are there any decent uncompressed classic rock remasters?

[Mart]

Everytime I pick-up an uncompressed/expanded remaster of that psychedelic era the sound is thin. It is like some no-noise clipping has amputated the life out of the recording. Now while the sound is reinflated to resurrect life & dimension back into the dead flat sound, the guts have been removed. So, now you have a holographic facsimilie instead of a photograph. What's with this damned if you do, & damned if you don't BS? You would think dynamic expansion would automatically make low-level noise that much less audible automatically, why impose MP3 sound & clip low-level details that render authenticity? Am I missing something? I want uncompressed sound for increased authenticity. Then when I'm about to get it, someone in the signal chain rudely cuts me off. Is it simply about putting out something differentm, or is it an annoying marketing ploy to buy the next rerelease in an insatiable trek?

I don't know. But the more I am exposed to this BS, the more I like the idea of DTS encodimg unadulterated tracks. No folding down of tracks into stereo & less processing distortion. Also, I still feel from arttending jam sessions that "music" occurs between the artists. IMHO, that which is projected into the audience is comparitively veiled shadow of the art.

What's your take?

[Sckott]

You'd have to have an open mind about things and ask specific questions to the many people here (ie: Byrds reissues, and which ones of certain issues, Mono or stereo, etc)

The open mind part comes into owning a strong turntable playback. Sometimes a $2 used record can tower over most any CD issue, and vice versa.

When buying music, a lot of people have their own plan of attack (or attack at all sides). Also, don't be afraid to experiment and try new things for knowledge value. You might also feel that your opinion is more valueable to you than everyone else's.

Do you have music in mind that you want to ask about? Many of us have traveled in experience that you might benefit from.

[Andy]

Huh??? I havn't put that much thought into the last three dams we designed.

[Holy Zoo]

Originally posted by Andy
Huh??? I havn't put that much thought into the last three dams we designed.

Andy, you design Dams for al living?!

[Andy]

Not really I work for an engineering firm and we do "stuff" right now we are working with the BIA and alot of Indian Reservations on water rights projects. There are alot of very old earthen dams that are in need of repairs or complete replacement. Next year it could be roads or a waterline or whatever.

[Mart]

Originally posted by Sckott
You'd have to have an open mind about things and ask specific questions to the many people here (ie: Byrds reissues, and which ones of certain issues, Mono or stereo, etc)

The open mind part comes into owning a strong turntable playback. Sometimes a $2 used record can tower over most any CD issue, and vice versa.

When buying music, a lot of people have their own plan of attack (or attack at all sides). Also, don't be afraid to experiment and try new things for knowledge value. You might also feel that your opinion is more valueable to you than everyone else's.

Do you have music in mind that you want to ask about? Many of us have traveled in experience that you might benefit from.

I don't recall the titles but do remember buying some remasters from groups like Cream or Moody Blues in the hopes that someone used better equipment than MFSL or used more pristine original mastertapes. As it is, I think my DTS CDs of Moody Blues is the least compressed.

However, Cream sounds pail & thin compared to my MFSL. Yet, my Cream MFSL CD still sounds plagued sonically like it was smeared & dimensionless. It makes me wonder if they ever made a quadraphonic album. At least that way, I can hope for a future DTS release.

FWIW, I often witness this shortcoming emphisized even futher on compilation albums.

[Dave]

Andy,

Have you heard DCCs Fresh Cream or Wheels Of Fire?

If not I highly recommend Wheels Of Fire as I never liked any live Cream until I heard Steves version. A truely listening altering recording.:D

[Richard Feirstein]

There is no such thing. Reel to reel recorders had limiters and compressers built in. It was up to the operater to keep levels low enough not to invoke those devices beyond what the artist and producer had in mind. Bass elimination was also part of the process back the the good old days (not universal). I expect great reissues like Mr. Holly's recordings, is a good as it gets from those old mono and stereo masters.

[Holy Zoo]

are there any decent uncompressed classic rock remasters?


While not from the psychadelic era, I think the Rush remasters are pretty decent (well, the 3 that I have), although they still seem to be missing a certain magic element that I remember from my old vinyl. I haven't paid attention specifically for compression levels on the new discs, but they seem to be fairly true to the originals. (All from memory, of course).

[Jeffrey]

Hi,

Yea, the new Grateful Dead 1965-1973 Warners box meets that definition. The remastered cd's are better than the original cd releases and if compressed, it's very limited.

Let It Rock,
Jeffrey

[Dave]

HZ,

I can honestly say, after extensive listening, that the Rush remasters are really good in fact there's not a whole lot of difference between them and the MFSL versions.

Don't know about the vinyl though. Can't remember that far back.:rolleyes:

[Andy]

I just ordered Wheels of Fire from Amazon $47 bucks. How did Red Trumpet come up with $119.99???

[Richard Feirstein]

Remember, if you had a disk pressing stereo master with too much bass, especially stereo bass, the stylis on most systems would not track, it you did not adequately compress low sounds would get lost in the noise. The true master tapes (if they can be found) might have been mastered with less than full fidelity in mind. The recordings often matched the needs of radio play and record play. The reel to reel medium, prior to Dolby A had relative limited dynamic range. Thus all sorts of tricks were used to get a decent commercial product one could use in the real world. That so many of those sound so good today on modern systems tells you how good those old guys were at makeing those tough choices. Heck, try to find a new recording with full dynamic range, etc., (it would not play well on the radio or that one speaker setup in your TV set - and those things have to be considered.)

[Dave]

Andy,

Good call. I don't know where these companys come up with these prices as they're absolutely.......(place favourite explainative here).

I swear man that you will be impressed with Steves sound on this album.;)

Please repost when you give this one a listen as I'd like to know your opinion.

[Drew]

I think the 20 bit RUSH remaster of 2112 is very shrill in the high end, and the MFSL Gold 2112 blows it away easily. On the other hand, I found the 20 bit remaster of Signals far more enjoyable than any other version of this album including the MFSL Gold (I remember when big Rush fans thought they got too mellow with this release in '82).


The 20 bit remaster of Power Windows is much louder than the original release it replaced from the mid 80's. Hold onto your chair on the downbeat of "The Big Money" or it will knock you off your seat.

I can hear more detail in the 20 bit remasters but listen to these CD's and try to tell me the treble isn't boosted on all of them at least a little bit.

[Mart]

I have MFSL's Rush: Moving Pictures (big surprise ... yeah, right ;) ) & 2112. To me there's a digital artificial edge remaining on the 2112 album. I think it needs that temporal smoothing software technique I heard a fellow DCC member used on some other MFSL album to remaster out low-level digital aggressiveness.