If they were any cheaper, they'd have to swap out the apostrophes for little boxes to make up the cost.
Ryan
Brian Eno: best sounding CDs (especially Warm Jets)?
-
Crummy Old Label Avatar
- Posts: 1226
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:55 pm
- Location: Out of my fucking mind
If dudelsack will allow me to indulge in a bit of infantile pedanticism [sic]....
I have the original UK Island LP, the original Editions EG CD, the tracks from Warm Jets (two tracks were not included) on Eno Box 1, and the new remaster, and I honestly don't think there is much of a noticeable difference between ANY of them.
At most, I'd say that the Editions E.G. disc is a bit hissier (for those who like that sort of thing), the Eno Box tracks are a tad bit "smoother," and the remaster is a little bit LOUDER. Other than that, it's pretty much chicken-or-the-egg. (Or is it carrot and stick?) Tonally, they are all quite similar. Providing the volume levels were matched, I think anyone would have a hell of a time A/B-ing these. I know that I would.
BTW, the LP is indeed a trebly, somewhat bass shy recording, like all of Eno's productions. Something to do with running every instrument through various "treatments" thinned out the overarching sonics considerably. Just keep in mind that this was a "processed" recording from its inception.
[Hope you didn't find this too, how do you say? -- super-repetitive, dudelsack.]
I have the original UK Island LP, the original Editions EG CD, the tracks from Warm Jets (two tracks were not included) on Eno Box 1, and the new remaster, and I honestly don't think there is much of a noticeable difference between ANY of them.
At most, I'd say that the Editions E.G. disc is a bit hissier (for those who like that sort of thing), the Eno Box tracks are a tad bit "smoother," and the remaster is a little bit LOUDER. Other than that, it's pretty much chicken-or-the-egg. (Or is it carrot and stick?) Tonally, they are all quite similar. Providing the volume levels were matched, I think anyone would have a hell of a time A/B-ing these. I know that I would.
BTW, the LP is indeed a trebly, somewhat bass shy recording, like all of Eno's productions. Something to do with running every instrument through various "treatments" thinned out the overarching sonics considerably. Just keep in mind that this was a "processed" recording from its inception.
[Hope you didn't find this too, how do you say? -- super-repetitive, dudelsack.]
If you love Hi-REZ TAPE HISS, you're REALLY going to love Stereo Central
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
Xenu wrote:Acceptable, but as a full-price reissue? Not really. I'd like something more.
You mean in terms of what tape was used?
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
All I've got is the Eno Box and the original LPs, so aside from missing a couple of tracks from the Box it doesn't sound like much reason to upgrade, certainly not at that price.
Still sounds weird to me that an LP production tape was preferred over the presumably un-eq'd master. Wouldn't the LP tape have rolled off (and perhaps summed) bass and a more limited high end?
Still sounds weird to me that an LP production tape was preferred over the presumably un-eq'd master. Wouldn't the LP tape have rolled off (and perhaps summed) bass and a more limited high end?
ray
RDK wrote:Still sounds weird to me that an LP production tape was preferred over the presumably un-eq'd master. Wouldn't the LP tape have rolled off (and perhaps summed) bass and a more limited high end?
It miggght. Depends on what kind of "level" this particular submaster was. It could just be EQed.
