The Cure on CD...Remasters or originals?

oh other thing by the way... the material of the german cds... like this
SILVER RING http://thecurerecords.com/record.aspx?id=3558
I read about that is bad, I mean like the WG DG classical music... that material tends to get corrosion, even DG was a replacement recall for many cds in the 90s
I think this
CLEAR RING http://thecurerecords.com/record.aspx?id=3560
is better

 

I think your conclusion are very wise!

 

cool I keep tunned if I get the japans for compare

 

Regarding corrosion. I've bought about 5000 CD's over the years and only 6 of them has been corroded. To my experience this happens almost at once with a CD. So, as you now buy old CD's, appr. 10 years old or older, if they aren't already corroded, they wont be either.
I don't know about the differences of the two above.

 

Ok

 

It may be in Sweden, but it's definitely not in the U.S. Just sayin'.

 

I pity you USA'ers and your stupid laws, no offence. "May be"? It IS legal, always has been and always will be. One copy per person for personal use, is allowed - whatever media it may concern. I believe it's the same in most parts of the world, with the USA and perhaps a few others as exception. You're crazy over there Ps. I think folks know for themselves what is legal or not in their own countries, otherwise one has to found out about it, I think.

 

Me too, I like them all and surely theres differences in sound but its nothing that bad.
I have some original discs and all the deluxe-editions.

 

First off, it's not a matter of our being "crazy." Our government is beholden to lobbyists, that is true. But I'm sure there are many areas in which the Swedish government is less than ideal as well, and in perhaps in those areas U.S. laws may be superior. For example, there is probably no country in the world where freedom of speech is more protected than in the U.S. (Not sure of Sweden's laws, but I know that in the UK and Germany, freedom of speech is much less protected.)

"May be" in the way that I used it is an idiom which does not doubt the fact stated.

Many people most assuredly do NOT know what is legal or not in their own countries when it comes to things like this. All sorts of misunderstandings exist. I don't give a **** whether the OP illegally downloads or not; the purpose of my post was merely to correct wrong information you were providing.

 

I like The Cure SHM Set

 

shm mini lps? if yes, those are the same than remasters, just without the 2nd disc

 

I'm gonna put in a rare vote for the remasters. I'm a big fan of Cure basslines, and there's way more to them on the remasters to my ears (head on the door, disintegration mainly).

 

It's also legal in the UK to have you own personal reference copies. There are companies here who will transfer your old videos to DVD on the basis that you can have a reference copy. Very surprised to hear that the US would frown on something like that. Why shouldn't you make a copy of something you've already bought to play in the car for instance? I wonder how such a law is enforced?

 

I'm not up on the intricacies of US copyright law--I don't really do mp3s or CD-Rs, for that matter, but on the rare occasion that I make a CD-R for myself or a friend, I don't give it a second thought, and I doubt most Americans do, either. It's not a very enforceable law.

 

Folks, first things first.

Let's talk about word usage and semantics on here. What is being done to most mainstream(and some alternative) back catalog here is succinctly not "remastering".

Parallel hyper-compression and a deep buzz-cut of the remaining life-lending transients with a hard-limiter, along with a deep-V smiley EQ, plus 6-12dB of makeup gain do not equal a "remaster"!

Parallel hyper-compression and a deep buzz-cut of the remaining life-lending transients with a hard-limiter, along with a deep-V smiley EQ, plus 6-12dB of makeup gain usually make for a mess.

Want to know what a real remaster is?

- Those slight speed variations from mishandling of the studio tapes, the wow or flutter, are gone.
- Background hiss, less noticeable than before, but without harming the top frequencies.
- Minor EQ corrections, done mostly to restore some of the bottom rolled off from what might have been used as a vinyl LP master.
- Left-to-right channel imbalances, if any, are also corrected.
- Finally, if there is headroom left over to bring up the overall level without compression, that may be done.

And finally, a 24 or 96-bit archival version containing all the corrections above, is created and preserved.

Notice - no dynamics processing done whatsoever.

But the record labels would have one believe otherwise. Their thinking is, if that new 24bit remaster of so-&-so's 1984 release doesn't sound all that different to the average consumer listening through earbuds while mowing the lawn, it's not gonna sell!

So, they tell the hired mastering engineers to make it as LOUD AS POSSIBLE within the specified digital delivery's(CD, Amazon or iTunes download) parameters. And so, the items I listed under "real remaster" are more than likely done - no beef there - but then the steps prior to that section are performed on top of it. You know, Parallel hyper-compression and a deep buzz-cut of the remaining life-lending transients with a hard-limiter, along with a deep-V smiley EQ, plus 6-12dB of makeup gain?

Next, the sales & marketing depts get ahold of the thing, and inscribe on the updated with gold or silver-tone album cover "Digitally Remastered" or "Remastered - Hear what you've never heard before!". And let me remind you that sales & marketing doesn't know a lick about audio or engineering or recording, but they sure know what catch-phrases drive sales! Digitally Remastered: draws in folks like moths to a street lamp.

I usually avoid all these complications, and instead head to my local thrift stores, and twice a year to our regional outdoor flea market, where hundreds of second-hand un"remastered", first-release CDs by my favorite artists await, usually for a fraction of the price of a new album at one of the chain stores.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Good day!

 

"For example, there is probably no country in the world where freedom of speech is more protected than in the U.S."

Well...be ready for the IRS investigation if you decide to "test" the issue.

 

And what are the implications of this for remastered albums?

 

Insert snappy answer, please. I believe its what we would call a thread cr@@. .

In other words your call is correct and I shall resist the urge to respond further.

Sorry to be rude.

 

Actually I asked this exact question on another thread and the answer is that the first batch was remastered by Chris Blair at Abbey Road and the second batch by Gary Moore at Universal London. This may have been answered already in the long thread, but Chris died in between the two batches of remasters.

 

Pornography

Orig. CD - DR12
Remaster - DR7

Disintegration

Orig. CD - DR12
Remaster - DR8



Its like going from a Cadillac to a Pinto.

 

I also need to warn you guys about this group on Facebook. Visit at your peril: "End The Loudness War"

Sounds noble, ehh? Until I posted before-after data like WackyTobacky above, along with waveform screenshots.

The company line over there? "Don't trust the DR specs or the waveforms - trust your ears". Especially Ian. He'll drum that mantra into your brain until you're sick of reading it! I responded, "Well why have measurements?" He(and others) said: "They're just guidelines - they say nothing about how it's going to sound." ?... !...

Eventually I was banned from that group, for promoting my ideas of what constituted a remaster(minor EQ corrections, hiss reduction, channel balance, make a 24bit master) and what did not(brickwall limiting & makeup gain), and in general for not wanting to toe the line of whatever they were promoting on there.

Their ideal of a minimum acceptable DR rating(as measured on Foobar for instance) is 8 - but I insisted on 10 - which they felt was "too strict"!

They're also very pro-remaster, and they'll jump on you like wolverines if you "dare" say you prefer the first edition CD to a remaster of anything over there. "Give the remaster a try - ignore the waveform", they'll go.

So again, browse at your peril, DON'T try to join and fight the Kool-Aid they're selling over there! It's a group with a noble name, but hypocritical when you see their true nature.

I'm not at all implying that they are bad people, but you can do better than that.

 

I prefer the original cure cds,
I borrowed from a friend the remastered cds of pronography , disintegration and Head on the door, Pronography remastered has very sharp and harsh sound and I just could not enjoy from the music (this is one of my favorite cure albums),
disintegration remastered has unpleasant bass boost , Head on the door is too loud, this friend ask me how can I prefer the muddy sound of pronography
than the remastered, well, I personally think the original sound is suitable for the musical content and I prefer it than the new remastered that maybe sounds more cleaner and open but suffers from too much treble boost and from harsh sound.

 

I agree, one question: 1st japan pressings have unique mastering? or are the same than germans or uk old cds?

 

Some nice old US Elektra, West Germans and Australians, For me I grabbed all the remasters for disc2

 

I am also curious to know about the Japanese cds.