don't get me wrong...
the remastered sound quality is good.
it's just that in their efforts to improve on, what was/were,
incredibly pristine original recordings;
they've managed to eff-up some of the subtle warmth
and silky aural textures - unfortunately!
i believe that if you listen to EDEN side-by-side
original master to remaster - you'll hear what i mean.
i'd give the originals an A for sound quality... and i'd give the remasters an A-.
i'm certainly interested in what others may have to contribute here.
Pretty much right on, except that I wouldn't give the Eden remaster such a high grade. It's nice and detailed, but unfortunately it's awfully, awfully bright. Disc 2 is chock full of nice material, which saves it. I have to go back and listen to my other copy of Eden again, but I think that's going to be my go-to, unless I find that simply cutting the treble on the new one does the trick.