Page 1 of 2
FALAA Reissue - possible controversy?
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 14:30
by mh
Spotted on Dominion:
listening to the Rhino remaster cd of FALAA for the first time on
headphones (I have enjoyed it a few times played loud through my speakers) and
suddenly realised that it is copied from an original vinyl. Play it really
loud and you can hear this clearly at the end of most songs. Subsequently I do
not believe in the "finally remasted from original masters" claim. Those
were
supposedly lost a long time ago and obviously not found for this particular
release anyway. Play it really loud and you will here it too. Also I think the
mix is kinda buried. Like for example the keybords in Nine While Nine (God
fordid!!!). Listening to like this I must say the older issue (1992 remix) is
still the ultimate cd version of this album.
It's an interesting theory, but I don't completely buy it. The evidence is there, but there are a few other factors. Lost master tapes can be found again, and analog tapes do degrade over time (particularly if left to moulder in a warehouse). To be a bit anal, the "ping" at the start of Marian is only in the left channel on the original vinyl, but in both on this reissue.
I'd also take issue with the final statement. If these mixes are considered "kinda buried", then how come the '92 mixes are not? They're muffled, boomy, plodding and dull. Signal to noise ratio and absolute lack of surface noise are not the only indicators of sound quality.
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 14:39
by NOF
On the title track, there's a swiping noise and a drumbeat when the riff kicks in. Was this on the original vinyl as they weren't there on the 92 version?
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 14:39
by markfiend
Eh? Dominion? Have I unsubbed and forgotten?
Anyhoo, fwiw I think you're right
mh.
Something previously lost must have been found for the SKOS early version to surface.
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 14:41
by markfiend
NOF wrote:On the title track, there's a swiping noise and a drumbeat when the riff kicks in. Was this on the original vinyl as they weren't there on the 92 version?
Short answer: Yes.
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 14:45
by NOF
HA!
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 14:49
by itnAklipse
Hehe, everybody loves to play genius. Reminds me of the guy who was telling 100% that in some concert in USA 2006 Andy was just lipsyncing... though more than just playing genius, these kinds of people could be there just to stir up trouble and have people going around in circles in useless debates to keep them distracted.
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 15:04
by Quiff Boy
itnAklipse wrote:Hehe, everybody loves to play genius. Reminds me of the guy who was telling 100% that in some concert in USA 2006 Andy was just lipsyncing... though more than just playing genius, these kinds of people could be there just to stir up trouble and have people going around in circles in useless debates to keep them distracted.
yup
anyone who thinks the 92 cd is anything other than a muffled soupy mess must be completely mutton jeff
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 15:25
by Badlander
The 2006 remasters sound great. End of.
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 16:11
by NOF
Must say I do like the 92 reissue.
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 17:51
by road_kill
NOF wrote:Must say I do like the 92 reissue.
I just listen to the vinyl version underwater with cotton wool stuffed in my ears. Much the same effect...
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 19:02
by Bartek
not a surprise at all, when you take the booklet, open on page 11 ( not including "cover") you may read :
"Tracks 1 - 10 were originally issued as Merciful Release # 337 (3/85). This 2006 remaster contains the original 1985 mix of the album as issued, which has never previously been available on CD(...)
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 19:18
by silentNate
The 2006 version is definately best. Might seem a stupid question which has been asked before but why is Black Planet about 15 seconds shorter?
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 20:55
by paul
Badlander wrote:The 2006 remasters sound great. End of.
Amen
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 23:28
by NOF
road_kill wrote:NOF wrote:Must say I do like the 92 reissue.
I just listen to the vinyl version underwater with cotton wool stuffed in my ears. Much the same effect...
And that's what makes it great.
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 23:36
by Quiff Boy
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 23:47
by sultan2075
silentNate wrote: why is Black Planet about 15 seconds shorter?
Global warming?
Posted: 01 Nov 2007, 23:56
by eotunun
Am I the only one who thinks of the optimum listening modus for the music of a band called "Desaster Area" now?
And yes, Dominion became populated by peeps who think they can tell the color of pubic hair by the sound of its rustle..
Posted: 02 Nov 2007, 00:52
by Syberberg
Posted: 02 Nov 2007, 02:14
by Big Si
eotunun wrote:Am I the only one who thinks of the optimum listening modus for the music of a band called "Desaster Area" now?
Meet
Hot Black Desiato 
Posted: 02 Nov 2007, 07:29
by James Blast
Hot Black Desiato Reparazentin! 
Posted: 02 Nov 2007, 08:11
by Dark
Mistah Blast on emcee duty, inna tru dub stylee?
For what it's worth, I have the 92 CD and a vinyl pressing. I listen to neither really, so I'm not going to shell out for the reissues on the off-chance that they've got a better intro to FALAA.
Anyway, for the best versions, this is all you need:
Posted: 02 Nov 2007, 17:03
by eotunun
@
Si&
Blast!:
That is Rockin'F*ckin'Roll!!!
x n+1
x n+2
Posted: 16 Apr 2010, 09:42
by anikk
silentNate wrote:The 2006 version is definately best. Might seem a stupid question which has been asked before but why is Black Planet about 15 seconds shorter?
Shorter than on what release??
Posted: 16 Apr 2010, 10:03
by markfiend
Do you really expect anyone to remember a conversation that's two and a half years old?
Although I'm guessing shorter than the vinyl?
Posted: 16 Apr 2010, 10:22
by anikk
markfiend wrote:Do you really expect anyone to remember a conversation that's two and a half years old?
Although I'm guessing shorter than the vinyl?
What's to remember here? If it's shorter, it's still shorter. Shorter to which release? It's not shorter than on the UK 1985 vinyl!