Is the 1986 remastering of the 3 CD compilation "Singles Collection - The London Years" much different from the 2007 remastering of "Rolled Gold Plus"?

The Singles Collection contains the A and B sides while Rolled Gold contains mainly only the A sides of the singles.

I would think the 2002 remastering of The London Years is better regardless of what balloon blowing ABKCO did with Rolled Gold Plus.

How can those even be compared?

London Years is essential, Rolled Gold is not...'nuff said!

London Years by a country mile

The singles collection was released in 1989 and Rolled Gold is a superb hi-fi adventure compared with the '89-release but there's no difference in sound quality between the re-release of the singles collection from 2002 and rolled gold.

rolled gold was originally released on vinyl nearly everywhere in the world except for the North American market (at least I think it wasn't out in Canada as well) in 1975 and on CD it's - from my point of view - an excellent re-release of the best 60s hit-collection ever. But that's me.

Rolled Gold was the album with which it all began for me back in 1975...

The copyright of my remastered "London Years" is 1986 ... not 1989. So what's the difference between 1986 and 2002 remaster? Is the 2002 version any better and worth buying, when I own the 1986 version?

I bought my copy of the singles collection back in 89. Is the remastered version so much better - worth to buy?

Sonically, its a vast improvement, at least for my ears. But check out a couple of tracks - preferably lossless - from the various torrent sites out there and decide for yourself if its worth to shell out money once more for product you already own.

>Sonically, its a vast improvement, at least for my ears.

Mine too.

Didn't the remaster lose the extended outro to "The Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man" that first surfaced on the original THE LONDON YEARS?

Yes, that is exactly right Glam, and for that reason alone us Completists must maintain both versions of this set, the original and the remaster. I actually have the original boxset size on cassette with the giant lyric book, too.

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Yes, that is exactly right Glam, and for that reason alone us Completists must maintain both versions of this set, the original and the remaster. I actually have the original boxset size on cassette with the giant lyric book, too.

..........and, if memory serves me right, in 2002 they picked an early fade of 'Tell Me' rather than the proper single version which was on the 1989 box.

The London Years all the way.

If you wanted one single document of their Decca-era, then this collection is the one.

Quote
Orbit

..........and, if memory serves me right, in 2002 they picked an early fade of 'Tell Me' rather than the proper single version which was on the 1989 box.

Another error on the '89 release was of course the inclusion of the 'guitar' version of Time Is On My Side, when it should have been the - inferior - 'organ' rendition: thankfully rectified, of course.

2002 London Years...By far the best....I have both the 89 & 2002 and Klein did a better job in 2002...The scad remaster is far better sounding..

London Years almost makes anything else by ABKCO redundant. Well, comp wise. One must have Beggars and Bleed and Aftermath for certain. The rest of 'em...no big deal.

Strange: the copyright of my (old version) remastered "London Years" is "1986" on the backside of the cd-cover ... but "1989" on the backside of the booklet inside ... can anybody explain?

Asking again: the copyright of my (old version) remastered "London Years" is "1986" on the backside of the cd-cover ... but "1989" on the backside of the booklet inside ... can anybody explain?

I think they were remastered for CD release in '86 but THE LONDON YEARS itself was released in '89.

London Years came out right after Steel Wheels if I recall correctly.

Personally it's the best box set I've ever bought.