Search the Community

Well, firstly, seeing as how none of the tracks have their original segues (why?) this leads me to believe the record has been remixed, if the finished master they originally made 10 years prior had these songs linked together. But it wasn't advertised as being a remix, only "remastered". There is obviously alot more than a remaster going on here. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I do kinda like that we get to hear a few extra seconds of each track and how they were oriinally performed in-studio. The audio quality is what really rustles my jimmies here though. The back cover credits the original mastering engineer (why? this is irrelevant) as well as the new mastering engineer and the location where it was mastered. But the disc itself says MASTERDISK, which does not match up with the info given on the back. Da fuk? Secondly, the audio presentation certainly doesn't sound like it's of the quality that I associate Masterdisk with. I've never heard a record this bad before. The highs are extremely sibilant and splatter everywhere, obviously a bad cut. Sounds like someone played the lacquer before it was plated or something, because the mastering engineers at Masterdisk surely know how to make a good sounding cut with clean high end. It ain't my equipment, my setup is meticulously aligned to Baerwald, and I use a line contact stylus, so sibilance and inner groove distortion simply aren't words that apply to my setup. Or any of my other records. This sounds so bad it's embarassing. The pressing isn't much to write home about either. surface noise could be lower, vinyl could be flatter, and it could've been centered better. But all of that could be forgiven if the cut didn't suck so hard. For what it's worth, I have the white vinyl. So what gives?