Remaster this Douchebags!

[Nickdfresh]

I noticed that Van Halen reissued their CD's in a "Remastered" edition. I downloaded "Hot for Teacher" (legally from i-tunes!) to compare and indeed there is a palpable difference in sound quality when I play it against my 19-year-old 1984 CD. Does anyone out there know if Van Halen or their (current or former?) label Warner Bros. Records intend to issue their albums on the DVD-Super Audio format? Warner Bros. is one of the labels (half-heartedly) pushing the DVD-SA format. When done right, and there are a a lot of jerk-off money grabbing attempts to market DTS 5.1 (basically audio ripped form a DVD video) and half-assed 48kps releases as a DVD-Super Audio works, the six-channel 96/24 kps resolution in 5.1 surround sound can't be beat. And since I've heard Sony maybe pulling the plug on Super Audio CD, this maybe the only high resolution format left for audiophiles. Sony claims that there is a general lack of interest in SACD and that their attempt to broaden interest by making SACD's duel channel so they will play on regular CD players is full of insurrmountable technical flaws. Critics charge (I think I am becoming an amateur critic of the record industry) that the industry does little the the way of promoting new audio formats. They are too obsessed with suing downloaders and obsessively making copyright laws more ridiculously stringent. The record industry's lack of foresite has especially reared its fucking ugly head in its attacking of downloaders and its erronious claims that music downloading effects sales on profits. In fact, a Harvard study on the downloading of music, as presented on a recent program of ABC's Nightline, directly contradicts these claims by basically saying the record companies are misleadingly comparing today' lackluster sales to the boom times of the 1980's to early 90's. Sales were high at this time for two main reasons: the labels were both price gouging CD's (the unit cost of producing CD's dropped dramtically by the late 80's, yet the retail prices rose or remained unchanged) and people were converting their music collections over to CD and buying the same releases they had on vinyl and cassette. But apparently the same record labels who want to sell us the technology dated from the early 1980's want to keep music from fully flourishing in the digital age, and from filling in the lapses of audio nuiance that digital encoding created when compared to vinyl. The previously mentioned Harvard study basically concluded that the same artists who had their music illegally downloaded the most were the same artists who consistantly sold the most CD's (50 Cent was the given example on Nightline) and downloads were used to preview an artists music as much as it was to collect it. So there was no direct correlation between illegal downloads and the decrease in CD sales. Instead, downloads on (now) legal sites such as Napster and I-Pod have given back the consumer the ability to buy singles without having to get the CD or an overpriced CD single. The record companies should finish what they began in the late 80's and agree to furnish a format that isn't over 20 years old now. While CD recording technology has improved, and the "Remasters" Van Halen series is clearly better than the CD's I bought in junior high school, I have to ask why hasn't Warner Bros. or Van Halen pushed to get their works the true compression and detail on DVD SA like some other Warner releases. There are precious few rock releases available on DVD-SA. Some notables are: "Peter Frampton Comes Alive", The Who's "Tommy," Metallica's black album (which I have and sounds awesome in 5.1 surround!). One of the half-hearted DVD Super Audio efforts I mentioned above is Led Zeppelin's "How the West was Won" but produced in the half-assed 48khs surround which is about the audio quality of a DVD soundtrack and only marginally better than a compact disc (this according to an online review I read which basically said don't bother getting it if you already have the CD). Van Halen should push to get their stuff out on DVD Super Audio to give the format a boost. And Eddie's guitar and Dave's yelps would sound fucking great bursting out of all six of your speakers, provided of course you are set up to play six-channel audio. Let me if anyone likes DVD SA format or whatever you think about this subject.

--Nicki Dfresh

[bueno bob]

I haven't heard anything about it, but it'd be a nice treat if they did. I'd buy 'em!

[Kristy]

Personally, I like the sound of the "Remasters." Warner Bros did a remarkable job with the sound of those records (especially 'Fair Warning') that were recorded over 20-25 years ago. I don't know what the technology is but they sound incredible without sounding to "digital" - whatever that means.

I don't know much about the SA-format CDs' - they play at a much higher bitrate rate or something so that instruments/voice sound more richer. The only one I ever heard was Jeff Beck's 'Blow By Blow' and it was impressive in that format. Never heard a 5.1 CD though.

[DLR_EngineRoom]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I noticed that Van Halen reissued their CD's in a "Remastered" edition. I downloaded "Hot for Teacher" (legally from i-tunes!) to compare and indeed there is a palpable difference in sound quality when I play it against my 19-year-old 1984 CD. Does anyone out there know if Van Halen or their (current or former?) label Warner Bros. Records intend to issue their albums on the DVD-Super Audio format? Warner Bros. is one of the labels (half-heartedly) pushing the DVD-SA format. When done right, and there are a a lot of jerk-off money grabbing attempts to market DTS 5.1 (basically audio ripped form a DVD video) and half-assed 48kps releases as a DVD-Super Audio works, the six-channel 96/24 kps resolution in 5.1 surround sound can't be beat. And since I've heard Sony maybe pulling the plug on Super Audio CD, this maybe the only high resolution format left for audiophiles. Sony claims that there is a general lack of interest in SACD and that their attempt to broaden interest by making SACD's duel channel so they will play on regular CD players is full of insurrmountable technical flaws. Critics charge (I think I am becoming an amateur critic of the record industry) that the industry does little the the way of promoting new audio formats. They are too obsessed with suing downloaders and obsessively making copyright laws more ridiculously stringent. The record industry's lack of foresite has especially reared its fucking ugly head in its attacking of downloaders and its erronious claims that music downloading effects sales on profits. In fact, a Harvard study on the downloading of music, as presented on a recent program of ABC's Nightline, directly contradicts these claims by basically saying the record companies are misleadingly comparing today' lackluster sales to the boom times of the 1980's to early 90's. Sales were high at this time for two main reasons: the labels were both price gouging CD's (the unit cost of producing CD's dropped dramtically by the late 80's, yet the retail prices rose or remained unchanged) and people were converting their music collections over to CD and buying the same releases they had on vinyl and cassette. But apparently the same record labels who want to sell us the technology dated from the early 1980's want to keep music from fully flourishing in the digital age, and from filling in the lapses of audio nuiance that digital encoding created when compared to vinyl. The previously mentioned Harvard study basically concluded that the same artists who had their music illegally downloaded the most were the same artists who consistantly sold the most CD's (50 Cent was the given example on Nightline) and downloads were used to preview an artists music as much as it was to collect it. So there was no direct correlation between illegal downloads and the decrease in CD sales. Instead, downloads on (now) legal sites such as Napster and I-Pod have given back the consumer the ability to buy singles without having to get the CD or an overpriced CD single. The record companies should finish what they began in the late 80's and agree to furnish a format that isn't over 20 years old now. While CD recording technology has improved, and the "Remasters" Van Halen series is clearly better than the CD's I bought in junior high school, I have to ask why hasn't Warner Bros. or Van Halen pushed to get their works the true compression and detail on DVD SA like some other Warner releases. There are precious few rock releases available on DVD-SA. Some notables are: "Peter Frampton Comes Alive", The Who's "Tommy," Metallica's black album (which I have and sounds awesome in 5.1 surround!). One of the half-hearted DVD Super Audio efforts I mentioned above is Led Zeppelin's "How the West was Won" but produced in the half-assed 48khs surround which is about the audio quality of a DVD soundtrack and only marginally better than a compact disc (this according to an online review I read which basically said don't bother getting it if you already have the CD). Van Halen should push to get their stuff out on DVD Super Audio to give the format a boost. And Eddie's guitar and Dave's yelps would sound fucking great bursting out of all six of your speakers, provided of course you are set up to play six-channel audio. Let me if anyone likes DVD SA format or whatever you think about this subject.

--Nicki Dfresh

I do know that Van Halen 1 was released as a 'Diamond CD'. Shoulda bought it....

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Kristy
Personally, I like the sound of the "Remasters." Warner Bros did a remarkable job with the sound of those records (especially 'Fair Warning') that were recorded over 20-25 years ago. I don't know what the technology is but they sound incredible without sounding to "digital" - whatever that means.

I don't know much about the SA-format CDs' - they play at a much higher bitrate rate or something so that instruments/voice sound more richer. The only one I ever heard was Jeff Beck's 'Blow By Blow' and it was impressive in that format. Never heard a 5.1 CD though.

FYI- I didn't mean to slam the "Remasters." Actually they sound much better and seemed to be reasonably priced at about ten bucks a pop. I'm not sure, but I think that they are basically updates of the origional recordings using better digital burn technology more than anything else. As for the the new formats such as SACD and DVD Super Audio play at a much higher compression and bit rate which recaptures much of the sound that was lost when CD's were first encoded digitally into 1's and 0's. You're actually getting a sample of the recording using CD compression, but there are also gaps in the music. Some swear that vinyl sounds better than CD's, but they forget to mention that vinyl doesn't capture bass well. SACD may be dying, and DVD SA appears to be very limited. Too listen to either format properly, you need to have a SACD capable or DVD Super Audio player and a reciever w/ multichannel sound inputs.