Urine Extraction as an Art-form

Posted by: J.N. on 02 April 2015

FFS!

 

 

Inevitably inferior sounding remasters of course.

 

John.

Posted on: 02 April 2015 by joerand

 

You can choose the external catheter ....

 

 

... or the internal catheter.

 

Posted on: 03 April 2015 by Kevin-W

Perhaps John, it is a message from the good Lord, telling you not to listen to Genesis, but spend your time and money on something better, more noble, more nourishing.

Posted on: 03 April 2015 by fatcat
Originally Posted by J.N.:

Inevitably inferior sounding remasters of course.

 

 

What makes you think Jimmy page remastered them.

Not all remastered recordings turn out badly, plenty of recording engineers out there with good hearing.

Posted on: 03 April 2015 by Clive B
Originally Posted by Kevin-W:

Perhaps John, it is a message from the good Lord, telling you not to listen to Genesis, but spend your time and money on something better, more noble, more nourishing.

That is fighting talk, Kevin!

 

Oh, hang on a minute, it's 1980s Genesis. In which case you're absolutely right. 

Posted on: 03 April 2015 by J.N.
Originally Posted by fatcat:
Originally Posted by J.N.:

Inevitably inferior sounding remasters of course.

 

 

What makes you think Jimmy page remastered them.

Not all remastered recordings turn out badly, plenty of recording engineers out there with good hearing.

Please give me directions to your planet. It sounds like a lovely place.

 

John.

Posted on: 03 April 2015 by fatcat
Originally Posted by J.N.:
Originally Posted by fatcat:
Originally Posted by J.N.:

Inevitably inferior sounding remasters of course.

 

 

What makes you think Jimmy page remastered them.

Not all remastered recordings turn out badly, plenty of recording engineers out there with good hearing.

Please give me directions to your planet. It sounds like a lovely place.

 

John.

Verace Major. You'll find it between the lines.

 

Can I take it you haven’t been following the thread concerning Page’s abysmal attempt at remastering Physical Graffiti.

Posted on: 03 April 2015 by SongStream

In almost all cases I prefer the original master to the print-money-master that usually follows.  Even within Naim's own label there are examples of mixing desk madness, promoted under the umbrella of 'HD'.  Meet me in London is a classic example, for me the original sounds great, but I foolishly downloaded the hi-res re-mastered version, and guess what, I prefer, by far, the original mix.  Same with Norah Jones, Led Zeppelin blah etc.  However, there are exceptions.

 

In my youth, I owned an album on cassette tape by Simple Minds called 'Real Life', and even though it sounded terrible technically, I still liked it.  Later I owned the CD and that sounded terrible too, but again, I could tolerate it for nostalgic reasons.  In the last few months I rediscovered a clearly different master of the album on Qobuz, and while not perfection, it is enough better that you have to wonder what the original engineers were thinking.  If it can sound this good, how did they make it sound so utterly awful?

Posted on: 03 April 2015 by J.N.

Even within Naim's own label there are examples of mixing desk madness, promoted under the umbrella of 'HD'

 

Agreed; and never mind HD. Anyone got the album by 'AM' called 'Future Sons and Daughters' on the Naim label? If you like it, get hold of the original USA manufactured article on the Filter label. That version sounds obviously better to these ears.

 

John.