'Remastered for iTunes' - All albums re-released! Discuss.

I will also get Iron Maiden. I don't have the 1998 version on my mp3 player anymore (I just have the originals), and this is for sure better than the original CD converted release.
 
I'm just comparing Phantom right now to the Phantom clip, and it's leaps and bounds better. To my admittedly untrained ears, it sounds like a little more Steve in my life.
 
Overlord said:
Yeah well 'some' of us out there have audio systems that play music and don't want to listen to it through iphone tat.
Click to expand...
Lossless isn't everything though, even though it's better than a data compressed file. Far from it, once you get past a certain bitrate. Nor is audio equipment. A 320 mp3 on decent studio monitors in a well treated room > Lossless with very expensive monitors in an untreated room. I love listening on headphones too though.


Moving on.

The original self titled release suffers from some very icky 2 khz problems in the overall mix (plus there's a lot of distortion on my CD converted version, mostly on the guitars. ), and horrible vocal sound. The new remaster is a giant improvement. Much easier on the ears, and the vocal sound is good.
 
Overlord said:
Yeah well 'some' of us out there have audio systems that play music and don't want to listen to it through iphone tat.
Click to expand...
Then you're clearly not the target audience for the release. I also have an audio system that plays music, and I'm currently listening to the samples through it, and it sounds just fine to me. It's not lossless, and I can hear the difference when I spin an actual CD, but it's not big enough for me, or 99% of people who buy music, to get chuffed about. It's not like Iron Maiden has destroyed copies of the CDs out there, 98 remasters or original. There's no need to get angsty.

Most people nowadays do listen to music on the go in low-quality earphones, and prefer the convenience of the iTunes Store or Google Play (my preference). Iron Maiden likes to make money, so they figure, they're trying to make the next album the biggest release, why not amp it up, remaster the old catalog, make some money - and be ready for new, young fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yax
Whether something is 256 Kbps or lossless is far less important, in my view, than whether the mastering sounds good. The new remaster of Iron Maiden does sound pretty good -- the cymbals sound more natural, probably due to using a better source, namely, the original master tape. It is less dynamic than my original U.S. Capitol CD, which is still my favorite digital version (better than the UK or the Japanese "black triangle"), and the bass has been boosted significantly in the EQ, which muddies things a bit. But if all you have is the '98, I do recommend this new mastering.
 
Yax said:
I just listened to the AMOLAD remaster samples. It's a nice mastering job. I'll stick with the original though, but the mastering job is very well done, by the standards mastering are done nowadays.

And in the process I found some more sliiiight auto tune on Bruce's vocals. :D
I'll never be able to ignore it now. :facepalm:
Click to expand...
That's exceedingly irritating, thanks for the warning. I'll stick with the un-mastered version as well.
 
Surprised to see such high praise, usually these remasters suck. Will have to check one of these out.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
Right, he thinks the sound improved because the guitars are "louder" and the drums are "more substantial" (i.e., louder). To quote Ian Gillen: everything louder than everything else. And that's how the clips I sampled on iTunes sound. Now, in fairness, those quotes are referencing the debut album, and I will listen to the clips from that album more closely. The problem with that album is that it wasn't produced very well to begin with, and while it's possible the sonics could have been improved, my guess is that it will still sound poorly produced, only louder and more compressed.

Generally, better digital mastering technology should allow the instruments to sound clearer and more defined relative to one another, which would be a plus. Again, if and when we get a hi-res download of the flat (uncompressed, un-EQ'ed, un-fucked-with) transfer from the master tapes, then I'll be much more excited. That should sound even better than the old 80s CDs, which are currently still the best available digital recordings of the classic Maiden albums. However, within the last two days Pono and HDTracks have been offering a hi-res (96khz/24 bit) download of the 2015 remastered Rock in Rio, and it is discouraging. Haven't heard it yet on a decent stereo, but it sounds "brickwalled" and the metrics seem to confirm that: See here. Based on this, I'm concerned Maiden will probably screw this up even if they do make the entire catalog available for hi-res download.
Click to expand...
I hear what you're saying Cornfed. Still I think that Steve and probably some other people who are interested have wishes in relation to improvement, that are more or less independent from yours. I agree that a combination of these would be best.
 
Yax said:
The auto tune is on the original as well. It's not added to the remaster.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I never noticed it on the original. I'll have to take a closer listen. There are a few places on TFF (MoM and Talisman) where it's very apparent, that's the only time it's jumped out at me.
 
OK. I'm not an audiophile or anything but now I'm seriously considering downloading those just to have a good quality Maiden catalog on my computer.

EDIT: Or maybe not, the Onkyo music store is only available for people in UK, Germany and the US. WTF :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top