|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
View Poll Results: | |||
0 | 0% | ||
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-14-2011, 04:23 AM | #541 (permalink) | |
No Ice In My Bourbon
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 4,327
|
Quote:
|
|
06-14-2011, 04:50 AM | #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 |
|
06-14-2011, 03:33 PM | #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? |
|
06-18-2011, 02:56 PM | #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! |
06-18-2011, 05:01 PM | #548 (permalink) | |
I Am Become Death Metal
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stankonia
Posts: 695
|
Quote:
|
|
06-19-2011, 06:31 AM | #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 |
|
06-19-2011, 06:46 AM | #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! |
|
|