Actually, the context of the quote is that the digital delay is commonplace in the industry ("The basic setup...") but Sterling has adopted an all-analog chain with custom analog delay. In other words, they are contrasting the usual methods with their wowie-zowie custom analog setup (i.e., marketing). We know that Magee, etal used an all-analog chain for the Beatles in Mono box. Did they do that for the Maidens? I would bet we would have paid a lot more, if they had. But who knows...and would the results have been any better?
This is an assumption that I wouldn't make. Also why would Magee use different equipment than what he used to cut The Beatles stuff with if the end result wanted was the same? Anyway, we have spent too much time on this slightly off topic subject. The fact is they sound good and in many cases as good as the originals or very, very close to it. That's what matters most here.
I personally think the new vinyl sounds terrible compared to the originals and I think they have done a dis-service to the great sound that Martin Birch got from the band so I totally disagree when you say they sound as good !!
Well you are in a small minority. Most people that I talk to (and from what I have compared) think they sound good and in some cases are very close to (in some cases as good as) the originals. I'm sorry you feel that way but I guess we will agree to disagree because I think the new vinyl sounds pretty damn good.
They sound good but the variable volume problem on the long sides like Powerslave really annoys me. Did the originals have this problem, sadly I don't have any to test. I recently bought Genesis' Wind and Wuthering from 1976 and Dead Kennedys live on vinyl released in 2007 which both had 26 minute sides and the volume on those was constant throughout albeit low, extremely low on the 2007 DK record.
The originals didn't have that but I wouldn't classify them as terrible sounding because of this. I know you didn't say they do just making a general statement here.
I have only been able to make direct comparisons for five albums: 1st (I like the original UK pressing a bit better than the 2014 EU version) Killers (I like the original UK pressing better than the 2014 EU version) The Number of the Beast (I like the original UK pressing noticeably better than the 2014 EU version) Live After Death (I like the 2014 EU version better than the original Wally mastering, better midrange and less boomy sounding) Seventh Son of a Seventh Son (I like the 2014 EU version better than the original UK pressing, better midrange and less boomy sounding) All in all, the 2014 pressings are quite decent, but for the first three, they can't quite touch the UK originals. The other three albums for which I have not done a direct comparison sound good to me in their 2014 incarnation.
Roland, good analysis. I have to go and compare by 1st 2014 to a UK needledrop I have, but honestly I haven't been motivated to do so since this one sounds so good to me (I've only ever had the old Capitol CD). Reminds me, I still need to upload the crackling bit I mentioned a while ago. I haven't let it bother me. It rocks, it moves me. I will still stand up for the EU Number of the Beast and even Killers but I can totally understand complaints about them. But to completely write all of these off as "terrible" would be a disservice.
I am actually hoping that at some point Maiden makes the remastered vinyl available on digital hi-res files, hopefully without botching the dynamic range
Do we know for sure that the Maiden remasters were made all analog all the way? I'm myself not sure about that, I'm one of those who prefer the originals before the remasters. To my ears the remasters lacks much of the drive compared to the originals, I think that's very evident if comparing the first three albums remasters vs originals...
I have learnt over the years with Maiden to be happy with the originals, I don't think they will ever get better !!
I have compared my US original Killers to my 2014 UK pressing and the only difference I here is EQ. Also, when it comes to the all analog thing Sean Magee has stated that in most cases they cut the new vinyl directly from the original analog master tapes so.....
What you are talking about has nothing to do with all-analog or having a digital step in the process - it's all in the mastering. EQ moves, stereo widening, some compression, etc. - all the secret ingredients that made the originals kick ass seem to have been done to a much lesser degree (if even at all!) on the remasters. My purchase of the 2014 Somewhere in Time from Amazon included free mp3s that sound just like the LP; this tells me that what they did was digitized. I remember Magee saying in the promo video about Maiden, inc. wanting to be very careful with this remastering and archiving things (digitizing the master tapes, I assume), so if mp3s are there, high-res would be possible, but would they make them available?
Yes and in the middle of this process some of the original magic unfortunately was lost. When I listen to the remasters I miss some of the drive and the punch that was a very vital part of the original releases.
Bought the 1998 CD remasters at the time, then went back and acquired original 80s/early 90s CD to get back dynamics, all ripped to AAC for mobile listening and ALAC for home streaming. If rebuying the CDs from Amazon gets me halfway decent sounding MP3s struck from the new masters, I'd pony up. An MP3 bird in the hand are worth two possible future reissue birds in the bush. The 70s Ozzy era Black Sabbath Mastered for iTunes catalogue has been a permanent fixture on the iTunes metal genre page since they've been released and don't sound too shabby at all (Note: this is NOT to start an iTunes/MP3/AAC/lossy argument, so no one even start!). Given the relative success of catalogue reissues by Zeppelin, Floyd, Sabbath, Beatles, Queen, AC/DC, The Clash, The Who etc (heck, even Abba for that matter) on iTunes, a high profile digital download reissue campaign could be done across iTunes, Amazon, HD Tracks, Google etc with ease, especially if the digitisation of the new masters has already been done. In other words, take my money already!
How's the DR for these newly "mastered for itunes" for Sabbath and Zeppelin? I assume that if those are good sounding releases, Maiden would follow suit.
Not sure on the Sabbath ones. DR and soundwise the Zeppelin MFiT matches the new CDs exactly as far as I'm aware, they use the exact same John Davis masters.
Have you tried dropping those mp3s through the DR Meter just to have an idea if they applied compression?
I had a chance to compare 3 versions of Maiden's self titled - the original UK, the US Harvest and the newest one. The 1stUK is definitely better than any other version by far (I mean by FAR). The low frequencies there are incredibly powerful for an allegedly "poorly produced album". Also, all the other frequencies have a better balance, What strikes me the most on this release is the fullness. It's amazingly big, meaty and the most lively sounding lp of the bunch. No contest. Then you have the US 1st press which has more top end and a weak bass. If the new pressing is better than the 1st US? It sure has more low end, and the guitar intro of Prowler sounds closer to the early UK release, which is a good surprise, but then, the bottom end is definitely not the same when the the bass/ drums kick in. Those frequencies are somehow hollow in constrast, a little darker and way more relaxed. All things considered, it's definitely NOT a bad sounding record. To my ears, it's better than the Harvest one. I wish they had found the same fullness as the first UK pressing, cause it is certainly not a bass shy mastering, but I suppose the problem lies on the ambience, the wider spectrum... it's hard to articulate.
Is it the actual UK first press that’s better? I’ve only heard the Fame reissue from 1985 and prefer the US Harvest and the new one both to it.
