rburnett Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Right now I have the original RTB and the remastered 2112. Can someone explain to me the difference between the remastered and 'un' remastered? I'm looking to build up my album collection and I'm wondering which versions I should be looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbomb106 Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Simply put, the remasters are the same as the originals, but they sound better. If you've got a good sounds system, go for the remasters. Hell, go for them anyway. Some of the old productions were a bit muddy. They cost the same, so why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfuentes Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 The only remaster you want to watch out for is Presto. The volume is too soft. Stick with the original one unless you like cranking up your volume 30% more than you normally would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
launchpad67a Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Remastered cd's are re-releases of old albums that have an improved sound quality. Basically they are remixed and remastered with todays better equipment. So in short, the remasters are the way to go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickman Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 I would say the remasters are better i now have all of em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickyrob Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 QUOTE (Stickman @ May 13 2005, 09:37 AM) I would say the remasters are better i now have all of em. Including VT ? Now this is a re-master I have heard snippets from the Atlantic website and sounds so much better. Just need to know when its coming out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Porschetta Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 I am waiting patiently for remastered VT. When it comes out, it will be my fav Rush album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Sawyer Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 QUOTE (rickyrob @ May 13 2005, 02:29 AM) QUOTE (Stickman @ May 13 2005, 09:37 AM) I would say the remasters are better i now have all of em. Including VT ? Now this is a re-master I have heard snippets from the Atlantic website and sounds so much better. Just need to know when its coming out. My question is, if remasters are better, based on the "newer" and improved technologies, why does the 3 year old VT need to be remastered? Why did they not master it the first time. Aaaaannnd, when SACD becomes more and more popular is everyone going to re-purchase everything again? Aaaaaannnnnnd if the eventually come up with an ever better format of release (e.g. SUPER-DUPER SACD) will everyone go out and buy everything again.... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnndddddddd..... $$CA-CHING-CA-CHING$$ I think we're in the wrong business folks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rburnett Posted May 13, 2005 Author Share Posted May 13, 2005 QUOTE (pinkfloyd1973 @ May 13 2005, 01:51 PM) QUOTE (rickyrob @ May 13 2005, 02:29 AM) QUOTE (Stickman @ May 13 2005, 09:37 AM) I would say the remasters are better i now have all of em. Including VT ? Now this is a re-master I have heard snippets from the Atlantic website and sounds so much better. Just need to know when its coming out. My question is, if remasters are better, based on the "newer" and improved technologies, why does the 3 year old VT need to be remastered? Why did they not master it the first time. Aaaaannnd, when SACD becomes more and more popular is everyone going to re-purchase everything again? Aaaaaannnnnnd if the eventually come up with an ever better format of release (e.g. SUPER-DUPER SACD) will everyone go out and buy everything again.... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnndddddddd..... $$CA-CHING-CA-CHING$$ I think we're in the wrong business folks! Thanks for the repies. pinkfloyd1973 makes a good point, why does VT need to be remastered if it's only 3 years old? Does the original sound that bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pags Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 QUOTE (rburnett @ May 13 2005, 05:01 PM) QUOTE (pinkfloyd1973 @ May 13 2005, 01:51 PM) QUOTE (rickyrob @ May 13 2005, 02:29 AM) QUOTE (Stickman @ May 13 2005, 09:37 AM) I would say the remasters are better i now have all of em. Including VT ? Now this is a re-master I have heard snippets from the Atlantic website and sounds so much better. Just need to know when its coming out. My question is, if remasters are better, based on the "newer" and improved technologies, why does the 3 year old VT need to be remastered? Why did they not master it the first time. Aaaaannnd, when SACD becomes more and more popular is everyone going to re-purchase everything again? Aaaaaannnnnnd if the eventually come up with an ever better format of release (e.g. SUPER-DUPER SACD) will everyone go out and buy everything again.... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnndddddddd..... $$CA-CHING-CA-CHING$$ I think we're in the wrong business folks! Thanks for the repies. pinkfloyd1973 makes a good point, why does VT need to be remastered if it's only 3 years old? Does the original sound that bad? Yes, the original VT sounds that bad. It's virtually unlistenable (is that a word?). It needed to be remastered simply to save it. And guess what folks... there's actually music on VT!! I can't put logic to releases like Counterparts, and why that would need remastering. I don't own it, but people say it actually sounds better. So go figure. I hear major differences in the older releases that have been remastered such as 2112, MP, and Signals, etc. Plus the packaging and labelling are much nicer as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rburnett Posted May 13, 2005 Author Share Posted May 13, 2005 QUOTE (sfuentes @ May 12 2005, 11:51 PM) The only remaster you want to watch out for is Presto. The volume is too soft. Stick with the original one unless you like cranking up your volume 30% more than you normally would. Is there poor sound quality on the 'Presto' remaster, or is it just the overall volume level? Do any other remasters have this issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfuentes Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 QUOTE (rburnett @ May 13 2005, 02:57 PM) QUOTE (sfuentes @ May 12 2005, 11:51 PM) The only remaster you want to watch out for is Presto. The volume is too soft. Stick with the original one unless you like cranking up your volume 30% more than you normally would. Is there poor sound quality on the 'Presto' remaster, or is it just the overall volume level? Do any other remasters have this issue? Presto is the only one with a low volume level. The sound quality is great, but I can't say as much for the volume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian Hunter Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 I really would like to hear VT remastered, as in the whole album not downloaded. I find the volume on Presto for me is fine, maybe thats because i always have my music loud i'm not too sure, i can only tell it sounds different when i put Presto on after VT, but thats the same for all albums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.