![[hand]](/hs-pics/portraits/hands/morse6.jpg)
![[face]](/hs-pics/portraits/faces/paice.jpg)
Audio Fidelity box set
Audio Fidelity will be re-releasing the four remastered Mark II studio albums as a box set this December. These are not the anniversary remasters, but the ones done by Steve Hoffman exclusively for the label. They contain no bonus tracks, just the same material as the original albums. The target audience are audiophiles not satisfied with the audio quality of the anniversary remasters, completis collectors, and the lovers of shiny things 😉
The four albums have already been previously released by Audio Fidelity separately as limited editions, and fetch a pretty penny at secondary markets. Priced at $130, this is a reasonable opportunity to pick up all four of their remasters for those who don’t have them.
Thanks to Vladimir Drybushchak for the info.
Unauthorized copying, while sometimes necessary, is never as good as the real thing
When does it come out?
August 22nd, 2013 at 21:29Coming up to the festive season again folks. You can always tell with record companies & the like, Box sets, greatest hits, best of collections, remastered this, repackaged that, etc, etc! Call me a cynic, but every year this happens in one form or another.
August 22nd, 2013 at 23:22Merry Xmas everybody! Cheers.
Deep Purple in Rock: recorded during a concert tour in different studios with different producers.
Fireball: recorded in an old haunted house in southern England (“a writing session”).
Machine Head: recorded on the floor of an old hotel in Montreux.
Who do we think we are: recorded in Rome, Italy and Frankfurt, Germany under difficult circumstances.
Each album is a masterpiece of rockmusic at that time.
August 22nd, 2013 at 23:23It’s like an old Porsche 911, the fascination of the original is still there to date. It’s easy to re-re-remaster the music of that time but you can’t remaster the feeling of the original. The Roger Glover rework on this albums is more than ok. Enough is enough…
I missed these the first time around. Thanks for the heads up Vladimir.
August 22nd, 2013 at 23:59A “remaster” and “remix” are not the same thing, although sometimes some people use these terms interchangeably.
I very much enjoy the Roger Glover remixes and never listen to the original versions. Glover gleaned a lot of new life into those old tapes, particularly the remix to “Smoke on the Water” which has that rougher edge than the original–despite Blackmore complaining that Glover keeps “changing the solos”! No-one but Blackmore could do that ending, and I love an ending to a song instead of a fade-out. Without Glover’s remixes, we would never hear these alternate takes and sometimes awkward endings. That roughness is what Purple is about and should have been on the original records.
Remasters, on the other hand, do not offer much to the regular fan. This is geared for audiophiles with superior equipment–not for those of us who jam our CDs on an old bro-box in the garage.
August 23rd, 2013 at 02:22A pretty penny…? 🙂
August 23rd, 2013 at 06:58How many more times?!!! re-re-re-remastered…..now in the box!!!! With all the respect to Mr.Hoffman, his versions are compressed and lack the warmth and depth of the original sound. Just compare standard late 80-s EMI CDs and these ones…..Originally golden discs were an assurance of 1-to-1 transfer of sound from the originals….now it is just another compressed useless remaster, although gold-plated for marketing reasons. A pity!
August 23rd, 2013 at 07:51Why !!!! ……………money.
August 23rd, 2013 at 10:18You should add ‘Made in Japan’ to the box … That would be an awesome Mark- II box set.
August 23rd, 2013 at 11:19The anniversary remasters are just fine for me.
August 23rd, 2013 at 12:14What about to call the wizard Steven Wilson to make 5.1 remixes of them?
August 23rd, 2013 at 13:58– I’d have bought it, had they included MIJ.
August 23rd, 2013 at 16:39I know this comes across as illiterate or ignorant but, you can ‘Remix’ every album you have in your library on the spot while listening. It’s called an ‘Equalizer’. Yes it compresses the sound, but not to the point your ear can hear anything negative. You can bring up or down the bass, treble, midrange, vocals, guitar, drums, etc. Adjust it all day long. The possibilities are endless…. Be your own ‘Producer’. Save money. Buy a good equalizer. Plug it in. Quad? Now that’s a whole different story.
Ch-BeerZ?!
August 24th, 2013 at 02:41The purist would say: The only way to listen to these albums is to buy the original LPs. Although Roger improved the sound quality in comparison to the first CD release, I don’t know if remixes ever match the experience of the LPs. I didn’t believe my ears when I listened to the LPs for the first time – what a difference for someone you was used to the sound of the CDs for a long time! But in the end of the day Purple back then wasn’t a band of high quality sound. The music still speaks a clear language no matter how good your stereo system is or the remixes are going to be. The problem is that there’s a growing jungle of Purple re-releases out there and you have to spend quite some time to find out what not to buy. But that’s as much news as this new package.
August 24th, 2013 at 03:24I would like to point out that this is a little voodoo. CDs are DIGITAL. They contain only zeros and ones ( 0+1). There is no way they can sound any different because they are gold. If you think you get a remaster be careful.
August 24th, 2013 at 06:06Christmas Time, Mistletoe and Wine…….la,la,la…la,la,la
August 24th, 2013 at 19:32@6
August 25th, 2013 at 00:47Can’t agree at all. I already have these 4 AF discs and they sound great; and I’m picky.
They’re the best sounding versions of the >>> Warner Brothers <<< mkII Deep Purple albums, imho.
@11 Made in Japan is the one i actually own in 24 gold, i bought it at Tower Records store in cherry hill in N.J. some 15 years ago and the sound is still freash and alive. 24 gold is a remarkable hearing .
August 25th, 2013 at 12:22@16 bought a couple Rainbow albums at Tower Records in CH back in the day, What ever your needs…Tower Records delivered…yup.
August 25th, 2013 at 20:42Merry Christmas everybody.
August 26th, 2013 at 08:54Looking forward to a new live album box set with my 3241st, 3242nd and 3243rd version of SOTW.
He redefines remastering with that machine he created himself. Compressed, hahaha. I don’t think you know what care he takes. It’s completely lossless, and that’s your remaster. Not a standard remaster. Boy, can’t believe what some people opine without obviously knowing his process, wow.
August 26th, 2013 at 09:5116
I bought MIJ as a gold disc years ago, Steve Hoffman/DCC.
I dont know if there has been a newer Gold Disk variation by him, since.
I rarely play it. As far as I remember the bass seemed more pronounced?
August 26th, 2013 at 10:09Tracy @ 11
I lost the info of your equaliser suggestion for me.Did not get around to getting it somewhere, if that is still possible.
Can you give it to me again?
Thanx
Mark
August 26th, 2013 at 10:11@15
August 28th, 2013 at 11:01Everybody has its own ears and preferences….no doubt. But to me, the record should sound the way it was issued back then….all other remasters/remixes and other attempts to “modernize” the sound reminds me of an attempt to re-write Shakespare and Tolstoy using modern language, the old one is so dated, right?) A compromise could be found should they simply make a double CD, one with 1-to-1 old sound with NO hands on the soundboard, and a second one with whatever they want to do, so the listener can select.
Better than the brickwalled EMI remasters. Yay for the original dynamics.
I don’t feel the need to upgrade In Rock though, i have the original EMI issue and the horrible 1995 remaster. Keep them for the bonus tracks and get the original cds. They do sound better. What the DPAS are doing can be called brainwashing. Constantly telling people how bad the original discs are and how improved the new ones are to make people who don’t know any better believe in that.
Most Deep Purple fans don’t seem to care about the preservation of the dynamics and the hiss present on the original tapes, the removal of which makes the recordings sound worse.
August 28th, 2013 at 15:59I don’t think there would be anything that anyone could do to ‘improve’ In Rock! It sounds old, it has that older sound to it more than the others, that is the way it is. The following three albums have more of a chance to sound better, if re mixed with the original ‘sound’ & not messed with in any way. I purchased Hawkwind’s Warrior On The Edge Of Time package, three disc’s, one is a dvd of course with the 5:1 surround, the other two have alternative stereo mixes, they all sound like the original though in it’s recording, which is the way it should sound!
August 28th, 2013 at 21:38A great package indeed, Steve Wilson the maestro on ‘remixing’ the older classics, but still maintaining the original ‘feel’ of the ‘older’ album! Cheers.
Dave i remember those EMi remasters all those years ago, they were quite poor, but i am with Les, the anniversary editions with extra tracks were the best, and the history of each album in a lavish small printed book were just what the doctor ordered.
August 29th, 2013 at 08:29Mark @21;
Not sure of the specifics I stated but there are many fine low cost Graphic Equalizers on the market. I have an older ADC Model but there are many brands to choose from and some very decent ones well under $200.00. The main thing to look for is one with left and right slider controls and a broad range of frequencies. Put this into your system truly enhances your ability to find tune the sound in as you like to hear it. You can become Martin Birch or Bob Ezrin in the comfort of your own home, mixing and remixing your music.
!Ch-BeerZ?
September 10th, 2013 at 13:45Good luck with that. Once the dynamics got squished out, no amount of EQ can fix it, Tracy, i’m sorry to say. Most pre-remaster cds were okay, except for In Rock, that one really disappointed me. I mean it was still better, but not even close to my record.
September 14th, 2013 at 17:38#13 Tracy
September 14th, 2013 at 20:40You’re doing it wrong. Completely. An equalizer cannot in any way remix the sound. It’s the salt and pepper on your meal adding spices, where the proper remix is akin to adding more meat or changing the carrots for cabbage – in reality completely changing the contents on your plate. The equalizer has nothing to do with this.
Rasmus is spot on. So many people confuse remixing with remastering. Remastering is basically enhancing the frequency range within the limitations of the mix. Equalizing cannot by it’s nature remix a song. You can’t make the drums much louder at the expense of the bass for example, you merely change the frequencies of the instrumentation as a whole. It’s just a glorified tone control, which when it adds bass or treble, does so on all the instruments.
That said, I have In Rock from this Audio Fidelity version, which to my understanding has been remastered from the original stereo tapes and sounds better to my ears than Glover’s “bass heavy” mix on the EMI version. I believe this company is releasing the full box set of 70-76 releases, which I trust will all be remastered from the original tapes as well. If they all sound as good as the In Rock one I think they will be worth getting.
As for the general debate between analogue and digital. Let’s not forget that every digitally enhanced CD is converted back to analogue so we can listen to it 🙂
September 16th, 2013 at 12:04Jerry @ 31 and Rasmus Heide @ 30:
Thanks for your response and also for showing your narrow view by being so literal and unable to understand the simplicity of my point. Here it is in a nutshell……
A good graphic equalizer can and does enhance the ability to bring bass, treble and midrange to the forefront or to the hind end. Bass can be more defined as can treble. Midrange can be dealt with equally. Vocals can be made more prominent as can guitar and drums. Highs can be enhanced to expose cymbals and light percussion. Lows can be brought out more heavily to allow for stronger deeper bass. I’m not stating by any means that it covers all the areas that true studio remastering or remixing can accomplish. But I can state here definitely that since a remaster or remix only encompasses the end result of a particular persons work due to his own ear, thereby leaving out many portions which might pertain to each individuals own ear, one can take their own CD and listen to it, mix it how they like the sound to be by simply adjusting their slide controls on their own personal sound mixer that can totally change the sound of All the music they listen to. Work it yourself. Say No to ‘official re-versions’. The ear can only pick up a small range of frequencies and using an equalizer to adjust all of those frequencies up or down to the level each person enjoys…. Mixing your own music.
!Ch-BeerZ?
September 18th, 2013 at 06:28Point taken. If you are happy with a graphic equalizer all power to you. What would serve you better if you want to tweak the albums yourself though is a parametric equalizer 🙂
But fundamentally there is commonly held view in the hi-fi world that tone controls and equalizers are merely trying to compensate for the depth of sound that quality systems produce in the first place. Most of the more expensive hi-fi amps don’t even have tone controls. And some of us would argue they don’t need them.
September 19th, 2013 at 13:03Response to “T” above
December 22nd, 2014 at 11:43In Blackmore’s defense about Glover “changing the solos” on Machine Head.
The solos that Glover inserted, especially on “Smoke on the Water” were not keepers! Can’t you hear him feeling his way around? Why should Blackmore not be upset!??? Most musicians are perfectionists and that would be really aggravating to have someone replace a solo with out asking. I have to say I loved the remix Glover did on the album! But, inserting those alternate solos ruined it for me. His intentions were good, but if your going to do that then include them as separate tracks at the end with the alternate solos.