HW: EMI Reissues

[Andrew Garibaldi]

hence my use of the word "supposedly" good Captain - I can't hear any
difference - in fact, in  arecent comparison between the One Way, Repertoire
and EMI reissued CD copies of the first album, I still maintain that the
Repertoire one sounds best of the lot.
The remastering game is a total minefield with labels all over the place
using it as a term for all sorts of spurious reasons - one label even
recently put "remastered" sticker on outside of one of itsCD's when all it
wasreferring to was that the album had been remastered onto CD compared to
the original vinlyl issue - something that has to be done anyway - best of
luck people.
Andy G.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Captain Bl at ck" <starfield at SUPANET.COM>
To: <BOC-L at LISTSERV.SPC.EDU>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: HW: EMI Reissues


> "What makes this a gem right now is that all the tracks on
> the second disc are from the deleted "Warrior" and Charisma label
albums,the
> only current way to get them, and supposedly remastered versions too."
>
>
> What exactly does 'remastered' mean, anyway? If you make a digital
recording
> from a vinyl copy, does that constitute 'remastering'?
>
> To my mind, a 'remastered' recoding should be taken from the first
> generation stereo tapes; that is, the actual ones that were used when the
> stereo tracks were mixed down.  But I wonder in how many cases the tapes
> actually used for 'remastering' are just an earlier generation of a
multiple
> copy used for pressing vinyl?
>
> I mean, do the EMI re-issues actually sound like they were taken from the
> original stereo masters?
>
> Thoughtz?