HW: EMI Reissues

[Doug Pearson]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 00:11:40 +0100, Jon Jarrett
<jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK> wrote:
>        I think I'd agree overall, but I think a danger with _Warrior_ is
>that in order to give it that power the bottom end might be boosted too
>much.

Yeah, the reason I used the word "power" was because there's a LOT going on
with that album (as someone else mentioned), and I had a tough time finding
a more specific description.

>I have the Griffin CD and it seems to me that the bottom end is
>very, not muddy, but indefinite in a liquid way, I want to say
>swampy. Like it was recorded in less definition than the rest of the
>tracks. That may be because of the bass-rolling you were talking about
>lower down the thread perhaps. Either way I don't think Lemmy really
>shines on this album but I think just bringing it up, if the CD accurately
>reflects the state of the master, is not going to cure that.

I think that's because Lemmy plays Gibson Thunderbird instead of a
Rickenbacker bass on this album (even though his Ric had a T-bird pickup in
it!).  You do an excellent job of describing the tonal differences between
those two instruments.

>The whole
>low-end would profit from more definition and I think I'd sacrifice some
>power for that. Of course it might be possible to have both which would be
>great, but I think of the four albums _Warrior_ is the only one which
>needs something obvious done to it to restore its intended state.

That's the kind of thing that *can* be done in remastering (assuming a good
engineer with good ears in a good room with good equipment)

>ASAM
>could be made into a much better-sounding album with the multi-tracks as
>someone said, putting back the missing centre, but this would be more a
>remix, Zappa-style, than a remaster. Just my opinion,

You may be right.  I believe that ASAM *could* be salvaged in remastering
(probably with large amounts of analog eq and multiband compression, and,
of course, the aforementioned engineer etc.)