|
|||||||
| Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
| View Poll Results: | |||
|
|
0 | 0% | |
| Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#541 (permalink) | |
|
No Ice In My Bourbon
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 4,327
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#542 (permalink) | |
|
Live by the Sword
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,075
|
Quote:
a better bet is the mono mix |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#545 (permalink) | |
|
No Ice In My Bourbon
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 4,327
|
Quote:
Do you think I should stick with the 88 releases since they're much cheaper and the remasters have no added tracks? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#547 (permalink) |
|
Music Addict
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 68
|
So I kind of lost alot of my Beatles albums and wanted to pick them back up so I went on Amazon and found that many of the original CD releases are around 4 bucks while the remasters are around 13 bucks. My gut is telling me just to save my money and get the old ones, but what do you guys think? Is a remaster with a small audio improvement with no extra tracks and some fancy packaging really worth an extra 9 bucks?
__________________
Fight dis gen-uh-ration! |
|
|
|
|
|
#548 (permalink) | |
|
I Am Become Death Metal
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stankonia
Posts: 695
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#549 (permalink) | |
|
Live by the Sword
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,075
|
Quote:
the sound is a bit crispier, that's about all it's nothing like the difference between Kramer's remaster of the Hendrix albums versus the original flat EQ muddy mix |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#550 (permalink) | |
|
Music Addict
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 68
|
Quote:
The Kramer remasters of the Hendrix stuff was the 1997 versions right?
__________________
Fight dis gen-uh-ration! |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|