original ten album

im ashamed to admit that its been months since i listened to the original ten album because i instantly liked the remastered version much more! but put the original on today and i cant actually believe how great it sounds! maybe absence does make the heart grow fonder
so whats the general feeling around here on which sounds better?

IF YOU HATE SOMETHING,.. DONT YOU DO IT TOO
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
8/15/92, 9/28/96, 8/28/98, 8/29/98, 9/18/98, 8/3/00, 8/9/00, 8/10/00, 8/23/00, 8/25/00, 9/1/00, 9/2/00, 4/28/03, 6/18/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 10/1/04, 10/3/05, 6/19/08, 10/27/09, 10/31/09, 5/21/10, 9/3/11, 9/4/11, 10/21/13
More to Come....
100% agree with u about the colours! n ye like i said i instantly liked the remastered better but i dunno it just sounded really cool listening to the original today
On Ten I don't know, but I probably agree with Ian and Dave remastered :? It sounds better than the cassette I have from 92
(SOLAT version tho - singles OST!)
2012 - Manchester i & ii, Berlin i & ii, Stockholm. 2014 - Amsterdam i & ii, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Leeds, Milton Keynes.
2016 - Boston Fenway i & ii, 2018 - Amsterdam i & ii, Pinkpop, London i & ii, Padova, Krakow, Barcelona, Seattle i & ii.
(SOLAT version tho - singles OST!)[/quote]
I had my hubby explain this to me and this is what I got out of his explanation....re-mastered means the original master was used but certain things were turned up or down in certain places. Re-mixed means that things have been added/changed beyond the scope of remastering.
Does that sound about right?
There's not much difference between remastering/remixing technically. Remastering usually also involves cleaning up the sound on the individual tracks on the original studio multi-track recordings, applying effects or sound compression to the tracks, which are then mixed together to create a new master for reproduction. So it is in effect a new mix.
In the case of the re-release, they went with two remastering processes. The "remaster" of the original did not change the sound or effects that were applied when the album was first mixed, the sound has just been cleaned up. The "redux" version changes the sound substantially by changing the sound of the original studio tracks, mostly by removing many of the sound effects that were added in the original mix of the album.
Personally, love the redux version.
Alpine Valley 2011-09-03, 2011-09-04
what should I listen for b/c for the life of me I can't tell the difference...
Varies from song to song, some don't sound too different. The biggest difference is a more prominent lower end. Jeff's bass is especially clearer. The rhythm guitar also sounds better, less like 80s metal guitar.
Alpine Valley 2011-09-03, 2011-09-04
Yeah, Brendan is such a cool dude, he was a guest DJ on PJ radio for about an hour and is just a guy that really gets this band and the importance of their music.
I do like the new album cover though - I like the brown/tan tones...although back in the early 90's, I though the original album cover was cool.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Its a much cleaner sound on ED's voice (reverb was either removed or turned down substantially).
I also noticed that the little lead guitar parts at the end of Porch are turned up a bit.
There's more, but those are the things that I noticed instantly.
Overall the Redux mix better suites the musical style, it almost sounds that it was redone with Fugazi in mind.
I love the mixes that they got.
East Troy 9/3/11
East Troy 9/4/11
Amsterdam 6/26/12
Amsterdam 6/27/12
Wrigley Field 7/19-20/13
Worcester, MA 10/15/13
Worcester, MA 10/16/13
Hartford, CT 10/25/13
Seattle, WA 12/06/13
Denver, CO 10/22/14
Fenway 2016 #1
Fenway 2016 #2
Fenway 2018 #1
Fenway 2018 #2