Which CD remastering was the best for each album?

  • Hello,


    Newbie, here, digging up a topic I'm sure you're all done and dusted with, but I was just ripping my Genesis CDs to FLAC and realised I had a strange mix of 1994 and 2008 issues, and couldn't quite remember why. A search on the subject brought me here, so I had a question: Originally, I think the thing was that I became stuck with the idea that the 2006 remixes, especially ATOTT and WAW, pushed Hackett to the back. I think I read this, somewhere, and was sure I heard it myself, especially in "Ripples", where Hackett's sinuous guitar lines sounded fainter in the remixes than I remembered. I'm more than happy to be disavowed of that. I don't seem to have the remixes for all of them, and didn't even realise that there was one for the 1974 Live album, which is my all-time favourite (sorry, Seconds Out fans).. Are they really worth getting? And how does one know? On Amazon, they invariably list the 1994 editions, or at least the images they show are.


    Anyway, the basic questions are -- was there actually any skullduggery in the mixing and are they really worth it?


    Thanks,

  • If you go back into this thread (and some other older ones), you will see that the 1994 Definitive Edition Remasters are generally well liked for the albums through to the 80s for the most part. Some people like the 2007 box set remixes, though not everyone. There are occasional discrepancies between the remasters and the remixes - some small parts got lost - which may matter to you.


    I have kept both the remasters and remixes in my collection. I like the remasters overall and do listen to them. However the remixes really do open up some albums so that you can hear the parts more distinctly, even without the 5.1 mixes. The Lamb is an example where I can hear the parts more clearly - even Steve, who I find is often buried in the original mix. The additional advantages of the box sets include having all the extra tracks, the interviews, and the 5.1 mixes.