Classic reissues good idea?

[displeasedrecords]

Released by Displeased Records since 1996 (http://www.displeasedrecords.com):

 

[Wyvern]

To me a reissue is almost mandatory in case of:

a)the original press is OOP
b)it existed only on vinyl so finally it's on CD format
c)there were unknown/underrated bands that never saw their material properly presented

 

[wdiv]

I really don't understand the purpose of this poll. I doubt anyone would object to seeing old albums rereleased. I'm sure there are a few vinyl audiophiles who will complain, but nothing's harmed by digital rerelease. The bigger question is if there's a market for a reissue of an obscure band.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Yes but I got into metal like 5 years ago so it's more a case of hearing something totally new to me that hearing something from back when I was a kid or something.

 

[sixxswine]

Spam...

 

[Wyvern]

Spam...

Not necessarily, I think is a legit question specially if you consider what wdiv wrote in the last sentence. This company wants to know among the most probably buyers (the old school metalheads) if there's a potential to but reissues or not. I see as marketing research.

What do puzzles me is that some of the titles have been reissued too with bonus tracks by Metal Mind (from Poland), and those reissues are great IMO.

The bigger question is if there's a market for a reissue of an obscure band.

I guess there always is the point is how big to know how many prints to issue.

 

[poundingmetal74]

Reissues are good (especially with bonus tracks), so long as they don't remaster.

Also that only on vinyl thing is a joke. CD > Vinyl any day. They sound better (EQ can solve that "warmth" vinyl nuts talk about), they're portable, can be reproduced easily if you already own a copy, can go to numerous other formats, has no hiss and pops due to the medium, and don't break as easily.

 

[Wyvern]

Reissues are good (especially with bonus tracks), so long as they don't remaster.

Also that only on vinyl thing is a joke. CD > Vinyl any day. They sound better (EQ can solve that "warmth" vinyl nuts talk about), they're portable, can be reproduced easily if you already own a copy, can go to numerous other formats. hiss and pops due to the medium, and don't break as easily.

What Brandon said Just one question, why not remaster in your opinion?

 

[poundingmetal74]

What Brandon said Just one question, why not remaster in your opinion?

Because as I've argued in countless other threads, it ruins the dynamics of an album and makes it sound different than what the mastering engineer had intended - usually resulting in the drums sounding like weak.

They also sound horrible when cranked. I can get Slave to the Grind to be much louder, clearer and cleaner than I can Subhuman race which is a "modern master" and flatlined.

 

[Wyvern]

Because as I've argued in countless other threads, it ruins the dynamics of an album and makes it sound different than what the mastering engineer had intended - usually resulting in the drums sounding like weak.

I understand your

what the mastering engineer had intended

but remember that I'm not a musician or a technician, so by definition you believe that remastering always ruins the original recording? No way it will enhance a sound that was limited by time-technology or money issues (lack of it)?

 

[Orfanos]

To me a reissue is almost mandatory in case of:

a)the original press is OOP
b)it existed only on vinyl so finally it's on CD format
c)there were unknown/underrated bands that never saw their material properly presented

My thoughts, exactly.

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

I like the remasters myself, mainly for the gain in volume level. When listening to cds, it's usually in the 6 disc changer in my truck. Nothing sucks worse than cranking Savatage Gutter Ballet only to have the next disc be something like Symphony X Paradise Lost and I blow my speakers and my eardrums in a nanosecond.

I can't say all remasters are an improvement (some are over compensated on volume and have too much clipping), but from what I've heard, most are better than the original.

I find the remixed albums more of a hit and miss end result. Brandon complained of some re-releases having the drums dropped out. I could be wrong, but this sounds like a remix issue, because with remastering they are only tweaking the two stereo tracks from the original pressing, simply boosting the volume and adjusting the graphic equalizer (and maybe a few modern digital tricks to adjust the sound).

With remixing, they go all the way back to the original multi-tracks from the recording sessions where you can adjust each instrument and vocal individually.

 

[poundingmetal74]

Brandon complained of some re-releases having the drums dropped out. I could be wrong, but this sounds like a remix issue, because with remastering they are only tweaking the two stereo tracks from the original pressing, simply boosting the volume and adjusting the graphic equalizer (and maybe a few modern digital tricks to adjust the sound).

No, it's remastering. If you take, say, an original copy of Empire and compress the fuck out of it the "smack" of the drums gets stomped down on and you hear more reverb as a result from the snare. This is because the reverb in the mix being "raised" due to the crack being stomped down. (One of these days I'll have to post a comparison track).

If you've got an audio program, take a song that has an old mastering (but doesn't sound like shit like Streets - so try maybe an original copy of Empire) and then use the audio program to boost it about 5 or 6 dB and listen to the drums. Everything else will sound the same.

 

[poundingmetal74]

Okay, I figured what the hell and threw together a little remastering test file. What I've done is taken clips from the Original and Remaster of the following songs: Empire, Revolution Calling and Hand on Heart. The first track is the remaster, the second is the original. The Mp3 is 320kbps for maximum quality from source Wave files (yes, I own both RM and original on CD because I'm a nut).

Make sure to listen CLOSELY to the drums in particular:

WHY NOT TO REMASTER (FILE)

At the end of the file I threw in two live Edguy tracks. Let me know which of the two you like better. They're from the same concert - one was remastered, one was not.

Listening several times is also VERY helpful, especially if your ears are relatively untrained. (ie. if you're not an audio engineer).

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

Ok, I get where you're coming from Brandon. I could definitely hear the difference, although it really is quite minimal on my little 2.1 sound system patched into the laptop. I'm sure the difference is much more noticeable on a full blown stereo system.

I'm still in the camp of the remasters though. As stated, mostly I listen to cds in the changer in my truck (which in turn are being used as the stereo when we're all gathered around the campfire) and the gain in volume is worth it for me so there isn't such a huge leap from cd to cd.

I can certainly see your point though. I'm gonna talk with my buddy Dean about this, he's working steadily as a recording engineer now (and I often get to sit in and help).

 

[Glenn Fricker]

Most remasters are a scam designed to get you (the fans) to fork over your hard-earned cash to pay for something you already own.

It's kind of like labelling something, "New! Better Box!"
When, in fact, the box is worse.


Here's myself & a few guys on Andy's board's take on the whole "master for volume" thing...
Mastered by Muppets

 

[poundingmetal74]

Ok, I get where you're coming from Brandon. I could definitely hear the difference, although it really is quite minimal on my little 2.1 sound system patched into the laptop. I'm sure the difference is much more noticeable on a full blown stereo system.

I'm still in the camp of the remasters though. As stated, mostly I listen to cds in the changer in my truck (which in turn are being used as the stereo when we're all gathered around the campfire) and the gain in volume is worth it for me so there isn't such a huge leap from cd to cd.

I can certainly see your point though. I'm gonna talk with my buddy Dean about this, he's working steadily as a recording engineer now (and I often get to sit in and help).

The thing is, most CD players/receivers now have built in compressors or "normalization". Most Mp3 ripping programs have this feature built in as well so when you rip CDs you can have Sabbath's Heaven and Hell at the same level as say, new Firewind (which is loud as hell).

With FS we went the moderate route, it's loud, but the drums have a lot of leeway in terms of "smack". It's sort of like a mid 90s master (almost at zero without clipping).

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

The thing is, most CD players/receivers now have built in compressors or "normalization". Most Mp3 ripping programs have this feature built in as well so when you rip CDs you can have Sabbath's Heaven and Hell at the same level as say, new Firewind (which is loud as hell).

With FS we went the moderate route, it's loud, but the drums have a lot of leeway in terms of "smack". It's sort of like a mid 90s master (almost at zero without clipping).

The ripping software on my laptop is Sonic (I can also use Windows Media Player). I've not noticed either boosting up the volume level on the old cds, and if it has that capability it's news to me. I'd like to know more!

I love the production on Through The Mirror. Dean and I were talking about it the other day. Right in the middle, just like you said, loud but nowhere close to clipping.

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

Most remasters are a scam designed to get you (the fans) to fork over your hard-earned cash to pay for something you already own.

I'm sure you're right there, and I don't fall prey to that. I don't buy the remastered version of something I already have. I do, however, buy the remaster if it's replacing something old (that I still only have on cassette) or missing in my collection. Again, simply for the convenience of the volume gain.

 

[poundingmetal74]

The ripping software on my laptop is Sonic (I can also use Windows Media Player). I've not noticed either boosting up the volume level on the old cds, and if it has that capability it's news to me. I'd like to know more!

Xing's Audio Catalyst has had that capacity for 10 years. The CD deck in my car also has a built in normalization feature (although I refuse to use it because it compresses the hell out of EVERYTHING making it sound like shit).

Again, simply for the convenience of the volume gain.

Use a program like Sound Forge to remaster your own CDs then burn them. A much cheaper solution than repurchasing something louder. Do it yourself for 1/20 the cost.