Home› The Porch

original ten album

pearljamchrispearljamchris Posts: 282
edited December 2011 in The Porch
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 :D 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

Comments

  • Digital TwilightDigital Twilight Posts: 5,642
    Remastered
  • ilockyerilockyer Posts: 2,272
    Remastered - but not remixed.
    The secret to a happy ending is knowing when to roll the credits
  • RedMosquito22RedMosquito22 Posts: 8,158
    Remastered is much better as is the album art colors.
    Member 164xxx

    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....
  • Better DanBetter Dan Posts: 5,684
    Remastered/Remixed for me.
    2003: San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Seattle; 2005: Monterrey; 2006: Chicago 1 & 2, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Detroit; 2008: West Palm Beach, Tampa; 2009: Austin, LA 3 & 4, San Diego; 2010: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Indianapolis; 2011: PJ20 1 & 2; 2012: Missoula; 2013: Dallas, Oklahoma City, Seattle; 2014: Tulsa; 2016: Columbia, New York City 1 & 2; 2018: London, Seattle 1 & 2; 2021: Ohana; 2022: Oklahoma City
  • pearljamchrispearljamchris Posts: 282
    RedMosquito22 wrote:
    Remastered is much better as is the album art colors.

    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
    IF YOU HATE SOMETHING,.. DONT YOU DO IT TOO
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,712
    remastered
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • pearljamchrispearljamchris Posts: 282
    n i got the uk version... gotta love dirty frank! :D
    IF YOU HATE SOMETHING,.. DONT YOU DO IT TOO
  • dottlesdottles Posts: 9,202
    I defo prefer the remastered Vs...and that's my fave.
    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 :lol:

    (SOLAT version tho - singles OST!)
    2009 - Manchester. 2010 - Dublin, Belfast, London, Berlin, Arras, Werchter. 2011 - PJ20 i & ii, Montreal, Toronto i & ii, Ottawa, Hamilton. 
    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. 
  • pearljamchrispearljamchris Posts: 282
    without a doubt!!

    (SOLAT version tho - singles OST!)[/quote]
    IF YOU HATE SOMETHING,.. DONT YOU DO IT TOO
  • SidnumSidnum Posts: 674
    I'm going with the original.
  • MASMAS Posts: 630
    What is the difference between re-mastered and re-mixed????
  • Mamasan23Mamasan23 Posts: 16,390
    MAS wrote:
    What is the difference between re-mastered and re-mixed????

    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?
    WI '98,  WI '99 (EV),  WI '00,  Chgo '00,  MO '00,  Champaign '03,  Chgo '03,  WI '03,  IN '03,  MI '04,  Chgo '06:N1 & 2,  WI '06,  Chgo '07,  Chgo '08 (EV:N1),  Chgo '09:N1 & 2,  Chgo '11 (EV:N1),  WI '11:N1 & 2,  Philly '12,  Wrigley '13,  Pitt '13,  Buff '13, Detroit '14, MKE '14, Wrigley '16: N1 & N2, Seattle '18 N2, Wrigley '18: N1 & N2, Fenway '18 N1, STL '22, St Paul '23 N2, Chgo '23: N1 & N2, Wrigley '24 N1 & 2
  • abhijeetabhijeet Posts: 303
    Mamasan23 wrote:
    MAS wrote:
    What is the difference between re-mastered and re-mixed????

    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.
    Seattle 2009-09-21
    Alpine Valley 2011-09-03, 2011-09-04
  • MASMAS Posts: 630
    abhijeet wrote:
    Mamasan23 wrote:
    MAS wrote:
    What is the difference between re-mastered and re-mixed????

    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.

    what should I listen for b/c for the life of me I can't tell the difference...
  • abhijeetabhijeet Posts: 303
    MAS wrote:
    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.
    Seattle 2009-09-21
    Alpine Valley 2011-09-03, 2011-09-04
  • erocshiftyerocshifty Posts: 1,170
    i read in 5 against 1 that eddie hated the mauve color of the original cover & chris said he was critical of the mix in pj20, but was too afraid to say anything because he was the new guy at the time. don't know if that is true, but i like the sepia tone better & the remixed one. jeff also said that in the book about the mix. it was him that persuaded brendan to remix it. brendan agreed only if the original was included because of the cultural impact of the record.
    "It's best to live in grace before you're forced to." EV- 10/09/2014 
  • marcosmarcos Posts: 2,112
    erocshifty wrote:
    i read in 5 against 1 that eddie hated the mauve color of the original cover & chris said he was critical of the mix in pj20, but was too afraid to say anything because he was the new guy at the time. don't know if that is true, but i like the sepia tone better & the remixed one. jeff also said that in the book about the mix. it was him that persuaded brendan to remix it. brendan agreed only if the original was included because of the cultural impact of the record.

    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.
  • fox_mulderXfox_mulderX Posts: 1,134
    ten did not need to be remastered; the original still sounds great. the remastered falls into the "it hurts my ears when i listen to it" category thanks to the loudness war.
  • PKTrekGirlPKTrekGirl Posts: 747
    Remastered sounds good...but while I'm okay with re-mixed, I don't prefer it. I guess 20 years of being of the firm belief that Ten was a perfect record as it was does not die easily. Clean it up...but I still want the same record that I fell in love with 20 years ago.

    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.
  • BALLBOYBALLBOY Australia Posts: 1,035
    I have not listened to the original since the re release in 2009, not even the remastered version. The remix is such a superior sound & it doesnt have the reverb of the original such a cleaner & crisper sound. There is alot of conjecture about how the band felt about the mixes of back when it was released.
    Eastern Creek 95,Syd 1 98,Bris 2 98, Syd 1&2 03, Reading Fest 06, Bris 1 06, London 09, Hyde Park 10, Gold Coast BDO 14 Budapest 22 Krakow 22 Amsterdam 22 St Paul 1&2 23 Chicago 1&2 23 Chicago 1&2 24 New York 1 24 Philly 1&2 24 Boston 1&2 24 Gold Coast 24 Melbourne 1 24 Sydney 1&2 24
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    The original basically doesn't exist to me anymore. Remix all the way. BOB nailed it.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • SidnumSidnum Posts: 674
    The problem with remastering, at least these days, is that it's usually not done properly. (Now I can't speak for the remastered Ten version because I haven't sat down to listen to it yet.) But anyway, It might sound great initially since it's "louder." But it's really not because it's relying on the cd to make the sound instead of the amplifier/speakers, etc. They just crank up the entire signal on the cd. I bought a remastered AC/DC cd and it sounded like shit. I can't think of the other one I had of hand, but that one sounded pretty bad too. But, this is basically what's wrong with the majority of remastered recordings.
  • JMoJMo Posts: 1,071
    The remastered vinyl (Ten, Vs and Vitalogy) sound awesome! Maybe my originals have been overplayed and worn? But when I out on those new records they are frickin' great!
  • F5AgainstOneF5AgainstOne New Hampshire, USA Posts: 1,462
    I Love the Redux.
    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.
    EV Solo Boston 6/16/11
    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
Sign In or Register to comment.