Page 11 of 12
Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 6:37 am
by pzman
Zdan wrote:The Sentinel wrote:Has somebody heard the new "remastered/recorded" Master of Disguise cd set? Is it worth getting or a desecration of the original
Edit: Oh, I see the answer in the last post. But more opinions are usefull.
I would not call this a desecration. I would call a diffrent version - more modern and full sounding with more bottom end. To each his own but I don't think it's some sort of blasphemy.
Thx also for the info zdan, i should give this a go now
Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 1:06 pm
by Zdan
pzman wrote:Zdan wrote:The Sentinel wrote:Has somebody heard the new "remastered/recorded" Master of Disguise cd set? Is it worth getting or a desecration of the original
Edit: Oh, I see the answer in the last post. But more opinions are usefull.
I would not call this a desecration. I would call a diffrent version - more modern and full sounding with more bottom end. To each his own but I don't think it's some sort of blasphemy.
Thx also for the info zdan, i should give this a go now
Yeah it's definitely worth a go. It's not some nu-metal stuff. Just more bass-heavy production.
Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 3:24 pm
by omen of hate
Aftera first listen, I agree with Zdan, the remasters are good, the sound is a little heavier without denying the original sound.
Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 10:28 pm
by The Sentinel
Cheers for the info. I might pick it up then.
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:49 pm
by rumblefist
A very good remaster !
I recommmend it to SG fans !
You can't miss it !
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:31 pm
by ION BRITTON
Can't say that I liked the remastered sound. Drums are higher in the mix, especially the bass drum sound which is almost annoying at some parts and the vocals + guitars are a bit buried making the whole thing sound less energetic to my ears. Guess I'll stick to the old original versions.
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:21 pm
by akira
ION BRITTON wrote:Can't say that I liked the remastered sound. Drums are higher in the mix, especially the bass drum sound which is almost annoying at some parts and the vocals + guitars are a bit buried making the whole thing sound less energetic to my ears. Guess I'll stick to the old original versions.
According to Logue remixed and remastered version is the original sound. Sutton, the producer wanted to do like this, but Logue insisted on the sound like it is on the vinyl. So, this is Logue's way of making things right, correcting the original fault. This is the reason why it is remixed.
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:19 am
by Avenger
akira wrote:ION BRITTON wrote:Can't say that I liked the remastered sound. Drums are higher in the mix, especially the bass drum sound which is almost annoying at some parts and the vocals + guitars are a bit buried making the whole thing sound less energetic to my ears. Guess I'll stick to the old original versions.
According to Logue remixed and remastered version is the original sound. Sutton, the producer wanted to do like this, but Logue insisted on the sound like it is on the vinyl. So, this is Logue's way of making things right, correcting the original fault. This is the reason why it is remixed.
Nice marketing scheme, huh?
I think we've been over this here before haha...
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:42 am
by ION BRITTON
akira wrote:ION BRITTON wrote:Can't say that I liked the remastered sound. Drums are higher in the mix, especially the bass drum sound which is almost annoying at some parts and the vocals + guitars are a bit buried making the whole thing sound less energetic to my ears. Guess I'll stick to the old original versions.
According to Logue remixed and remastered version is the original sound. Sutton, the producer wanted to do like this, but Logue insisted on the sound like it is on the vinyl. So, this is Logue's way of making things right, correcting the original fault. This is the reason why it is remixed.
Yeah, I read that in the notes. I still prefer the original 'flawed' versions.
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:21 am
by Black Axe
Producers suck.
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:18 pm
by Avenger
How many bands have had they're material "remixed and remastered" and then claimed it to be "the way it was originally intended to sound" when such production qualities never even existed upon original release?
It's a gimmick.
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:27 pm
by MEXDefenderOfSteel
Avenger wrote:How many bands have had they're material "remixed and remastered" and then claimed it to be "the way it was originally intended to sound" when such production qualities never even existed upon original release?
It's a gimmick.
i think so too, plus remastring and remixing in a studio
these days can end in a different result that the ones expected back in the 80s, so i really don´t understand how can tha Savage Grace dude claim its the sound he intended back then...
anyway,i´m still gonna buy it
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:40 pm
by daniel
Got to say it doesn't matter to me what things sound like all that much, one version of a record is enough for me
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:01 pm
by rumblefist
I am not that elitist...
When i like a record/band like this 1 i don't mind to have both versions...
There's the bonus too...and booklets...
There is also new dudes of 20 years liking the old classic Metal who still don't have the habit of buying vinyl...so it makes sense this edt...
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:06 am
by mega_lodon
I have Savage Grace on LPs but I still buy the CDs. I can't remember when was the last time I played those LPs...
Both CDs arrived in the mail few days ago. Haven't got the time to play them. However I felt a bit disappointed with the covers at first glance - why they printed the colour so dark?
