Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by old school, Mar 11, 2012.
They are the paper sash that goes over the spine on Japanese releases that have the artist, album title and song titles written in Japanese.
Thanks, didn't realize that they were that expensive. Clearly, I've never priced any of them out!
Some are more expensive than others. Powerslave was $100, but Live After Death was $30.
Do your research in several threads here before spending that kind of money. The Japan Black Triangles are all the exact same mastering as their UK counterparts.
I believe so. I don't own that one.
I recently posted here the DR values of my full Castle 2CD set , some of the black triangles and some other early Maiden CDs I have/had.
On the OnkyoMusic site, I've noticed that there are some 24/44.1 albums which don't necessarily specify which mastering they are.
For example, here are the two downloads that they're offering for Killers:
24/44.1, unspecified mastering, available as of April 6, 2015: Hi Res Music Downloads | HD Audio Store | Onkyo Music
24/96, listed as 2015 mastering, available as of August 31, 2016: Hi Res Music Downloads | HD Audio Store | Onkyo Music
Is it possible that these are sourced from the same master, and only differ in sample frequency? If not, does anyone know which mastering the "unspecified" version is?
I don't have a clue, really. But I'm having a hard time imagining the 24/44.1 version being the original mastering, so it's either the über-compressed 1996 or the downsampled not-so-bad-as-1996-but-far-from-good 2015 remastering.
Thanks, Supernautico. That seems like a safe assumption.
Huh?! Those 1998 nasties aren't taken from any origianl analog sources.They just took the digital production tapes added loads of multi-band compression and lots of unnecessary Eq.
The result: Remasters that sound nothing like the viynl records. Have you heard the original vinyl, cassette or CD?...Even a 1990 cassette was better that those crappy, bright loud garbage disks. Sorry but when it comes to The Iron Maiden 1998 re-stinkers I give no quarter.
The 1998 Remasters (taken from digital production tapes) were altered to sound modern. They sound nothing like the original albums. As for the CD's being thin I disagree. They may have used copy tapes for 80's disks. A little less bottom end and some top end gone but other wise it's what the albums actually sound like. And those remasters (Stinkers)sound harsh, bright and loud. Playing them on a good revealing cans is a kin to drinking water down Koollaid out of Crystal champagne glasses. I realize that too often The Hoffman Forum comes down way to hard on remasters. For example: The Beatle Remasters which were great was unnecessarily bashed by some members on here. As well as the Elton John 1995 remasters.
But this is different. The Iron Maiden 1998 Stinking remasters is one of the worst mastering jobs ever in CD history. No offence but how can you call yourself an audiophile if you actually think those harsh, bright, loud multi-band compressed handfuls of dog waste sound good?
Agreed. They have remastered them in 2015.
For years only available as downloads on line. They were released in Japan on CD. And finally now here. I see them finally be sold on Amazon. They are remastered from the original tapes. There is normalization and a little bit of compression.
Go on Amazon. 2015 remasters now available in North America. I agree with everthing you say.
"A little bit of compression?" DR values would suggest they're even more compressed than the '98s. What good is it to go back to the original tapes if you're just going to crush the life out of them?
DR values and waveforms should not be the ultimate judging criteria when it comes to good mastering. It's a fact DR values go down with less heights (or up with more) and therefore do NOT indicate solely compressed audio.
Most people here agree that the new remasters sound better than the '98ers, no matter if their DR is even lower - BTW, I'm not sure even if that's true.
And still, it all doesn't matter, because nothing changes the fact that Iron Maiden, up until now, didn't manage to give us a proper digital mastering of their masterpieces.
No! No! Tell me you are joking?
Keep in mind EQ also steals dynamic range. I will be purchasing "Number Of The Beast" 2015 remasters at the end of the month. My ears will tell me the truth. I don't buy CD's based on some DR rating. I would appreciate hearing from someone who actually has one of the 2015 remasters.
You are right but as a mastering engineer I am getting that Spider Man Sense Tingle that something isn't right.
O.k maybe more than "a little compression."
Absolutely, but I was addressing one specific claim about compression.
Yes: less dynamic audio has lower DR, whether it has been compressed or not. In this case, the DR values are lower than previous releases of the same material, suggesting additional compression.
It's certainly possible for a less dynamic master to sound subjectively better, for any number of reasons. But the numbers don't lie: these new masters are less dynamic. That's not open for debate.
And they still haven't, apparently.
Does anyone have the "original" (there may be multiple), 1995, 1998, and 2015 CD masterings of, say, The Number of the Beast? If so, would you be willing to put together a blind test/poll thread with samples? I'd love to know which set of masters I'm most likely to prefer. Judging by comments, DR values, and what I know about my preferences for mastering "eras," I'm thinking probably the '95s.
Let me explain a bit better: a flat transfer from master tapes gets bigger dynamics when EQing is applied to enhance the heights. As this has been proven multiple times in the forum, a higher DR value is no sign for untampered audio.
Or, put different, less dynamic doesn't mean worse audio. It means less dynamic, and I agree with you: that's not open for debate - but also, that's rather meaningless: dynamics for dynamic's sake.
In the end: trust your ears, your audio equipment should give you the answer.
This has been already discussed in deep here: The big comparison of Iron Maiden CD masterings.
In short: All CDs up to 1995 feature the same mastering, no matter if UK/US or JPN - usually, people are best served with the 95er 2fers here.
The only differences are pressing qualities from the manufacturers. If this is redundant to you, go and try to get some original "black triangle" JPN pressings!
And if you have even more money to spend, go and get "The First Ten Years" box set or single CDs: They used the single's masters as a source, and these (back then) new transfers were better than the ones done for the albums - of course, that doesn't help all the other songs from their respective albums!
My Nurse just left changing the compression bandage on my right leg. I have a Oozing ulcer. It looks like some animal took a bite out of my leg. It was pretty badly infected. I had a high fever which may have caused me to post strangely in the week or so. My apologies to those ahhh members who I may have offended or got angry at for really no good reason..
Down to business. Yes, they are engineers who use 44.1 khz and nothing higher when recording a new album. Why? Some engineers feel that anything beyond 44.1 khz is a waste of time and others feel higher sampling rates actually make the music sound worse. But not in mastering. 88.2 khz is the lowest a mastering engineer would use. Most are either mastering in 96, 176.4 (ME!!), 192 and some even now 384 khz. No way these are the original files. They are probably have the same mastering choices too. What you want are the raw untouched virgin 24/192 files. Too bad....Not gonna happen. Why? The virgin 24/192 files is a copy protection issue. Nobody really wants these flying about on bit-torrent sites.
The Iron Maiden stuff from the analog was done at 24/192. I had an engineer friend who knows the studio that did the Madien remasters. He sent me a copy of the raw virgin unedited Iron Maiden 24/192 files for Number Of The Beast album on DVD via express courier. All I can say is DAMN THESE ARE GOOD. But the 24/44.1 HD files are good too. But they don't compare. They have mastering EQ on them. And no I can't upload these. I really want to....
It's a tease really. When I asked Ben for all the other 1980 - 1988 albums I was told
, "That's all you get...." He owed me a favour.
Now I am really depressed. After the raw virgin 24/192 file of NOTB the Japanese 1982 vinyl pressing I have sounds like crap by comparison.
Nonsense. Last week I saw dozens of Iron Maiden Black Triangle CDs in a discount bin at used CD store in Toronto last week for $3 each.....LOL joking! Very expensive and hard to find.
You must have a special filter on your HI-FI system. You switch it on and really awful sounding mastered disks come out sounding good. Is it a Carver amp?
LOL. Have you heard the original Maiden albums? The 1998 masters sound nothing like them. Forget the compression. It's the excessive EQ that is the real crime here. Do you know what they did? They modernized it by: decreasing the cloud (90-250hz). The Cloud is where the detail of the bass is. But modern mastering engineers hate the cloud (Except: Steve, me and a few others) and pull it down. Jacked up the midrange and yanked up the top end.
150 hz -3 db @ Q of 1.
3 kHz +3 db @ Q of 1.
8 khz +5 db @ Q of 1.
They completely changed the sound of Number Of The Beast. The original album had this rolling mid bass thunder. It gave the album Weight but now it's gone. And the top end is all harsh and bright. Most Maiden albums from the 80's had this subdued top end. It gave these albums a certain character. The mastering changes were made to give the group a nice overly bright 90's thin sound. Sorry but Number Of The Beast nor Piece Of Mind is a late 90's album.
Yes, very true. The first pressing of an album is a good place to start.
Separate names with a comma.