Buddy Holly From The Original Master Tapes Rar

Buddy Holly From The Original Master Tapes Rar ===== https://tiurll.com/2sXplk

Pre-1970s vinyl is generally considered as some of the best original pressings you can get. You can even find reissues that were created pre-70s which sound fantastic. A couple of reasons why original pressings sound so good from this period is because it was a golden age for record production and basically the only medium that people bought their records on. Care was taken to produce them and the competition was rife, so record companies would compete to create the best mixes and production techniques. There was also a very skilled labour force and many production plants of which were still relatively new and in perfect working order.

Not really a simple question to answer, some re-issues sound miles than the originals as the 20-30 years of technology ie half speed masters and better gear can improve the sound significantly (see 2014 beatles mono) probably the best versions of most of the beatles records. But there are also moments where the re-issues are done badly (see rem green). Totally depends on the source analogue tape source sound warm, but digital source can give you more detail, the mastering engineer (see some good ones bob ludwig, kevin Gray, Bernie Grundman) and the technology used, and then also the pressing plant and label. As an audio engineer, some advice is have a listen and do your research. There are terrible re-issues and terrible originals, hope you get the good ones

In a June 1992 interview with author Stephen McParland, Jack Andrews, the writer of the song, said that The Frogmen were a four-piece band from Culver City (called The Corsairs, J. Blair) that he met at a party. He took them into American Recording and cut "Underwater." (The tune was originally called "The Happy Frog, J. Blair) Andrews told McParland, "I shopped it to every record company in town and got booted out...by every [one]. Then my friend Joe Saraceno told me I should overdub something on it to make it more interesting, so I went back in the studio. H.B. Barnum had just done a session and he had a bunch of percussion stuff around. [Engineer Frank DeLuna] happened to pick up a guiro [pronounced "wee-ro," this is a Spanish percussion instrument typically consisting of a long-necked gourd that is sounded by scraping a stick over ridges cut into its surface] and he began making this croaking sound [with it] as we were playing the tape. I said, 'Hey, can you do that on mike?' and he said, 'Yeah, but who's gonna engineer it?' and I said, 'I will.' So, he went out and played and I engineered. Then I took it out and shopped it again."

"Boss" - The Rumblers ?/62 [NorthSeaSurf101#91] Charted at #87 (Billboard) in 1963. The Rumblers, named for Link Wray's Rumble, came from Norwalk, CA. Like a number of bands now revered as one of the original surf bands, they always considered themselves to be playing R&B and making a few nods to this surf fad thing that had come along.

"Underwater" was Andrews' first independent recording session apart from Saraceno, who only suggested that Andrews overdub something to make the record more interesting. Hence, the quiro. Saraceno also advised Andrews to take the master to Candix Records, but was not involved in the recording, itself.

Basically it goes from Civil War Music (Irish) to Dixieland, Big Band to Counrty to Rock and Roll in a nut shell as far as tracing back popular music and its precurser. Irish music was really originally Gypsy music that goes back at least 800 plus years to the middle east. So its really hard to define all this to me. Hard to do. To me Surf is animal all to itself though - definitely a hybrid of forms, no doubt about it to me. So Surf has to have a label like it has to describe it being its a hybrid of many past forms.

Dick Dale came at it from a different angle with an original love of Hank Williams and C&W, mixing with the Arabic music influence of his uncle, and a dose of Les Paul, topped off with Gene Krupa drum beats. On top of which, Dale was a true American original. He synthesized these elements together in a way that no one else could.

Those covers are what kept us going, actually, says Wilson. We'd list the cover songs on the front of an album for title value, then we'd write the other half of the songs on the record. A lot of people don't understand how hard it is to come by good instrumentals. Usually the good ones are themes from a movie or TV show-or it's an instrumental with a wild arrangement like 'Wipe Out.' But how many 'Wipe Outs' and 'Pipelines' are there? I can count them on my fingers. They`re hard to come by, and writing an original is even harder." -xpm-1988-04-15-8803090095-story.html

They require MORE distortion. No clean, modern DSD remastering with a full range of frequencies and no compression or bass limiting can EVER ever ever ever ever ever ever do justice to those garbagy sounding originals.

I have a pretty sizeable collection of Stones stuff, including the DSD reissues. The last couple of times I've had someone talking about digital vs. analog etc. I've put on the reissue of Satanic from the box set of a few years ago and played "Citadel". Then I play a Decca original, an "Unboxed" Decca label first pressing. Citadel I find a good track to do this because there is so much going on, so many different instruments, and that bell thing testing the top end.The difference is not subtle. The reissue is flat and has much less life than the original.

A couple of us noted an aspect of the original we preferred, one that I tend to find in common with digitally remastered vs. original (from tapes) pressings, and that is that the digitally remastered ones may sound cleaner but also sound more dead. I'll use the remastered All Things Must Pass as an example. My UK original sounds more alive, more engaging than the reissue, it has better flow, though the reissue sounds "cleaner" and you can hear more into the mix (And chatting with Art Dudley about it, he had the same impression that I did about the LP reissue).

When it comes to the comparisons, I'm not sure I would classify explaining that the original pressings sound more alive and engaging and the new ones sound dead is really explaining so anybody can understand what you mean. What does more alive sound like? To me the new ones sound more alive because they have deeper bass extension, the highs aren't rolled off as much and they are more dynamic. That is generally what I consider more alive and engaging. Some people prefer more compression and in many cases I do to except if you are comparing a remaster to some originals but I just feel these sound better with less compression being used.

I listened "Let it Bleed" album in mono. I have the original US of this album and the dsd 2003. Really I don't understand some of you who told : IT'S GREAT. I can't beleive. I don't think it's good. I don't think it's about EQ of my 70's amp lamp. So my question is not about sound because I m agree with Michael Fremer, we have to listen to it and to choose. My question is : Is it from original mono master tapes (to dsd) like the beatles (true orignal mono analog tapes)or these lp are from dsd stereo to mono. After what you think about sound and so on it's your buisness. For me 12X5, Aftermath and Between the buttons sound's really better in mono, the first one and second are already in mono in 2003. And I don't like let it beeld and will tell you later about beggards banquet......But I would like answer about my simple question....Thanks Michael and ...

In fact my conclusion : a big MASS. Ok I just finish to listen to beggard banquets and for me is like Let it Bleed. I don't like it. I prefer original US from 1969 and dsd 2003. Now for the others I already said my thought. The best way for me to listen to the music on my system is to put the LP and don't touch anything on it. If I have to change something... don't work in my ears.

For one thing, it's long been said that Bob Ludwig does no mastering for vinyl anymore and hasn't since he sold his lathe after someone royally ruined his vinyl cut of Exile in Main Street in 1994! So I'm surprised that Ludwig did a new mastering of this material specifically for the box with Abbey Road's cutting in mind. It's more likely that Ludwig did these mono tapes when he did the work for the 2002 DSD releases. The albums with no stereo versions were released back then in vinyl cut by Don Grossinger and then again by GZ for the 64-71 box in 2011. An engineer for GZ told folks on the Steve Hoffman forum that Abkco sent GZ 24/192 PCM copies of the DSD masters for the 2011 box. So it's possible they just did the same for this new release and Ludwig wasn't involved at all since 2002.

First of all, the frequency balances are subtly different. There is a stronger (?) midrange on the remaster which at times makes the tambourine and upper registers of Jagger's vocal more prominent on the original. Take your choice. 2b1af7f3a8