I'm confused about one thing - how did this thread come to say these latest reissues were by Music On Vinyl? The label states EPIC on the New On Vinyl site and SONY on Amazon UK.
I'm confused about one thing - how did this thread come to say these latest reissues were by Music On Vinyl? The label states EPIC on the New On Vinyl site and SONY on Amazon UK.
Music on Vinyl isn't really a record label? Epic (Sony) still owns the rights to all those albums and have to authorize their release. MoV is a company that does the leg work. The put the vinyl out but they aren't a record label?
Yes, MOV is a record label, and when they are behind a (re)release, their name and catalog # are always listed. These latest re-releases for Vs & Vitalogy do not appear to be part of the MOV catalog, which is the point I was trying to make.
I'm guessing the confusion set in by the name of the record store "New On Vinyl", which could be easy to misinterpret as "Music On Vinyl".
At the end of the day this is all moot point as many have pointed out that these re-releases sound like shit no matter what label/version you have and I'm not holding my breath that these will be any better. And for those of us that are anal-retentive collectors we'll buy it regardless.
We're the last pressings of these albums not from the original analog tapes? Seems like the represses of these albums don't sound as good as the original pressings....anyone know?
We're the last pressings of these albums not from the original analog tapes? Seems like the represses of these albums don't sound as good as the original pressings....anyone know?
They sound good to me. And the HDtracks.com 24Bit Flacs that were releases around the same time, they sound great.
With these new remastered releases does this mean there will also be a 192kHz 24Bit Flac releases from Pono & HDTracks?
I have no idea about the digital files or flac, but the original pressings on vinyl that I have seem to sound better than the represses....Mabye it's in my head, just wondered if others thought the same.... Either way, pearl jam sounds pretty fucking awesome no matter what the source usually!
I have no idea about the digital files or flac, but the original pressings on vinyl that I have seem to sound better than the represses....Mabye it's in my head, just wondered if others thought the same.... Either way, pearl jam sounds pretty fucking awesome no matter what the source usually!
I think the problem is that they used to master differently for vinyl than they did for CD. The dynamic range numbers back this up, as the original vinyl releases have really good dynamic ranges compared to the CD versions. It seems that lately (and I could be wrong about this) they've approached remastering with a "one version for all formats" approach. They take the original tapes, convert to 96khz/24bit, do their "magic" and then press vinyl and downsample for CD format (and iTunes) from the same source. They seem to have adopted the music industry's stance that louder is better for digital (I blame the popularity of crappy sounding earbuds ever since the iPod came out for this mentality, but who really knows) so they add compression during the remastering process and that's why the quality of the vinyl suffers.
I have no idea about the digital files or flac, but the original pressings on vinyl that I have seem to sound better than the represses....Mabye it's in my head, just wondered if others thought the same.... Either way, pearl jam sounds pretty fucking awesome no matter what the source usually!
I think the problem is that they used to master differently for vinyl than they did for CD. The dynamic range numbers back this up, as the original vinyl releases have really good dynamic ranges compared to the CD versions. It seems that lately (and I could be wrong about this) they've approached remastering with a "one version for all formats" approach. They take the original tapes, convert to 96khz/24bit, do their "magic" and then press vinyl and downsample for CD format (and iTunes) from the same source. They seem to have adopted the music industry's stance that louder is better for digital (I blame the popularity of crappy sounding earbuds ever since the iPod came out for this mentality, but who really knows) so they add compression during the remastering process and that's why the quality of the vinyl suffers.
That sums it up pretty good. Most albums don't get different mixes for vinyl/cd. They all come from the same master, and that master is the source for the different formats. If the master has been compressed to shit, then then both the cd's and vinyl's have the same compression issues. Compression wasn't really used that much in the early/mid 90's. So anytime I see "remastered" applied to album made in the mid 90's or earlier I cringe. In most cases the original will sound better than the remastered.
so we still have no answers, is this a better version of the remix/remaster? Different version all together, or re-release of something already out there?
so we still have no answers, is this a better version of the remix/remaster? Different version all together, or re-release of something already out there?
We won't know till we pick up these new one's released today.
Comments
I'm guessing the confusion set in by the name of the record store "New On Vinyl", which could be easy to misinterpret as "Music On Vinyl".
At the end of the day this is all moot point as many have pointed out that these re-releases sound like shit no matter what label/version you have and I'm not holding my breath that these will be any better. And for those of us that are anal-retentive collectors we'll buy it regardless.
With these new remastered releases does this mean there will also be a 192kHz 24Bit Flac releases from Pono & HDTracks?
https://shop.napalmrecords.com/pearl-jam-vitalogy-dlp.html
http://www.banquetrecords.com/PEARLvsJAM
http://www.banquetrecords.com/vitalogy