Differences between original and re-issues Vs and Vitalogy

Feiraco

As the Ten-album had obvious studio-influences, there was a clear difference with the more raw song editions of the 2009 Legacy edition.

I only have heard a few songs of the Vs/Vitalogy reissue and am wondering whether these songs are (hearable) different compared to the 1990s versions, which already were quite raw. Having them more raw would be great.

But reviews of the re-issue focus mainly of the difference between the packages and the extra's like Hold On, Cready Stomp, Crazy Mazy and the Boston concert.

Ledbetterman10

Ten was remixed. This was just remastered.

81

not enough to justify the cost...great for new fans, not so much if you already own the album

SVRDhand13

I didn't hear a difference but it was a nice way for me to get both albums at a cheaper price than the original vinyls.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

Remastered=S100 more expensive....Right???


So there is the difference between the 2...

$100

PilateOfTheStorm

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

Ten was remixed. This was just remastered.

can someone explain the difference between remixed and remastered?

i own quite a few remastered cd's - pj, led zepp etc. but don't know how they are different?
is that why the Ten reissue sounded so much different? Because it was remixed?

edit: looking at the remix/master of ten now, remembering how it had two cds - there's a remix and a remaster. what's the difference between these two versions of Ten? i always listen to the remix, but never even noticed the remaster much...

Ledbetterman10

PilateOfTheStorm wrote:

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

Ten was remixed. This was just remastered.

can someone explain the difference between remixed and remastered?

i own quite a few remastered cd's - pj, led zepp etc. but don't know how they are different?
is that why the Ten reissue sounded so much different? Because it was remixed?

edit: looking at the remix/master of ten now, remembering how it had two cds - there's a remix and a remaster. what's the difference between these two versions of Ten? i always listen to the remix, but never even noticed the remaster much...

The remaster of Ten (like the Zeppelin remasters) are the exact same mixes as always but are "cleaner" for lack of a better term. The remix of Ten has some instruments/vocals higher or lower than they were in the original mix and most of the reverb was taken off the Ten remix as well making is sound much different.

joe2468

as said before ... a re-master is just "cleaning" up the original ... for the re-mix .. its as if they or mixing the CD all over again .. the levels of all the instruments and vocals are all changed .for better or for worse ...

perfect example is PORCH ....... you can hear the difference in the first few seconds . if you ask me the remix is hands down so much better then the original

Ledbetterman10

joe2468 wrote:

if you ask me the remix is hands down so much better then the original

Me too. Other than hearing songs on the radio, I haven't once listened to the original mix since the remix was released.

Jon Chorba

joe2468 wrote:

perfect example is PORCH ....... you can hear the difference in the first few seconds . if you ask me the remix is hands down so much better then the original

Agreed.I think the whole remix of Ten is better than the original mixes.

cippociappo

Jon Chorba wrote:

joe2468 wrote:

perfect example is PORCH ....... you can hear the difference in the first few seconds . if you ask me the remix is hands down so much better then the original

Agreed.I think the whole remix of Ten is better than the original mixes.

I agree

NothinMan

PilateOfTheStorm wrote:

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

Ten was remixed. This was just remastered.

can someone explain the difference between remixed and remastered?

i own quite a few remastered cd's - pj, led zepp etc. but don't know how they are different?
is that why the Ten reissue sounded so much different? Because it was remixed?

edit: looking at the remix/master of ten now, remembering how it had two cds - there's a remix and a remaster. what's the difference between these two versions of Ten? i always listen to the remix, but never even noticed the remaster much...

When an album is recorded for the first time, it has to be mixed. The mixing process involves setting the proper levels for each microphone (not just each instrument). It involves adding reverb, compressing the sound, determining the proper balance (do you want it to appear as if the drums are behind the other instruments, do you want one guitar louder on the right than the left? etc.), etc. If you have the original recordings you can create a new mix and start over with brand new decisions about how you want the album to sound, whether you want to accentuate the voice this time or put it further in the background, whether you want it to have a more professional or more raw sound, etc. That is a remix, the creation of a brand new mix. when you re-mix an album you have full control over many variables ranging from the exact kind of sound coming out of the guitar to the amount of echo and reverb on the voice and how loud one instrument should sound over the other; every detail is within your control.

When you master an album, you are taking the mix (which is now composed of what amounts to two wave files, one for the left channel and one for the right) and adding the final touches to make the tracks really pop. You don' t have much control at this point, you can't adjust an individual instrument's level for example, because all you have is two wave files. The mastering engineer uses a very limited set of tools to compress and equalize those wave files to create the best sound possible taking into account the limitations of the medium you are mastering for (CD vs Vinyl these days). The result of the mastering process is an album that is what all of the copies sold in stores are copied from. When you remaster an album you are limited to manipulating the mix of each track; you have two nearly completed wave files (a left and a right channel) and you can manipulate them to equalize, compress, amplify, increase or decrease dynamic range or whatever, but you can't adjust the sound of each instrument or where they sit on the mix or anything like that since what you have to work with is just two wave files.

Typically, CD's remastered today sound worse than the originals due to the ongoing loudness war. They tend to be brick-walled and lacking in dynamic range making them sound muddy and loud in average systems and God-awful on high end audiophile grade systems. This occurred to the Ten Remaster and is the reason I have not purchased the Vs/Vitalogy remaster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

PilateOfTheStorm

oh okay, thanks everyone for clearing that up. i understand much better now.

yeah i agree, i love the Ten remix. everything sounds a whole lot better

Feiraco

Thanks so far!
I also prefer the 2009 Ten edition compared to 1991 except for Black and Release.

I have started to notice differences between the 2011 Vs/Vitalogy editions and their earlier versions. Some songs clearly sound more 'clean' and even include different parts, like Rats. Glorified G sounded much different (better) too.

hd1072

I can hear the differences on Vitalogy, not so much on Vs. Listen to the 1994 Immortality and then the 2011 Immortality. IMO, the solo is MUCH more audible on the remaster. Eddie's vocals, to me, are also more audible throughout the entire album than they were on the original master.