I started buying records in 1976 Son......... FWIW one reviewer on Amazon said the remastered LP sounded better than his original. That said, I'll take the words of Hoffman members over an Amazon review, which is why I started this. I like 180g records and often times prefer the reissue packaging. I am not a newbie, 53 years old and grew up on vinyl, though admittedly not a top cork sniffer. I would prefer if all LP reissues were either original mastering or analog, but if something is digitally remastered for vinyl and sounds good, so be it and I might buy it. There is a difference between digital brickwalled mastering and good digital mastering. Many records in the 80s and I think even late 70s were recorded digitally, though I'm not sure about actual mastering. I buy plenty used records, many more than new and am well versed on the drill. The drill is often returning records from seller over rated vinyl. Sometimes I like to cut to the chase. Another vouch for the remaster......... Thank you, I'll consider this a definitive answer to the main question I had. Now I have to weigh things out, including mono...
Of course no consideration of the possibility and not uncommon fact that artists are often not satisfied with the sound of their releases for various reasons. Gotta be nice having it all figured out..
Best to not so best from what I have. Don't have an original UK 2012/2017 1980 US Columbia 1976 US black label Capitol 1971 US Apple
I'm still watching this and appreciate you weighing in with this. Very useful.... That said, I appreciate everybody who's commented...
All good, Might of appreciated some comparison between your copies.. Nevertheless thanks for weighing in.
I did end up getting a 70s pressing. I like it fine but want the bonus material, which I've heard on Amazon. Good bonus material IMO. Maybe end up just getting a CD set. Maybe search the forum to see if anybody says it sucks..
No, it's just for MP3. To get the free hi-res downloads you had to purchase the CD/DVD super deluxe or buy them separately from HD Tracks or similar online vendors. This is true for all the Archive releases so far.
Except, the original mastering/pressing wasn't a niche product, intended for elderly audiophiles listening on $$$$$ set-up in a dedicated listening room, but the most common audio format, for the younger people to enjoy the music on their cheap turntables... That said, I don't dismiss your statement that the original sounds better, because I never had it. I just have the 2012 reissue, and it sounds brilliant to my taste and on my turntable.
..much as I love the overall sound of the vinyl re-issue, there's still distortion and clutter on BSOMC. To be honest, I'd love to hear Ram remixed..nothing crazy...just a bit more clarity, "spreading-out" and a bit thicker on the bottom end. But vinyl-love aside, Back Seat is one track that ultimately sounds better on CD.
I'd like to hear a remix too. I'm curious why they didn't do it with the Archive edition. Maybe they didn't want to take away from the 'mono' mix aspect of that set. Plus they need something to do when they release another archive version o it again in the future.
Well, I said it before and I will say it again - most of the time originals sound the way it was intended by the band and recording engineer at the time. All later "improvements" are subjective at best. That is my opinion. And by the way, If "how it sounds" is most important for You, why to bother with records at all? Some people just enjoying hi-rez downloads. As for me, I'd rather prefer "the real thing" from those times, not the "modern replica". Is that so wrong?
Came in here to post precisely this after seeing the falsehood stated on the first page of the thread. I own an early US pressing of Ram along with the 2012 release and while the 2012 is inferior to the early pressing in every way, there’s no doubt that the coda of BSOMC deteriorates into AM radio quality on both pressings. (Distortion is also present on “Smile Away” though not quite to the same extent.) Clearly there’s just too much data present for where it resides on the album and its always made me long for a double LP pressing with shorter sides with longer runout grooves. Such a shame because the rest of this record is a marvel but if you want to hear BSOMC not sound like it was taped off WMCA, you’ve got to go to the hi-res files.
I don't usually like splitting hairs like this but I have an american early 70s press and the 2012 reissue. Believe it or not, the reissue sounds better. The 70s press has a bit of the typical "last track distortion" at the end of both sides and that surely isn't how the album was intended to be.
Instead of creating a new thread thought I would ask about this early 80's (I think) barcoded UK version - Paul And Linda McCartney* - Ram Can't find the date on this reissue. Am considering a mint UK first but can't imagine it sounding much better than this, It sounds quite outstanding. Can anyone provide any feedback on this pressing? Thanks.
It’s funny but very few really answered the OPs question. Instead we got sidetracked with the usual digitally sourced vinyl BS. I have both 2012 and 2017 pressings and as a few mentioned the SQ is the same. No difference in the parts used. I found that the vinyl quality of the 2012 version was better.