Wow...I didnt realize Bowie did sutch a botch job. Is there any difference between his first remastered series and the 2disc series? I'm curious to find out.
Lou's stuff has always sounded remarkably good (quality-wise as opposed to content!) in comparison to to his peers' stuff put out at the same time. He has always been sortof a techno-geek.
Hey Replacement, how do you feel about the sound quality in the Take No Prisoners update? I have a great audio system at home but listen to most of my stuff in the car so many of the "little" things dont make it to my ears.
Lou needs a lesson from Bowie when it comes to remasters!
Bargain bin gold, favorite bands, concerts, photos, and my record collection: All Good Music
-
MeirRachel
- Beginning to see the light
- Posts: 44
- Joined: 18 May 2004 20:05
While I agree that Lou's remasters could have been improved with outtakes to entice the collector, I also think that Lou just doesn't have the market Bowie does. Seems like if someone like Dylan can only improve the sound of 15 of his albums then what chance would Lou have with a much smaller fan base?
I've heard some producers and engineers on other boards speculate that this is done because of the mp3 revolution. If you're going to try to get people to legally download music, you have to squish the dynamic range of the recording to fit into the reduced spectrum of that format, so that the downloaded file won't sound noticably inferior to the CD. Which is a damn shame. Technology should always move in the direction of improving sound reproduction. What is the point of digital audio otherwise?Replacement wrote:the atrocious compression that most remasters are using nowadays to slam the levels, i.e. making everything loud but having to squeeze, smoosh, and squash out the dynamics in order to accomodate the signal
"For one human being to love another: that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks; the ultimate, the last test and proof, the work for which all other work is but preparation." - Rainer Maria Rilke