Best CD versions of Iron Maiden albums.

Forostar said:
Come on Yax. The guitar channels were only flipped on one album (Defenders.. to Tipton's disliking).
But these are great remasters, never thought the sound was worse (actually British Steel sounds way stronger, and Unleashed also sounds at least as strong) and they had interesting bonus tracks.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. I greatly prefer the original masters of British Steel and Unleashed. I will concede, however, that the remaster may be an improvement over the original mastering of Sin After Sin, which sounded pretty weak and thin, IMO. And, Forostar correctly points out that the remasters (like many other remastered releases) do include some valuable bonus tracks. But Foro makes an even more important point that deserves highlighting -- to some extent, this is a matter of personal taste, and if you hear one of the old 1980s Maiden CDs and strongly prefer the remaster, then go with that and enjoy! Or, if you're perfectly happy with your remastered versions, then keep them and stay happy. You could drive yourself crazy turning over your CD collection to replace them with older or more expensive audiophile releases. I simply wanted to alert folks to the fact that there is indeed a difference, the dynamic range of the original mastering is indisputably greater, and most people (myself included) prefer the earlier versions. At the very least, if you already own the old CDs, definitely don't blindly get rid of them in favor of the remasters on the assumption that remastering=better. Compare them yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

LooseCannon said:
my contribution here is irrelevant
Click to expand...

Always good to get an (increasingly less common, unfortunately) Loosey sighting.
 
It would've been nice if they found somebody to "properly" remaster all the albums
a few years ago when CDs were still profitable items.

If I knew that new CD versions would definitely have the best possible sound,
then I would buy them and replace the 90s remasters that I have.

Oddly enough, I went out of my way last year to buy an original 1986 Japanese CD
pressing of SOMEWHERE IN TIME because I read that it was a vastly superior version...
but it kinda disappointed me. (Maybe my ears became accustomed to the 90s remaster?)
 
Yax said:
Funny you bring up British Steel, It's the one I feel suffers the most. I hate what he did to British Steel - My favorite metal production. Original release was perfect and I don't want it tampered with in any way, shapre or form. Keep your hands off the EQ thank you very much. The extra compression on the drums
and master bus is a given since it's a remaster, but for the love of god, leave the guitar sound as it was. It was perfect.
Click to expand...
I feel the drums can be heard better (Rapid Fire is a great example) but also the rhythm guitars, and well, everything to a certain extent sounds more in your face. Maybe I like all this because I am a drum buff. ;-)
Cornfed Hick said:
I respectfully disagree. I greatly prefer the original masters of British Steel and Unleashed. I will concede, however, that the remaster may be an improvement over the original mastering of Sin After Sin, which sounded pretty weak and thin, IMO.
Click to expand...
I'd apply that thinness to more Priest albums, such as British Steel. Only in hindsight of course (I only became aware of it after hearing the remaster) Always loved the content of the album itself, but I really think that the remaster gave it a fuller sounding edge. It's fantastic when playing it loud in the car on the highway. But then again, Priest is the best highway music anyway. :)

Another problem with both Maiden and Priest remasters (or remasters in general): wrong cutting of the tracks.
For example, on Sin After Sin some ignorant fool cut off the intro from Here Come the Tears (and if I remember well also Powerslave's intro was cut off). Very annoying.

Good to see you back LC!
 
Evening guys, a bit off topic but I'm thinking of asking for a vinyl for Christmas. Being a young lad, I don't have much money, is there anybody on here from the UK who could tell me how much records cost roughly from an actual record/music shop?

Thanks
 
______no5 said:
Fantastic topic. How did I ever miss it?? Anyway, since I can't pin it, I bookmarked it.
Click to expand...
#5: If you want to really take a deep dive, click here. The folks at the Steve Hoffman Forums are a bit over-the-top with their charts, tables, waveforms, etc., as you'll see, and too often they favor the really expensive rare versions they spent a lot of money on, which no doubt reflects a desire to rationalize or justify that purchase, so beware of that bias. Still, it's not a bad resource if you want to find out what the audiophile snobs think are the best-sounding versions, or at least whether the latest remaster sounds better or worse than the earlier version. Linking to an Iron Maiden-specific thread, but they have threads on pretty much every band or album you can think of.
 
Amazing. About 1000 members online right now, top posting member about 100k posts. Bookmarked. Thanks!

EDIT: Those guys are crazy! :bigsmile:
 
My copy of Number of the Beast is from the 80s, it still has the blue background on the cover, the CD is much more plain-looking (no picture disc), and Total Eclipse isn't even in the track listing. I'm pretty sure this is the only original I have.
 
I haven't listened to the older CD's in while, but I do remember the remasters sounding punchier to me. Of course I'm sure that's due to compression. One thing I hate is how the intro to that track Powerslave is at the end of Back in the Village, I never understood that.
 
The remasters are not punchier, they are louder and harsher. If you control between the two by turning up the volume on the older releases so they are at a comparable level, the older releases have MUCH more "punch" -- the drum beats smack harder, the cymbal crashes sound like crashes, the solos really stand out, etc. That's what dynamic range IS.
 
I completely agree,and I`ve been a fan since I first heard them in the mid 80`s..The current Maiden cds remastered in 1998 and everything released since are awful sounding.
I don`t think the band or their manager realize how overly loud bright and too compressed these cds sound.It`s too bad Maiden completely ruined their recordings because there are really some nice natural sounding dynamics to be heard without using all that wonky EQ.
A good example of a modern remaster would be the 2009 Black Sabbath Master Of Reality deluxe edition by Andy Pierce,The Who`s Next SACD recently released in Japan,or listen to the gold cd remasters by the Audio Fidelity label of The Scorpions Love At First Sting,Dio Holy Diver,Last In Line,or Deep Purple Machine Head,just to name a few great sounding remastered classics done the right way.
Why don`t Iron Maiden care about how their music sounds on cd? I know plenty of longtime fans like myself who sure do think it can and deservingly should be remastered as good as the titles I mentioned above.
If any insiders here have connections to the band could you please pass this along to them?
Cheers!
 
I have the 1998 re releases of the first 9 studio albums + LaD and Donington, and the rest are the actual releases. They all sound great
 
2 Years? Hell, I would’ve just given you one after that long. I’ve got the EMI and the Epic originals and I can’t remember off hand if they sound the same or not. I know the EMI for No Prayer sounded better than the Epic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top