For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
skipstone
The UMGs were done so fast it's almost as if Marcussen just uploaded the Virgin CDs to some program and clicked on MAKE LOUDER in some audio program.
Quote
studioramboQuote
skipstone
The UMGs were done so fast it's almost as if Marcussen just uploaded the Virgin CDs to some program and clicked on MAKE LOUDER in some audio program.
I don't get peoples insistence on characterising the UMG remasters as simply louder versions of the Virgin reissues. The EQ on the UMG's is simply wonderful compared to the Virgin's. Sites like Steve Hoffman's have incorrectly promoted a view that the only parameter of a remaster that matters is the dynamic range, and any messing with it renders an album unlistenable.
Quote
skipstone
I'm rather curious to the amount of time put into the Virgins by Ludwig and the UMGs by Marcussen. I wish I could find the damn article but I don't recall buying the issue but I believe it was in a Billboard magazine in 1994 about how Virgin had put tremendous effort into the remastering with finding the correct equipment and sources, which paid off for ABKCO in getting Ludwig to do the same. It quoted Mick too. From what I understand it essentially set the level of quality for remastering in the way it was handled, which was to make the CDs sound like the original vinyl masters.
The UMGs were done so fast it's almost as if Marcussen just uploaded the Virgin CDs to some program and clicked on MAKE LOUDER in some audio program.
Meanwhile, The Beatles remasters too FIVE years...
Quote
liddas
I expect UMG sales be similar to Virgin's prior to the change of label.
Probably they will go up when the new tour will start, if any.
Might be cynical, but I am ready to bet that UMG invested on the moment when the Stones, sooner or later, will call the quits.
As for the sound of the new remasters, they are the best thing available. Night and day compared to the Virgins. Problem is that nowdays very few people can tell the difference between a 128 mp3 and the real thing. If those who complain also discolsed what kind of equipment they use to play the new remasters, we would also understand why so many people think the UMGs are crap.
C
Quote
tatters
As for the sound of the new remasters, they are the best thing available. Night and day compared to the Virgins. Problem is that nowdays very few people can tell the difference between a 128 mp3 and the real thing. If those who complain also discolsed what kind of equipment they use to play the new remasters, we would also understand why so many people think the UMGs are crap.
C
Quote
FreeBird
Why would Steel Wheels sound differently? It was recorded digitally, so it can't gain any improvement from a better source tape or a better transfer. I don't have the Virgin remaster, but the original release sounds excellent, far better than any ABKCO album and still somewhat better than the more recent releases that preceded it.
Quote
tatters
When played on the SAME equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Virgins sound better than the UMGs. Also, when played on the same equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Beatles remasters sound wonderful, and the Stones remasters do not.
Quote
AP
And Emotional Rescue... I thought this album sucked for long years... now I see it as a true masterpiece. At least I was able to hear this on UMG for the first time.
Quote
liddasQuote
tatters
As for the sound of the new remasters, they are the best thing available. Night and day compared to the Virgins. Problem is that nowdays very few people can tell the difference between a 128 mp3 and the real thing. If those who complain also discolsed what kind of equipment they use to play the new remasters, we would also understand why so many people think the UMGs are crap.
C
When played on the SAME equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Virgins sound better than the UMGs. Also, when played on the same equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Beatles remasters sound wonderful, and the Stones remasters do not.
Well, that's a fair warning... It seems likely that they'd mess up Exile as well, unless someone (Mick?) decides to stop them from doing so. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess...Quote
tattersQuote
liddasQuote
tattersQuote
liddas
As for the sound of the new remasters, they are the best thing available. Night and day compared to the Virgins. Problem is that nowdays very few people can tell the difference between a 128 mp3 and the real thing. If those who complain also discolsed what kind of equipment they use to play the new remasters, we would also understand why so many people think the UMGs are crap.
C
When played on the SAME equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Virgins sound better than the UMGs. Also, when played on the same equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Beatles remasters sound wonderful, and the Stones remasters do not.
I am not a Beatle expert. I bought only two of their remasters and I was not over impressed. Probably becasue I only have the LPs and never bought a Beatle cd before. Truly I am not in the position to discuss Beatles.
UMG vs Virgin Stones. Despite all the general consensus on the issue, as anybody who has a turntable and a cd player can confirm, the Virgin release was "closer" to the vinyl version than the earlier CBS release, and was a huge step in that direction (the CBS edition was truly crap) but the vinyl version is still ahead.
Compared to the Virgins, the sound on the UMGs is more articulated, more defined, bass and drums above all, its more musical, less separation, less digital silences. In particular the work on the bass is something that can't be appreciated on low level CD players.
All in all the UMGs are still different from the vinyl versions, but this time in a positive way. I would not say they are better, but they are a great alternative.
C
All I know is the UMGs make my ears hurt and the Virgins don't. I think anyone here who has NOT heard the UMG remasters, and IS planning on buying Exile Deluxe, may be in for quite a shock. I know many people think the UMGs of later albums like IORR and BAB sound great, but based on how older albums like Sticky Fingers and GHS sound, I have to say I am VERY concerned about the Exile remastering. It could be horrendous.
Quote
alimenteQuote
AP
And Emotional Rescue... I thought this album sucked for long years... now I see it as a true masterpiece. At least I was able to hear this on UMG for the first time.
And you really think thats because of the UMG remastering? Or was it extraordinarily good weed that did the trick?
Come on, tell us! Since day one I wanted to see ER as a true masterpiece.... but up until now I couldnt.