I was able to score one of those 1995 reissues of "Somewhere In Time". SoT was never my favorite Maiden album, but it may partly be because I got so used to hearing the 1998 remaster. I think that album is the most offensive in terms of sound quality; it sounds really bright and harsh. Every time Nicko hits a cymbal-which is every 2 seconds-my ears close up. But the 1995 version sounds terrific. You can crank it without fatigue.
The 1998 remaster of Somewhere In Time was the worst of the Maiden remasters I heard. Peace of Mind wasn't nearly as bad, although I still prefer the original.
Yeah that SIT remaster blows. Sounds like Nicko is hitting the frying pan instead of cymbals. The black triangle sounds insanely good. For some reason all the albums made in 1985-86 that where remastered sound the worst, SIT, Turbo, Power Windows.
I'm revamping an old topic here, but has anybody heard the new 2014 remasters? Are they identical to the 1998 ones? According to Discogs, at least some of them are European, not Japanese, editions.
I have a few of the originals (Killers, Live After Death, No Prayer For The Dying) that I need to get (again, after dumping them for remasters) and I'm holding off in hopes that they will reissue the CDs with the same remastering that was done to the vinyl issues last year. Was the Live After Death reissued last year the full concert or was it the same tracklisting?
Well, here's where I got the info (partially, while they're not cut form the same lacquers, they use the same master tapes) http://www.ironmaiden.com/classic-80s-vinyl-reissues-on-the-way.html
Same stampers and same tapes are two completely different things. Supposedly, the new vinyl was cut from the original master tapes (it remains a bit unclear whether there was any digital conversion in between or not).
The 2014 vinyl sounds great for the most part and like said previously they are taken directly from the original master tapes. No compression or limiting was done. In most cases little to no EQ changes were made. Some people liked that (me) some people didn't. Some people thought that albums like Killers didn't sound as lively because they didn't add the top end on to it like they did when originally released in the 80s
No digital conversion in between. Sean Magee has stated when there were analog tapes to be used they used them for cutting the vinyl. Albums like Somewhere In Time and Seventh Son were digitally mixed though so those were cut from digital. Most of the 45 reissues were cut from analog tapes as well.
Not true - the 2014 vinyl is newly remastered and has received favourable reviews overall. There is a whole thread on the 2014 remastered vinyl.
The originals are still quite attainable. They can usually be had for under $30 each in great condition
To make it more clear - in late 2014 the 80es studio albums and the LaD concert were re-mastered anew and issued on vinyl only. They sound good. According to Discogs however some of the terrible '98 multimedia CDs were re-issued again in Japan and Europe in early 2014. These most certainly have the brickwalled mastering from '98. They sound bad.
Wait, Somewhere in Time may have been mixed digitally (really?) but remember this was mid-1980s - still tape we're talking about here (before DAT, "digital" recording meant recording to a form of video tape). Magee, et al talked about having to bake master tapes, so the masters must have been analog tapes that had to be played back (and Somewhere in Time's warble issues would confirm this). Later, like late 80s into the 90s, master tapes could be digital audio on video tape. The question of digital conversion is during the cutting process - the preview head. It's been said around the Intertubes that a digital preview head has been common place for a long time in vinyl cutting.
It isn't common place when the master they are cutting from is analog. If they did in fact cut from an analog version of Somewhere In Time then it was ADA and still digital IMO.
A digital preview head is indeed commonplace, because an analog preview head has to be custom-made nowadays (as I understand it - I wish others with more knowledge would chime in). Per George Marino, from Sterling's website: “The basic setup for cutting records is that you have an analog playback machine and the playback head feeds the signal to the cutting lathe. To cut a record properly, the computer in the cutting lathe needs to have a ‘preview’ [of what’s coming next as it’s printing], which is typically done via digital delay. The lathe gets two signals — the preview and the digitally delayed signal — and it’s the delayed signal that gets cut to the lacquer, which is not ideal.” I can't find any info if Magee, et al's cutting setup is all-analog, or if they have that capability, whether it was used on the Iron Maiden lacquers. They sound good to me so ignorance is bliss. If the tapes went through ADC first and the LPs were cut from hi-rez files, I don't care (though, since EU cuts and US cuts have variation, doesn't seem to be the case).
Just because Sterling used this process doesn't mean it's commonplace. It just means that is how their machines do it. Like you say these sound good so it really is a mute point.