Loveless Remaster Actually Sound Better?

I will add I was extremely impressed with the Isn’t Anything remaster job. That was A++

Take a look here for the leak:

http://www.mybloodyvalentine.net/smf/index.php?topic=1245.0

There's a FLAC version on page 4.

The Isn't Anything remaster, off brief exposure, seems better; fuller, louder, more bottom end, bit without squashing things.

Some people have had these for a few months... ;)

I wrote about this on another MBV thread. It's subtle, it's louder, it's not overcompressed. See if you can tell the difference between mastered-from-analogue-tape and mastered-from-DAT (if this release still sports both versions).

I'm not convinced the version of Loveless I've just d/l'd is actually a remaster, but I'm at work listening on shitty satellites. Noticable difference with IA but this could well be the same.

it can be found anywhere at this point
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=site%3Ablogspot.com+loveless+remastered&spell=1

See if you can tell the difference between mastered-from-analogue-tape and mastered-from-DAT (if this release still sports both versions).

i can yet i can't, like its not nearly enough of a difference to even warrant releasing both. so why? what was their reasoning?

I'm not an audiophile, but I think I'm pretty tuned in to sound-staging, clarity (of whatever the intended sound, even a hazy, reverb-drenched sound), dynamic range, etc. And I guess 'Loveless' is the record most praised for its sonic appeal that I just absolutely don't get. It's always sounded so muddled, muffled (but not in a good Sly Stone kind of way), far-away, thin, and narrow to me that I haven't, in 15 years or so I've never been able to stand listening to it enough to really form an opinion on the quality of the music. I remember liking one track enough to want to put it on a mix tape when I was 14, but even then deciding to cut it because set next to seemingly anything else but a Galaxie 500 song (and even then) it just sounded so weak and shallow.

I'm not trying to troll or be a heretic. I want to hear what it's all about, but it just sounds like a mid-80s 4AD record with all the bass pulled and the reverb quadrupled. Anyone ever read anything that provides insight into why it's considered such a sonic masterpiece? What are other records that people who love this one in terms of sound-design also love?

As the previously prolific band were unusually quiet, the UK music press began to speculate. Melody Maker calculated that the total recording cost had come close to £250,000; however, McGee, Green, and Shields dispute this. Shields argued that that estimated cost (and Creation's near-bankruptcy) was a myth exaggerated by McGee because the Creation owner "thought it would be cool." According to Shields, "The amount we spent nobody knows because we never counted. But we worked it out ourselves just by working out how much the studios cost and how much all the engineers cost. 160 thousand pounds was the most we could come to as the actual money that was spent."[16] In Green's opinion, the Melody Maker's estimate erred on the low side, by £20,000. He said, "Once you'd even got it recorded and mixed, the very act of compiling, EQ-ing, etcetera took weeks on its own."[15] In a December 1991 interview, Shields said that most of the money claimed to have been spent on the album was simply "money to live on" over three years, with the album itself only costing "a few thousand". He also claimed that the album represented only four months work over two years.[17] Shields later said that most of the money spent was the band's own money, and that "Creation probably spent fifteen to twenty thousand pounds of their own money on it, and that's it.

Any of these numbers--ouch. This makes me feel even more there's apparently an incredible thing going on here (or at least attempted) that my ears are just not programmed to receive. . .

If you are listening to a download that is 222MB in size, you are listening to a fake.

Read My Magpie Eyes or hit the index for the MBV juicy bits at a shop, Soundslike. The time-suck of recording Loveless is detailed (from predominately outside perspectives). Lots of perch-knocking re: Shields in that book, probably deserved in terms of the headaches he caused his backers.

Mike McGonigal's book on the album contains a lot of rebuttal to those general accounts via Shields himself -- truth doubtless is somewhere in between.

I've never spoken about it, but I think in large part Mike got taken for a ride on the good ship Shields there.

If you are listening to a download that is 222MB in size, you are listening to a fake.

― cee-oh-tee-tee, Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:01 AM

how do u know? fake megabytes?

The recent torrent posted on What.CD is a fake. It is not the remastered 2-CD edition of Loveless - it is the original CD run through mild DSP on someone's computer and uploaded to acquire seed ratio with trackers. Believe it or not, this is a lucrative proposition for some kids.

there was a double cd someone posted on another loveless thread here that purported to be the remaster, but I couldn't tell the difference b/w those and the original. the isn't anything leak that was laying around a few months ago did sound different; not necessarily better, just different. if that was legitimate I don't think I'll bother purchasing it, I have no problem with the original CDs of any of these, frankly.

I must have the fake, because I can't tell any difference. Either that or my ears are still shot from seeing the White Stripes in a small club back in '03.

I would bet all the leaks are fake. So don't go making judgements on it yet.

which sounds better the fake disc 1 or fake disc 2

They did a spot on this, on "Freshly Squeezed" on C4 this morning.

The real remasters are never fucking coming out anyway.

http://executableoutlines.com/charts/o%20thou%20of%20little%20faith.jpg

I've downloaded the 2 CD loveless "resmaster"... I've only listened to each version once but so far I can't tell the difference between them and the old CD version I have...

Supposed to actually be out today!

Now HMV has it as 6th April.

bye.

>The real remasters are never fucking coming out anyway.

OTM! This from Pfork's original news story:

"As initially reported on Wired's Blog Network and now confirmed by a Sony BMG UK rep, the only two MBV albums that matter (This Is Your Bloody Valentine was practically an EP anyway) will hit UK shops June 16 in newly remastered formats."

so that was June 16 last year and the delay has been because Shields has been writing the liner notes? Or cleaning chinchilla cages?

writing the liner notes.

They'd better be damn good!

it's also April 6th on Amazon : so is this really a remastered version ?

Ok so how does the limited edition red vinyl "remaster" released last year fit in? To my ears it sounded much better than my old CD.

Each month Amazon bumps the release date back to the next month. These are NEVER being released.

It's a race to see which comes out first, this or the next MBV album.

http://www.subhub.com/custom/snail%20race.jpg

Yep, Chinese Democracy...

Actually, soon it'll be time for another Loveless reissue-- mastering technology has changed since these were announced. So let's hold out for the 20th Ann. set.

what has changed about "remastering technology"?

Now HMV has it as 6th April. 1st June.

Shields: "I bet I can get in the news a lot just by talking about remastering those albums"
man at pub: "fuck off, that was all a long time ago, nobody even remembers your band"
Shields: "five pounds says I can get headlines"
man at pub: "it's a bet!"

--

Shields: "I guess I'll be collecting my five pounds from you tonight!"
man at pub: "oh do fuck off, those are headlines on a fucking website, nobody else reported it or even knows who you are"
Shields: "five more says I can do it again with the exact same piece of news in four months"
man at pub: "that's a bet right there my friend, website or no"

--

man at pub: "change a twenty?"
Shields: "oh don't look so glum. want to double that? I could always talk about b-sides"
man at pub: "LYSOL DOUCHE"

I've said it before, I'll say it again; they do not exist.

Oh yes they do.

Lies!

you think he's just bullshitting everyone about having worked on remastering at least some of this stuff?
in other news, I saw MBV last night. Glorious.

did they play the remastered versions?

there was a lot of defraction & thermal runaway in the signal chain

MBV definitely emerged victorious in the Loudness Wars last night.

Now HMV has it as 6th April. 1st June. 6th July, for LP and CD formats.

Never happening.

These will come out right after Chinese Democracy shit, Neil Young's Archives shit, well... never.

you meant 'before' there, but hey...

Yes, cold medicine addled brain screwed that all up. Point made, I think.