2015 Remasters on CD

srfc

Ancient Mariner
I think the release dates seem to have been changed on the official site, I'm almost certain the next batch were originally listed as being available in February but it's now saying March
 

Number 6

Ancient Mariner
I think the release dates seem to have been changed on the official site, I'm almost certain the next batch were originally listed as being available in February but it's now saying March
Yes, it appears to have been changed. But only the second one.

https://consequenceofsound.net/2018/10/iron-maiden-the-studio-collection-remastered/
http://loudwire.com/iron-maidens-remastered-studio-albums-arriving-cd/
https://www.planetrock.com/news/rock-news/iron-maidens-remastered-studio-albums-to-be-released-on-digipak-cd/

All these articles have Feb 2019 listed as the second batch's release date.
 

chaosapiant

Ancient Marinade
I have a dilemma. As of week before last, I have completed both vinyl boxsets of the 2015-2017 180 gram remasters. However I have these as collector's items; I don't own a record player at this time. My CD collection of Maiden is the 98 remasters. I also have a handful of the digital Onkyo 2015 remasters. Is it worth it to get the CD remasters so I can have them for my car? What I usually do anyway is rip everything to 320kbps MP3 and store the CDs. Or should I finish my collection of the digital albums and either convert those to 320kbps MP3 or rip them to CD? If money isn't an object here, what's the best choice to have the best audio in my car?
 

chaosapiant

Ancient Marinade
Too late. I already ordered the 4 released remaster/digipaks. I have a DVD somewhere of the 1980s albums ripped from the original Black Triangle Japanese albums also. I can't find it though. I like collecting Maiden anyway, so this'll be fine. Everything is fine.
 

Randalf

Ancient Mariner
Maybe it's just that I'm too used to shitty mixes and whatnot, but I really like most of these remasters a lot. Sure, originals are undoubtedly better, but even a non-audiophile such as myself (who still has some standards and enjoys good sound a lot) can hear the improvement over the 1998 ones.

Considering that those '98 remasters dominated the market, both digital and physical, of easily acquirable basic Maiden releases for two decades is some kind of an abomination and whatever faults these 2015 ones might have I honestly think that they're very good and it's cool to have remasters available of the albums from 1995 onwards as well - though only digital for now, but anyway.

I'm happy enough and these releases are great to have around for any new, younger fans potentially interested in physical records. These aren't that bad of a start for them. :)

I can see that owners of the original releases aren't that excited, but I'm a bit surprised about the amount of negative comments that were around (not necessarily here, but in general, Facebook and all) when these were announced; "pointless" they called these but considering the previously mentioned factors I'd say that there actually IS a point in these, even though the CD market isn't really that strong now anyway.
 

Number 6

Ancient Mariner
Most of the people who complain about remasters or reissues being pointless are already established fans who (unless they're fierce Maiden collectors) shouldn't give two craps about the new releases, because it's expected that they already own the albums in whatever format. What they keep forgetting is that Maiden is bigger today than they've ever been, and they remain conquering newer generations of fans every few years. These newer fans are the target audience for these reissues.
 

Caio F.

Prowler
It all depends on how perfectionist one is.

There is some consensus that vynil delivers the purest of sounds, due to it being a physical media and able to contain more information, thus having no quality loss due to digital sampling. But of course you need to have decent turntable and needles. The downside is this is a fixed system.

Generally a 320 kbps MP3 file will be suficient. Most people do not have trained ears and hi fi sound systems and won't be able to differentiate a 320 kbps MP3 from an WAV file, considered a lossless file.
 

Number 6

Ancient Mariner
Generally a 320 kbps MP3 file will be suficient. Most people do not have trained ears and hi fi sound systems and won't be able to differentiate a 320 kbps MP3 from an WAV file, considered a lossless file.
Depending on the song, MP3 can reach transparency at 192kbps.
 

chaosapiant

Ancient Marinade
My intention is to get and rip the remasters to 320 mp3 since my car plays thumb drive. It’s close enough to CD audio that I can’t hear the difference in car speakers and I’ll still get the benefit of remastered sound. I’ll keep my existing rips from the 98 remasters so I can keep those three songs that aren’t on the new ones. Yay!
 

Caio F.

Prowler
Depending on the song, MP3 can reach transparency at 192kbps.
It depends on the quality of the original recording.

Let's say you have produced a track that was originally outputted as an uncompressed WAV file. If you compress it to 192 and 320 kbps MP3 files there will definitely be a difference between the MP3s.

One mistake people do is to convert a low bitrate to a higher bitrate file, eg. from 192 to 320 kbps and expect an increase in quality.

And of course it also depends on the quality of the sound system you're playing them through. If you run them through hi fi PA systems such as those used in clubs you will notice a big difference, but if you play them through your cellphone's speakers you won't be able to differentiate.

DJs always use to play high quality track files in clubs. The minimum considered to be of decent quality is a 320 kbps MP3. Other than that would be WAV, FLAC, AIFF etc.
 

Number 6

Ancient Mariner
Let's say you have produced a track that was originally outputted as an uncompressed WAV file. If you compress it to 192 and 320 kbps MP3 files there will definitely be a difference between the MP3s.
Not always. Like I said, depending on the song, 192kbps MP3 can be transparent.
 

srfc

Ancient Mariner
Generally a 320 kbps MP3 file will be suficient. Most people do not have trained ears and hi fi sound systems and won't be able to differentiate a 320 kbps MP3 from an WAV file, considered a lossless file.
I think in a once off head to head test that's true.

But, I find I do most of my listening on my ipod in my car. When I get a chance to sit down and listen to a proper album on my hifi the jump in quality is obvious.
 

chaosapiant

Ancient Marinade
I think in a once off head to head test that's true.

But, I find I do most of my listening on my ipod in my car. When I get a chance to sit down and listen to a proper album on my hifi the jump in quality is obvious.
How much of the jump in quality is due to the format being played vs the sound system you're playing it through? I think everyone agree that CDs and Vinyl and lossless formats are the best as preserving the original mastered audio. But the real question is, at what point can you hear it? 320kbps MP3s that are ripped straight from CD or a lossless format almost always sound just as good to me. I often like to think I can hear the difference if I listen close, but I bet I'd fail that Pepsi challenge more often than not.
 

Caio F.

Prowler
How much of the jump in quality is due to the format being played vs the sound system you're playing it through? I think everyone agree that CDs and Vinyl and lossless formats are the best as preserving the original mastered audio. But the real question is, at what point can you hear it? 320kbps MP3s that are ripped straight from CD or a lossless format almost always sound just as good to me. I often like to think I can hear the difference if I listen close, but I bet I'd fail that Pepsi challenge more often than not.
A 320 kbps MP3 and a lossless format do have differences, but you may only be able to notice on hi fi systems such as studio monitor speakers for music production. These kind of monitors are designed to deliver the flattest frequency response possible by not adding "color" to the sound, therefore reproducing the most accurate audio possible. It's also worth noting that the ambient in which you are will influence the sound quality. In an acoustic treated ambient like a home or professional studio you can definitely notice the difference.

For most daily cases a 320 kbps will be more than sufficient.
 

srfc

Ancient Mariner
How much of the jump in quality is due to the format being played vs the sound system you're playing it through?
I notice the same jump when I play a CD in the car. It's only little things like cymbals sounding better, but it's enough of a difference to know that I'd never want to have mp3's as the only option.
 
Top