11 of 11 people found the following review helpful
2012 Deluxe Version Review,
This review is from: Ogden's Nut Gone Flake [Deluxe Edition] (Audio CD)
I won't go in to detail about the merits of the album, suffice to say most people fall into one of 2 camps - Those that know it's a classic, and those that just don't realise it yet.
What I will talk about is this remaster, and whether it's worth investing in.
You get 3 discs - Remastered Stereo album, Outtakes and early demo versions, and the remastered Mono album.
Remastered Stereo - I did a comparison test to my exisitng stereo CD (which I bought in the 90s). At first, on low volume thorugh my computer speakers I noticed little difference, other than that the original 90s version was noticably louder. However, I've since compared both through decent quality headphones and the difference is VERY impressive. The 90s dics is a very "muddy" mix, with little separation between vocals and instruments, and is a bit of a mess. This new remaster, however, allows each component room to breathe and shine through. The bass sounds great, acoustic guitar lovely, hammond organ fantastic, vocals sublime. I felt like I was taking the journey with Stan on a first class fly!
Outtakes/demo versions - Very nice, if you appreciate hearing the development of the songs, the alternative USA mixes (quite noticably different in some cases) then you'll love this. If you're not bothered about such stuff, then this disc may pass you by a little.
Remastered Mono - I've read other reviews which talk about how this mono mix packs a serious punch and blows the stereo mix away. That's not my opinion. I listened to the mono album immediately after listneing to the stereo version (on the same volume setting) and was quite underwhelmed. Maybe that's because, in general, I love a nice bit of stereo separation, and stereo is the only way I've ever heard this album before. My biggest problem was with the soaring vocals on Afterglow, which on the Stereo version sounds great, but on this mono version seems at times almost completely lost in the mix. I can imagine if you play the album LOUD this mono mix will possibly have a lot more "oomph", but I haven't tested it at those levels. I will almost certainly play the stereo version in future rather than this.
Overall - For me, as someone who adores this album, this remaster is worth it for the stereo version, however I don't think you'll get much benefit if you're not going to be playing it through a quality hifi/headphones. If you are, don't delay, just get it, you'll love it!
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-8 of 8 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 12 May 2012 06:19:27 BDT
John Doe says:
I like your review.When reviewing older albums like these, I'd rather know more about the sound quality than the content ( I already know the content). Usually if I'm rebuying updated versions of classic albums, it's the sound quality I'm interested in. I also appreciate the way you compared the CD on two different mediums. For me the sound from my computer is only for casual listening. My stereo with headphones is what I listen to for the real enjoyment of the music. Thanks again.
In reply to an earlier post on 12 May 2012 09:50:03 BDT
Thanks for your comment. Music magazines annoy me for this reason, as when they review remasters, they only ever seem to re hash their opinion of the original album, rather than the merits of the new version. Glad you found it useful.
In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2012 17:40:18 BDT
There's a single disc version of this with a 2011 date on it (according to Amazon)....do you know if that is the same mastering as the stereo disc on this one?
Also I agree 100 per cent when you say: "Music magazines annoy me for this reason, as when they review remasters, they only ever seem to re hash their opinion of the original album, rather than the merits of the new version"
In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2012 17:41:22 BDT
Sorry I don't know anything about the 2011 version.
In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2012 17:44:22 BDT
This is the one: http://alturl.com/ny4qn
In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2012 19:43:41 BDT
The description suggests it could be, but seems a bit unusual. This May 2012 release was definitely hyped as the first release for these remasters.
In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2012 20:08:01 BDT
Yes, it could be a mistake in the Amazon description...one of the two reviews suggests that is the case and says it sounds no different from earlier remasters. Having said that, in your excellent review you suggest that the improvement on the deluxe version is not immediately obvious on an average set-up....
Posted on 25 Jun 2016 12:33:53 BDT
satan augustine says:
That's enough reason to buy it for me. I just got it yesterday and haven't had a chance to listen yet, but before I bought it I did listen to some song fragments of both the mono and stereo versions through headphones and the mono version sounded awful! I don't get want it is some people like about mono. It just sounds a muddled mess to me.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›