Hey, Wait a Minute!

No ideas about why the green and (mainly) the blue Genesis boxes are so rare and expensive now ??

claugroi wrote: About the remastered boxes, does anyone know the true reason why the blue box (1976 - 1982) was taken out of shops ? It's as rare as a diamond nowadays (and costs almost 1000 dollars). I've heard a rumor about copyright issues with some TV footage. Would it be true ? Also, the green box (1970 - 1975) became very expensive recently. Is there a copyright problem there as well ?? I feel glad for having bought the green box when it was 80 dollars and the brown one when it was 50, but it's really a pity that I'll never buy the blue.

That is very strange how those sets got artificially jacked-up pice wise.
Personally, I only have the Genesis live set (1973-2007) cause I bought some of the albums that I wanted a 5.1 mix of individually, so I guess I avoided a big headache.
Have you checked all countries pricing for these items or just here you live(Brasíl)
??

chopper wrote: progbethyname wrote: chopper wrote: The only changes I've noticed on the recent Genesis box set remasters were things I hadn't noticed before such as tambourine in Cinema Show and a change in the sound of the "they're changing everything" part of Supper's Ready. Which version are you referring to? The studio recording or the live versions like seconds out? I was referring to the green 1970-1975 box set compared to the original CDs and vinyl.

Yeah that's a pretty cool set. A bit overpriced though. Anyway, I find there are quite a few differences in all the recordings. Mainly though, the sound isn't hollowed out like tin can sounding. A worthy buy and necessary.

Also. Noticed the 'playlist' in your sig. SoundGarden are touring with Nine Inch Nails this summer all through North America. Maybe, depending where ya live, you can catch them. :)

chopper wrote: The only changes I've noticed on the recent Genesis box set remasters were things I hadn't noticed before such as tambourine in Cinema Show and a change in the sound of the "they're changing everything" part of Supper's Ready.

Which version are you referring to? The studio recording or the live versions like seconds out?

Blacksword wrote: lazland wrote: I have always considered "remastered" releases to be an excuse by record companies, artists, or others merely to squeeze more money out of the poor old punter, and, as such, I rarely bother to get them, unless there is something wholly new that I absolutely must have. By and large, the originals are the best way to taste the goods. I tend to agree with you. To buy any re-master there needs to be something other than the original album on offer. I bought a couple of Genesis re-masters because the package included DVD concert footage from the respective eras that I really wanted. I'm fairy indifferent to the nominal differences in the albums sound.

Depends weather you have the proper audio equipment to support these digital formats. If you spin a 24bit by 96k cd in just a regular CD player you will not notice much, but if you pump the music through a quality DAC or Digital Receiver it's a night and day difference. Probably stating the obvious here, but its really worth it spending the extra $$ on high end audio equipment. You definitely get more out of your albums.

Dayvenkirq wrote: The original Cryme is somewhat muddy, but that's OK. The remaster chaps my ass. There is some sort of inconsistency in the mix of some tracks, esp. "Hogweed". Some parts are too loud or too clean compared to the rest of the mix. I'm fine with the Foxtrot remaster. There are some noticeable changes on "Supper's Ready", but that's fine with me.

Chaps your ass indeed! I appreciate your enthusiasm here. I think your right, but for some reason I really prefer the original, muddy mix of The Musical Box. I think that classic, hollowed out sound really works with that track. :)

jude111 wrote: lazland wrote: I have always considered "remastered" releases to be an excuse by record companies, artists, or others merely to squeeze more money out of the poor old punter, and, as such, I rarely bother to get them, unless there is something wholly new that I absolutely must have. By and large, the originals are the best way to taste the goods. I heard the "original" Genesis albums on CD (not vinyl) - and hated it. Really terrible sounding. It wasn't until I heard the remastered versions that I was able to discover and get into Genesis. EDIT: Reading others' responses, I can see I'm not the only one who thought the Genesis remastering was badly needed.

The original Cryme is somewhat muddy, but that's OK. The remaster chaps my ass. There is some sort of inconsistency in the mix of some tracks, esp. "Hogweed". Some parts are too loud or too clean compared to the rest of the mix.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - April 18 2014 at 12:35

lazland wrote: I have always considered "remastered" releases to be an excuse by record companies, artists, or others merely to squeeze more money out of the poor old punter, and, as such, I rarely bother to get them, unless there is something wholly new that I absolutely must have. By and large, the originals are the best way to taste the goods.

Edited by jude111 - April 17 2014 at 22:48

Original what? CDs (non remastered)? LPs?

It's not really as simple as that. Depends on the source and media playback. I compared the remaster of Songs From The Wood to the original CD issue. There's no comparison. The remaster is heaven; the original CD sounded like it was played in glue. The LP sounded fine. Digitally remastered LPs versus no remastered LPs (not sure). I do wonder how the progress made with Aqualung has been going. My remaster is the one with the interview and some BBC sessions and sounds only a little better than the LP i.e. one of the worst production jobs ever in Tull's catalogue but still easier on the ear than Broadsword and The Beast.

Alot depends on whether someone has 10s of 1000s of LPs and do not want to recognize that they are or may be redundant. Nor do we want these record companies abusing the their consumers (expensive remasters often issued with bonuses best not included). These can ruin that album experience.

We have a wave of progression and the collective thought is a retreat from progress - seems things are happening too fast and expensively for people to keep up.

Anyone comparing classical LPs to the DVD / SACDs and good 16 bit versions? I recently got LvB's 7th and 8th Symphonies on DVD Audio and they sound fine - as I expected I suppose.

But rock and pop records were often made under economically precarious conditions and now (after financial success and tech advancement) the best versions (albeit different to what a listener is used to) emerge and adjusting hearing and emotional memory may be a trying experience.

MFSL did some nice remastering of everyhting they did. Once I get my turntable fixed (needle and the damage done... stylus fell off) I'll look for those old half speed mastered LPs (e.g. Aja has a good LP reputation).

Preparing audio for DVD or CD playback is required as is converting the signal back to analogue for an LP playback of a remaster. Of course the technology has changed but digitally remastering the already digitally remastered (the new batch of Zeppelin releases) sounds likely to be unnecessary. I understand the Mother ship compilation is a different mastring to the 1990 mastes as well. Things can get a bit over egged and silly.

If an old LP sounds better than a new CD remaster chances are there's the possibility the remaster was intended for the most common playback consumption - mp3 (a concern Jimmy Page noted making me wonder about these new masters (thinking of over compressed audio). Test before you buy I think.

The best way of comparing is like comparing video tape to a DVD or Blu Ray (which I don't have). Both should be good but clarity and depth perspective should be a more enhanced experience.