finally, after 30 years of listening to the supposedly wretched audio quality of the original transfer.....



back story:

sony was gonna re-master the album in 2006, scholz convinced them to let him do it, they gave him the 24 bit transfers from the original 2-track master, and he did it, and released it back in 2006.

i haven't bothered to pick up a copy since then, today i found a copy cheap, and bought it.

gonna spend a few days comparing, and i'll comment back.

here's an interview about it, with Scholz:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article/30-minutes-tom-scholz-boston




i always considered this album to have an excellent mix...
but i remember it's original audio quality based on memory, from vinyl and cassette tape.


i know that i do not like the sound of my old CD.....
so i'm interested in hearing the 'modern' master, versus the original.

I had to buy three of the original album 'cause I flattened two from over playing them...

[in analog] the phase hasn't been all screwed up by the A/D conversion, and the high end isn't all messed up trying to fit a 16-kHz tone into three pieces of a 44-Hz sampling rate. 

Eh?

I gotta say, all of Boston's albums, sound quality wise, sucked. I don't see how remastering them could help. A bad recording is a bad recording if you know what I mean.

If I remember correctly, they did their own recording, mixing, and mastering in the basement of one of the guys in the band.

I seem to remember a story about the original multitrack tapes getting sticky before they finished one of their albums and they had to pour silicon lube on the tape as it was playing to allow the reels to spin.

batsbrew


 
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article/30-minutes-tom-scholz-boston




 

Interesting article...


Cheers

bitflipper

[in analog] the phase hasn't been all screwed up by the A/D conversion, and the high end isn't all messed up trying to fit a 16-kHz tone into three pieces of a 44-Hz sampling rate. 

Eh?

One of several "Eh's" in that article.  Interesting, but what do you expect from someone who doesn't eat meat? (  )

Well..  I kinda want to hear the music now.  My guess is, "his remasters sound worse, not better."   Getting big bass today, actually starts with...  "the recording, or the sound design."   You can't up the eq on bass and get a great sound...   You have to process all this stuff from the ground up...   Like, "breaking benjamin," or whatever..   That bass sound, starts long before the eq...

"the original, quarter-inch-tape stereo masters"

I'm curious to hear it. I wore out numerous copies of the first 2 albums, and one of my first concerts was seeing them in Las Vegas on the first tour in a smaller theater.

Don't know how much could be done to a 2 track 1/4 master, but then 10 years ago I didn't think having an unlimited track recording studio in my house was a possibility either.

Randy

I gotta say, all of Boston's albums, sound quality wise, sucked. I don't see how remastering them could help. A bad recording is a bad recording if you know what I mean. If I remember correctly, they did their own recording, mixing, and mastering in the basement of one of the guys in the band. I seem to remember a story about the original multitrack tapes getting sticky before they finished one of their albums and they had to pour silicon lube on the tape as it was playing to allow the reels to spin.

NO, THAT'S NOT QUITE THE STORY.