Hawkwindforum

are the remasters from 1996 mastered identical to the 2001 editions.
i was reading somewhere that some people prefer the 1996 editions but on my hall of the mountain grill cd from 2001 i think it says digital remastering 1996,although my eyes aren't too good and the print is small

Peter Mew's 1996 original remastering was how remastering should be done, a straight copy from the original tapes using the best equipment Abbey Road has to offer. The full dynamic range is preserved. Later editions have, I would guess, used that remaster for 're-remasterings'. Whether you like these epends on your view of the 'modern sound'. In my opinion sound engineering has completely gone horribly wrong in the last 15 years..

Epoch Eclipse is the ultimate expression of this that I've heard so far. Listen to that and you'll know which side of the fence you're on..

yes i am in favour of pure sound and definately not all the compressed rubbish you seem to get nowadays on nearly every remaster going.
i am definately going to find a 1996 remaster to compare it

just compared the original hall of the mountain grill cd on emi and it sounds so much better,with it being a flat level recording i can hear sounds that i remembered from when it was released on vinyl that just don't show up on the 2001 remaster.

wayoftheworld wrote:just compared the original hall of the mountain grill cd on emi and it sounds so much better,with it being a flat level recording i can hear sounds that i remembered from when it was released on vinyl that just don't show up on the 2001 remaster.

thanks for the post, wayoftheworld - this is one I have not acquired yet. I hope I am able to locate an original CD issue. damn, that's too bad they had to go and mess it up !

yes try to get hold of one if you can,you wont be dissapointed. tell me what you think when you acquire one and would love to hear anyone else's views that has the original emi fame issue.

It is important issue in theory and I'm dissapointed with the current trend in mastering. But in practice I really don't think your enjoyment will be affected whichever EMI release you get. They stll have high professional standards..

The only reason I don't buy the re-issues or remasters is simply because I already bought the albums once already. It's really not in the spirit of rock to get too anal about it either way. After all sonic malhandling is a big part of the sound of heavy rock long before it get's to the mastering stage..

But if someone really want's to get to the bottom of it, the best way to compare is to load the recordings into a sound editor and compare them visually.

eg.

the bad part for me on the 2001 remasters is the vocals are boosted as are the drums and bass to the point where the vocals are really loud and uncomfortable compared to the original.
the quieter passeges are drounded out due to the boosts and it is not until you get the original to compare it to that you realise this.

There are a lot of complaints about CDs being made 'too loud' (Metallica's last album was a case in point, although I wouldn't even bother to download Metallica from Napster ).

The problem is that CDs are outmoded technology, like the floppy disk. Thankfully eventually the world has moved on to flash drives.

I know that this sounds geeky but I am not a geek. I just like good sound quality. The only sensible way to re master 24 bit tapes is onto a 24 bit format, otherwise some distortion will take place. The DVD 24-bit disc formats (SACD, DVD-A) didn't take off, but digital downloads are very much possible and BDs can play them. King Crimson are releasing their releasing their re-masters in multi-format (including HD stereo and 5.i surround) and the quiet passages are all there. Porcupine Tree and NIN are bands that release in HD formats-- NIN from their web site or now on BDs. Brian Eno offered free 24-bit downloads of his last album free when you bought the CD.

I did ask Atomhenge once about the idea HD downloads (I have enough Hawkwind albums anyway) but Vicky didn't understand. The other problem with the Atomhenge remasters, although I appreciate them, is that there are too many substandard outtakes with the original album. I like to hear them, but not tacked onto the end of the original. Hearing the same track again at the end of the album in a less interesting form is annoying. When its on a separate CD that's great. HQ digital downloads would avoid that problem (and enable you just buy the bonus tracks if you own the CD).

I live for every extra little track, instrumental, vocal snippet included on the remasters.
I think they portray a time relevant Hawkwind mindset/emotion.
I'll take as much of it as I can get Vicky.

I once heard it said that Hawkwind fans would even collect the sound of the band's recorded farts if they could. I don't think they knew the origin of the band's name though..

wayoftheworld wrote:just compared the original hall of the mountain grill cd on emi and it sounds so much better,with it being a flat level recording i can hear sounds that i remembered from when it was released on vinyl that just don't show up on the 2001 remaster.

I too prefer the original CD issues (on One-Way in the US) to the EMI remasters for the relevent studio albums (I prefer the deluxe Space Ritual from the 2000's over the 1996 remaster...don't have the original to compare).

While they did a nice job of not making things "too loud" I felt that they have an odd, "sucked out" sound to them. Likely excessive noise reduction. Essential bonus tracks though...guess I have to keep both.

The 2001 EMI remasters are a re-issue of the 1996 remasters and to my ears there is negligible difference in sound. The only reason I bought the 2001 re-issues was due to the deterioration of the disc surface on the 1996 discs (I think this has been covered by another thread).

As is common with other 1990's remasters by EMI sound is only so-so (in my opinion) so a remaster by Atomhenge would be most welcome (if unlikely). In the meantime the 2001 version currently available is as good as it gets on cd.

That's my opinion based upon listening through a late 1990's vintage Naim system (through which the new Atomhenge remaster of "Earthed To The Ground" sounds most enjoyable).

i did compare the 1996 remastered cd and the 2001 cd and also found there was no difference in sound.
but as for the which version is the best, did you do a comparrison between the original and the 2001 remaster.

The only "original" CD I still have is "Masters of the Universe" on EMI Fame from 1989 which I think is the same vintage as the original batch of albums on cd. To my ears it doesn't sound a great deal different from the 1996/2001 remasters, maybe a little cleaner and thinner sounding. Not sure if it is necessarily better or worse.

As regards my comment on EMI remasters from the 1990's (not just Hawkwind) I always found them to be slightly flat & odd sounding (unmusical). The Griffin master of WOTEOT is to my ears how a cd master should sound being rich, vibrant and very musical. Not overblown either.

I guess in the final analysis it all comes down to personal taste and what system you use. Oddly enough when I had the UA albums on vinyl I always viewed them as being somewhat lo-fi and sound quality wasn't an issue. Shame I no longer have them for comparison purposes!