SickthingsUK

The Japanese remasters are very loud. Buyer beware.

is loud a bad thing??? lol

When definition is lost, it is compressed to hell and you get ear fatigue it is.

Yeah I have to agree with Pitkin. The Japanese remasters are horrible.

It'd be better to just have the original cd releases than those distorted wrecks.

Phew! That is a relief. I never bought the Japanese remasters... I do wish we had more Audio Fidelity releases though.

Steven Allan wrote:Phew! That is a relief. I never bought the Japanese remasters... I do wish we had more Audio Fidelity releases though.

I think we might get MOL from audio fidelity. I doubt there is a cats chance in hell of the first two albums. Solo maybe only WTMN and FTI stand a chance.

pitkin88 wrote:

Steven Allan wrote:Phew! That is a relief. I never bought the Japanese remasters... I do wish we had more Audio Fidelity releases though.

I think we might get MOL from audio fidelity. I doubt there is a cats chance in hell of the first two albums. Solo maybe only WTMN and FTI stand a chance.

Muscle of love from AF? Is that a fact as I never heard about that?

mestreech wrote:

pitkin88 wrote:

Steven Allan wrote:Phew! That is a relief. I never bought the Japanese remasters... I do wish we had more Audio Fidelity releases though.

I think we might get MOL from audio fidelity. I doubt there is a cats chance in hell of the first two albums. Solo maybe only WTMN and FTI stand a chance.

Muscle of love from AF? Is that a fact as I never heard about that?

Not a fact just a thought as we have LITD, Killer, School's Out and BDB's.

I wasn't a big fan of the audio fidelity masters either. I still feel they took some major liberties with those.

While Heaven Wept wrote:I wasn't a big fan of the audio fidelity masters either. I still feel they took some major liberties with those.

Bob Ezrin had an interesting response to Steve Hoffman about the Billion Dollar Babies one

"Steve,

I have to say I'm a little surprised to read this description of our work. We were judicious about lining up our machines to our set standard and the techs at the Record Plant were the best in the business (having all been graduates of A&R Studios). The only discrepancies should have been between the original album and any "bonus" material that someone may have added later. Also if our cross fades had been moved to the back of the reel, that was something that I'd bet the label would have done when we got to the era of iTunes. Are these in fact the real original tapes?

I'd love to see those tape boxes - so maybe you'd be so good as to put up some pics of them. I'd really appreciate it. I'll keep watching here to see if that happens.

And finally, I wonder why no one bothered to contact any of the creators of that stuff before doing this. It's not like we're that tough to find. I'm just saying.

One more thing: the way we made records, the mastering was an integral part of the process. No one took our stuff and reinterpreted it for purposes of mastering. What was mastered back then is what we wanted to hear. Regardless of your take on the quality of the sound of the original album, that IS what we were going for and that's the sound that any true fan ought to be looking for.

What you seem to be doing is re-imagining our work using interim stage components. The EQ'd master was the final stage of production for me. I was in the room, hands on knobs, throughout that process in order to get what I wanted to hear on the vinyl as best we could given the limitations of that medium.

I'm not opposed to re-mastering early works. But I think it's important to try to maintain the intent of the creators in the process. As the head creator of that album, I have to say that reading this report makes me somewhat skeptical about what you guys did there. I'd be happy to listen to the results and give you feedback if you would be open to that.

Bob Ezrin"

Steve Hoffman's response

"Bob, funny, Stephen Marsh and I were both singing your praises yesterday. Were your ears burning?

Regarding your note, we are not reissuing anything on vinyl, there are NO limitations, no need to compress or to filter bass or top end. You understand that this is no compromise Hi-Rez DSD via SACD.

Can this be the first time in 31 years of doing this that a producer doesn't want their work to sound the best that it can? I am sure that is not what you want. After all, this is the fourth Alice Cooper digital reissue we've done and by far the best sounding.

Bob, we don't use EQ'd dubs, we only use true masters and meticulously work on them to sound the best, just as I've been doing since 1982 on thousands of reissues. We always spend hours getting the crucial vintage Dolby A gear aligned and we always spend many hours fixing splices, etc., part of the job on 40 year old tapes.

The sound you'll hear on this new SACD is the sound YOU produced. We didn't tamper with anything, we never do. We don't revise history, we don't change history, we just let the original mixes shine through as always, without added needless limiting/compression or ANY "modern" tampering. This will be the first Audiophile release of this album and we're proud of the way it came out.

I talk about the process here to drum up some interest in the release just as I've been doing on everything I reissue, from McCartney, Dylan to Nat King Cole. Just contact me via PM and I'll have the studio send you a CD check disk, my treat. I'm sure you'll be happy with the sound. after all, it's the sound that you created. View attachment 303451"

Bob Ezrin's response to Steve Hoffman's response

"Steve, you're missing my point.

Based on what I read here, I'm not sure what master you're working off of. Our album had crossfades (the "crossfade outtakes" referred to on the box are the left over tops and tails that we would edit out when we edited in our crossfades). If you have a tape that is missing the cross-fades then it's a later generation than our master.

If there are different tone levels on mixes then those are mixes from different places. Our album was mixed at the Record Plant in Studio A - always on the same machine, always with the same tones. The EQ master is the closest thing to what we wanted our album to sound like in the end. I don't expect you to use that. But I also don't expect you to dismiss it as not being the way we intended it. WE created it. So that's the closest expression of our vision at the time.

Of course I want it to sound great. Of course I'd love to hear it without the limitations imposed by vinyl. But while you're making something that wants to be sounding the way WE intended, I'd just like to know that you're actually paying attention to OUR master and that you're actually working off of our final mixes.

In the end, the easiest way to ensure that you're doing something that accurately reflects the intent of the creators would be to involve one of us in the process. As I said: we're not that hard to find.

Finally, I do appreciate all the time and hard work that you're putting into this and I'm not trying to quash interest in the new product. I just got a little worried when I read your original post.

Bob"

In the end, the easiest way to ensure that you're doing something that accurately reflects the intent of the creators would be to involve one of us in the process. As I said: we're not that hard to find.
I guess there was never any answer from Steve on this remark ...?

maybe lindas lyrics will be in luded here too wooohooo

Keith1980 wrote:maybe lindas lyrics will be in luded here too wooohooo

I wish someone would post them!!

So, Warner Bros consider Alice Cooper 1969 - 1973 to be the same artist as 1975 - 1983?? How bizarre - if you will excuse the pun.

Gunner wrote:So, Warner Bros consider Alice Cooper 1969 - 1973 to be the same artist as 1975 - 1983?? How bizarre - if you will excuse the pun.

Warner only considers getting money.

Gunner wrote:So, Warner Bros consider Alice Cooper 1969 - 1973 to be the same artist as 1975 - 1983?? How bizarre - if you will excuse the pun.

Well.... no, they don't!

If you actually look at the cover art they have been careful to make the disctinction between band and solo.

While Heaven Wept wrote:

Gunner wrote:So, Warner Bros consider Alice Cooper 1969 - 1973 to be the same artist as 1975 - 1983?? How bizarre - if you will excuse the pun.

Well.... no, they don't!

If you actually look at the cover art they have been careful to make the disctinction between band and solo.

Well spotted.

Ok im stupid whats a (cab) box set look like??

Is just 15 cds in seperate paper casing like a vinal sleeve had?

Is their any reason to buy this since i just got the jeweled cases?

Keith1980 wrote:Ok im stupid whats a (cab) box set look like??

Is just 15 cds in seperate paper casing like a vinal sleeve had?

Is their any reason to buy this since i just got the jeweled cases?

Essentially, I think you are right.

It sounds like all the Alice Cooper albums to 1983 in simple card sleeves, which are then packaged in a glossy box. Similar to the 'Original Album Series' release that covered the first 5 group albums.

Hardly essential if you already own them in jewel format but a good opportunity if not as it works out at about £3 per album.

I'll try and check it out in a store when it comes out to see if there is more to it than that.