Aerosmith remasters

Does anyone know if the 1993 remasters of the Columbia Aerosmith catalog are flat transfers from the masters? I'm listening to Get Your Wings right now, and it definitely doesn't sound like it's been tampered with--and if it has, it's VERY subtle. In fact, none of them which I've heard sound like they've been tampered with.

 

The 1993 Columbia remasters are great. The 2001 Geffen remasters are not.

But I'm not sure if they're all flat transfers. I can tell you the Geffen ones definitely aren't. It makes me glad I kept my originals.

 

The original Geffen discs, to these ears, never sounded that bad to begin with. I love the Columbia remasters. They sound great. Rocks is the best, followed by Toys In The Attic.

 

They used EQing but very little. Yes, they did use THE master tapes.

 

I have the Box of Fire. Definitely a great value.

 

Sckott,

Do you know if the Columbia remastered TITA is the same mastering as on the Mastersound Gold disc?

 

Yep, I knew it had to have been either a flat transfer or subtle EQ. Damn, that EQ is real subtle, I guess.

 

The old Japanese and plain-labeled CBS/Columbias of Toys In The Attic will give you an idea of what the tape sounded like without EQ. Nothing wholly wrong with that, but the whole set (remastered) got done before many labels started really F-ing with the EQ in brave moves.

Be aware, and very thankful, that the Aerosmith catalog on Sony wasn't ruined with modern techniques. It was mastered to 20-bit rather quickly. No one hit the "hunt and maximize" button. They went for presence in the vocals I think, and were fairly jazzed that for the 1st time, the real master tapes were used. They didn't toy with nature. Just used a little smile, very subtle.

BTW, Pump was the last sonically straight-forward Aero CD. After that, start using cotton. Unless you've heard me say this before, stay AWAY from the "Oh Yeah" SACD. It's a *&@%# joke.

The 1st album would be possibly the worst to suffer, along with Toys In The Attic because they have a lot of good midrange energy with that following punch that matches along with the midrange. Once you throw that off, it's downnn the toilet. The vocal presence will be incorrect and jarring at best. Get Your Wings is best mastered flat. Surupy punch, very slowww. Keep off! Some days I love the GYW remaster, sometimes I get nitpicky. Hardest example is something like "Uncle Salty" where you can easilly turn the drums into metal cans with putting too much high-end frequency boost into it, and it doesn't take much...

Vic did decent transfers of that stuff. I was always impressed with those jobs.

Oh, the SBM/Gold? It doesn't sound bad, but they didn't use the actual master tape. It's a safty mastered basically flat. The remaster (20-Bit SBM) isn't mastered flat, but the master is -there-. Sit in whatever camp you feel most comfortable, but it's not worth the money it's going for now.

Be aware, that most of the time now, they EQ most everything to their desires THEN maxmize it and ruin (twice) the accurate dynamics AND staging in one touch. Like most of you know, you can easilly see it without being very technical. It's not only the fact that it's clipped, but the EQ goes totally out of place, and gets "testosteroni".

 

I haven't heard it, but from what I see, it was mastered by David Donnelly, the guy who's "remastering" the Chicago catalog. And all he's doing there is just maximizing it to the point of distortion. I'd bet that if Vic had done this, it wouldn't sound the way it does. I've never heard anything mastered by Mark Wilder/Vic Anesini/etc. that was over compressed, maximized, and frequency spiked. In fact, Sony/Legacy is one of the few labels I can buy remasters from and not second guess how it's going to sound (except the Judas Priest remasters, done by "You-Know-Who". I've got 'em all, but I didn't buy 'em: I won the whole box off the radio )

 

I heard the British Steel remaster and it sounded like white noise. He also resequenced the songs.

The original pre-mastered Aerosmith Greatest Hits sounds like a bad tape copy.

 

No, that's the way the track listing originally was in England. It was the States that resequenced the songs.

 

Would somebody mind listing catalog #s for the '93 Columbia releases?

Especially Toys, Rocks & Get you wings.

Much thanks!

 

I just bought the OH Yeah... SACD yesterday at BestBuy for $29.99. I thought I read that some people liked it. I have the remaster from 1993 of Rocks. The catalog number is CK 57363 and it was mastered by Viv Anesini and Don Devito. It sounds excellent even compared to a 1A vinyl press. Anyone else have the SACD of Oh Yeah.. with anything positive to say?

Thanks

Steve

 

Thanks Steve,

Have you done any A/B's with the '93 CD remaster and your new SACD tracks?

 

My 1993 copy of Rocks from the box set has a different catalog number. It is CK66674. Are the box set numbers supposed to be different? Are they still of the recommended sound quality? These CD's sound fine to me.

 

That's the 1st issue master on Columbia. All the Aero remasters on Sony start with CK 573xx.....

 

Japan TOYS in Attic

Toys in the Attic (T in A)

This mastering is very satisfying: no exagerated high end energy. nice bottom end, too.

CBS/Sony CSCS 6003 11AC
Made in Japan with OBI

FM

 

Just got done listening to a couple of tracks from the 1993 remaster of TiTA (can you guess which two?--predictable, really, as John Cleese would say). Uh. Wow. On "Sweet Emotion," Jack Douglas's manipulation of the soundstage is a work of art, and Vic Anesini's mastering conveys it very, very well. The CD approaches Hoffman standards, IMO. I used to have the first issue of TiTA, and I don't believe it sounded this good. Just not the same depth and width, usually IME a function of phase coherence, which is usually at its best in a master tape.... So if you see the Anesini-remastered TiTA, go for it.

Now, what's this about David Donnelly doing the Aerosmith hits SACD? Say it ain't so! Who let him near a DSD machine? After what he's done (and is doing) to the Chicago catalog, he should go back to making the tea. Sheesh.

Gardo

 

What about the sound on the original Pandora's Box from 1991 in the long box? How does that sound?

Steve

 

Ok, I got out my Aerosmith Rocks CD CK 57363, mastered by Vic Anesini, Pandoras Box mastered by Vic Anesini and the new SACD of Oh Yeah... and my first vinyl pressing of Rocks. I listened to Last Child on all four sources. Here is my preference:

1. The vinyl - this really kicks ass, tremendous, you can probably find this for a couple of bucks.

2. Vic Anesini CD CK 57363 of Rocks from 1993, excellent.

3. SACD, good but a little rough on the ears. Why? I guess it is all in the mastering, maybe some of the later tracks are better. Does anyone have the redbook version? Who mastered that one?

4. Pandora's Box, lifeless compared to the top 2.

Comments?

Steve

 

IIRC, there've been a couple of issues of this. Is yours the original 1991 version or the reissue put out a little while ago (1997 or sometime around then)?

 

My copy of Pandora's Box is the 1997 reissue that was released in a double jewel case to support the release of Nine Lives. A friend has the original longbox copy and I did an A/B of the first few tracks and I noticed no difference, so I'm pretty sure it's the same master as the original.

 

The original from 1991.

Steve

 

Ah, this could explain why it sounds so lifeless. Perhaps Anesini was new to the job and wasn't as experienced as he became... or maybe they didn't use the absolute original masters... who knows. Either way.........

 

Last Child on the box set is different. It has the complete ending instead of the fade on Rocks. I don't think it's a remix, but it's definitely from a different tape source which might explain the difference in sound. I know Sweet Emotion and Draw The Line were remixed on the box set.