Forest makes me grin from ear to ear.
Without wanting to go right off topic, does anyone have the Psychedelic Furs re-mastered discs?
Saw them on Amazon yesterday & was severely tempted.
THE VINYL WILL ALWAYS BE THERE.
i admit i'm still a sucker for big vinyl fairs. i love going there and going through all those endless boxes of old and used vinyls - sometimes i can spend hours and hours there and come back home happy even though i didn't even buy anything. :P
i know i've said it before but i just like the format of the vinyl cover art in principle: so maybe a part of the enjoyment is that it's a bit like going to an art exhibition. CDs are small as stamps, you can't really enjoy those in similar manner.
and ok now i sound like a complete geek - you know record fairs are always filled with these geeks hunting for some rare-beyond-comprehension 7" singles from early 60s and who hold on to their scratched old vinyls until the day they die, refusing to admit CDs ever even existed - maybe please don't count me as one of these hehehe
Question for those with the remastered Pornography - is it me or do some of the tracks clip/distort? And by that, I mean digital distortion when mastering to CD, not analog distortion when recording... I first noticed it in "A Short Term Effect", right before and after the 2 minute mark. It's there on a few others, as well.
I just listened to the remastered album with headphones for the first time last night, and it sounds even more amazing than I thought, although the clipping is bothersome...
Quote from: rjl on May 17, 2007, 19:47:59
Question for those with the remastered Pornography - is it me or do some of the tracks clip/distort? And by that, I mean digital distortion when mastering to CD, not analog distortion when recording... I first noticed it in "A Short Term Effect", right before and after the 2 minute mark. It's there on a few others, as well.
I just listened to the remastered album with headphones for the first time last night, and it sounds even more amazing than I thought, although the clipping is bothersome...
If you think THAT's clipping distortion, take a listen to Join The Dots!
There's a small cut out in M on Seventeen Seconds (both on the remaster and original CDs) that annoys me endlessly.... is this present on the vinyl as well?
Weren't the masters for 17S destroyed or lost or something? I find it hard to believe that there weren't other copies made, but I remember reading about how parts of A Forest had to be re-recorded for "Mixed Up", as the multi-track masters were somehow gone... The drums were sampled from the album version, if the story is true... So maybe it's from whatever copy (probably mixed down already, I guess) that was used for the original pressing. Maybe it's the same thing, just EQ'd/compressed/normalized...
Then again, who knows for sure.
All I know is that the remaster sounds MILES better than the initial CD pressing.
I never noticed the flaw on both of them. It's in the same place? I'll have to listen to them at some point...
Quote from: Oso Blanco on May 22, 2007, 15:52:27
If you think THAT's clipping distortion, take a listen to Join The Dots!
Might have been a victim of the loudness war.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
Er... scratch that.
We were all "victims" of the loudness war :evil:
It's about time that these folks gave us the option of a hi-res version so we can decide for ourselves if we like to listen to distortion or not.
B@stards.
Quote from: Bloodflower on May 25, 2007, 05:49:39
There's a small cut out in M on Seventeen Seconds (both on the remaster and original CDs) that annoys me endlessly.... is this present on the vinyl as well?
That flaw in M is on both the old and new CDs.. I used to think I had some special, rare version till I heard the remaster... and there I was thinking I was soooo special...
Quote from: Steve on May 25, 2007, 08:24:02Might have been a victim of the loudness war.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
Er... scratch that.
We were all "victims" of the loudness war :evil:
It's about time that these folks gave us the option of a hi-res version so we can decide for ourselves if we like to listen to distortion or not.
B@stards.
Yep, the loudness war is bullshit. I've been watching this problem get worse and worse over the years. Fortunately, the last batch of remasters weren't so crushed volume-wise. But sometimes stuff like this isn't treated so harshly as it isn't meant for hardcore competition with other albums.
But rest assured, The Cure's next new album will be crushed, just like the last one. :cry:
Quote from: Bloodflower on May 25, 2007, 05:49:39
There's a small cut out in M on Seventeen Seconds (both on the remaster and original CDs) that annoys me endlessly.... is this present on the vinyl as well?
i suppose you mean the one around 2:22. it's not on the vinyl.
i just checked both vinyl versions that i have (1st german pressing by metronome musik and the US pressing by A&M records included on the 'happily ever after' 2-LP set) and neither of those seem to have any kind of flaw there. :!:
i admit i never paid attention to this before :oops:
but it does make you wonder now, how come the flaw ended up on the remaster...
A little bit off topic, but I was wondering if someone could check their CD copy of the Boys Don't Cry album.
On my version, the U.S. Elektra release, there's a really obvious flaw at the beginning of Accuracy. However, there's no problem on my original German Three Imaginary Boys CD (Fiction).
I've also downloaded Accuracy from a P2P network (for comparison purposes only, haha), and it also had a problem. Seems it was from the Boys Don't Cry CD.
So I'm curious if other people's copies of this title also have this problem. :?
re Accuracy, is the flaw you speak of a little "click" or "thuck" or "tick" immediately after the first bass note? really quiet, kind of like the sound of a CD skipping?
ps I have what I think is the US Elektra release. the catalogue number is 9 60786-2..