Bourbon Burst
Tele-Holic
I see so many things remastered but sometimes wonder if it is just different but marketed like it is better. Some songs do sound better or more clear but other times don't hear much difference.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Is a "remastered" song or album any better?
- Thread starter Bourbon Burst
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Rarely "better", IMHO. Sometimes "different".
I can't think of a re-mastered recording that made me sit up and think....."Now!, that's the way it SHOULD have been".
It's really marketing.....a way to encourage people to buy something they may already own.
It's difficult to generalize, each project has to be judged on its own merits. There are some true remastering artists out there, and then there are the assembly line dudes who squash everything to make it "louder". If you're reluctant to make a blind purchase on a remastered album, you can check places like www.stevehoffman.tv where there's a forum to discuss such things, and chances are the release you're interested in has already been covered there.
Yes -- sometimes it is just re-marketing old material and sometimes it makes a difference. When it does make a difference it usually just means the dynamics have been squashed to make the recording a bit louder.
There are exceptions of course. The remastering of The Smiths catalog for the release of the box set "Complete" was fantastic. I believe Johnny Marr was at least somewhat involved so it's no surprise that they did a great job.
There are exceptions of course. The remastering of The Smiths catalog for the release of the box set "Complete" was fantastic. I believe Johnny Marr was at least somewhat involved so it's no surprise that they did a great job.
Texicaster
Friend of Leo's
Some sure are!
I think it was the 2012 Grateful Dead American Beauty remastered that was steller! American Beauty has a lot of nuances and better separation and mixing of certain instruments like the pedal steel guitar really opened it up. The recent 50th anniversary not as good; they buried the pedal steel in the mix again....
A lot are just finally getting a proper treatment. Dawn of cds they just ripped what they had it seemed thinking cd was such a superior format. Eventually audiophiles were heard and things have been getting cleaned up along the way. So it's not so much the remaster is so great but the original cd release was so bad that getting to acceptable levels a great thing!
Well I bought a Mo-Fi Mobil fidelity remastered version Of Bob Dylan Blood on the tracks. I can state this it sounds amazing!!!!!Yes it was $$$$$
Next up was 45rpm version of The Doors Morrison Hotel......my original version never sounded this good!
So I say yes it does make a difference on vinyl!
Next up was 45rpm version of The Doors Morrison Hotel......my original version never sounded this good!
So I say yes it does make a difference on vinyl!
TC6969
Friend of Leo's
My hearing is so bad, I cant tell the difference!
fjblair
Friend of Leo's
This is very true. Early cd releases of earlier analog recordings were mostly awful.
Area51
Tele-Holic
In general, I would say yes. Though, a lot also depends on what you're listening to it on.
Flat6Driver
Poster Extraordinaire
They have a version of AOXOMOXOA that has original mixes and the updated mixes. It's on my list of stuff to get/explore.
I recall in the days of the "gold CDs" they would mangle some of the mixes. Tommy IIRC was cited as a such.
I've also heard about the ZZ Top re-issues where they modernized the drum sound for the first three albums.
There seemed to be a lot of ways to approach this.
Greggorios
Poster Extraordinaire
I agree. For anyone who's interested in climbing down into that particular rabbit hole take a look through Steve Hoffman's web forum. Steve's a highly regarded audio engineer who does/did many "audiophile" and "remaster" recordings including the Mobile Fidelity stuff. In his forum there are endless debates on which recordings sound better or worse by different forum members. If there's a particular album or recording you're interested in just search it on the site.
Yeah, yeah, I know...cork sniffing etc., I've heard it all. Many of the differences are negligible and are of no consequence to many, including me. But if you love a particular piece of music and have the time and inclination to sit and listen carefully there are some alternative versions that might be of interest. For instance I have a CD copy of the MoFi version of Tommy that I prefer over the other Tommy cd's I have or have listened to. If I'd never heard the MoFi version I'd be none the worse but it's nice to have it anyway. I've listened to others that, to my ears (...a key element of this discussion) have no qualitative difference to me but "your ears" may tell you something different.
Enjoy!
arlum
Friend of Leo's
The first "remastered" album I ever heard was Alan Parson's Tales of Mystery and Imagination. The first release was a solid hit. I owned it. It was great. A couple of years later I went to buy another copy. I took it home, played it and was astounded at what I was listening to. Guitars more present in the mix. Vocals with a much better blend allowing all voices to equal one another for a fuller yet more defined mix. The spoken word brought forward just enough that you didn't have to strain to hear what was being said. It was like taking something great and making it greater. The first release disappeared over time and what you'd hear if you bought the album today would be the remix. Outstanding!
I've also heard some Led Zeppelin tunes that Jimmy Page helped remix that also sound much better than the originals.
I'm not saying this is always the case. I figure there are some bands or labels out there that realized a remix would increase sales of albums slowly fading away. I doubt much was put into these because when the $ gets involved anything artistic tends to slide away into a pile of cra*.
Check the reviews of others who have taken the plunge. Sometimes the improvement is outstanding. Sometimes it's just different. And yes .... sometimes it's nothing but cra*.
I've also heard some Led Zeppelin tunes that Jimmy Page helped remix that also sound much better than the originals.
I'm not saying this is always the case. I figure there are some bands or labels out there that realized a remix would increase sales of albums slowly fading away. I doubt much was put into these because when the $ gets involved anything artistic tends to slide away into a pile of cra*.
Check the reviews of others who have taken the plunge. Sometimes the improvement is outstanding. Sometimes it's just different. And yes .... sometimes it's nothing but cra*.
loopfinding
Poster Extraordinaire
outside of the "sanctity" of classic pop and rock records, there are a lot of old jazz or indie records that are kind of lo-fi and hurried and could stand to get a bit more oomph.
I'm always torn on this kind of thing...
Leatherface - Mush was remastered and reissued a year or so back and it's a pretty dramatic listen, it's much clearer with better separation between instruments and the vocals especially.
Whether it really needed it is another question, I didn't really have a problem with the way it was (it is punk rock after all) but it did sound a bit like a blur of noise, especially at lower volumes .... but after 30 years you get used to the way it sounds.
It is nice to be able to hear all the guitars clearly though, it's always been hard panned L/R with the two main guitar tracks but they still mushed together a lot and you'd have to listen to each channel separately to hear them clearly. it's a lot easier to hear exactly what's being played now.
I would describe it as sounding far more 'live' before and now it sounds much more like a 'recording' .... I'm undecided if that's 'better' or just different.
Leatherface - Mush was remastered and reissued a year or so back and it's a pretty dramatic listen, it's much clearer with better separation between instruments and the vocals especially.
Whether it really needed it is another question, I didn't really have a problem with the way it was (it is punk rock after all) but it did sound a bit like a blur of noise, especially at lower volumes .... but after 30 years you get used to the way it sounds.
It is nice to be able to hear all the guitars clearly though, it's always been hard panned L/R with the two main guitar tracks but they still mushed together a lot and you'd have to listen to each channel separately to hear them clearly. it's a lot easier to hear exactly what's being played now.
I would describe it as sounding far more 'live' before and now it sounds much more like a 'recording' .... I'm undecided if that's 'better' or just different.
maxvintage
Poster Extraordinaire
Usually "remastering" means "adding more compression." I wish I was exaggerating, but I'm not. Most of the time it means adding compression and/or limiting to the master track.
The result will sound "better" to people who have gotten used to hearing music with no dynamic range, which is basically every pop genre for the last twenty years
The result will sound "better" to people who have gotten used to hearing music with no dynamic range, which is basically every pop genre for the last twenty years
Bob Womack
Friend of Leo's
At the beginning of the CD transition record companies would send a runner to the tape library to get a "master" and what came back for mastering could be a multi-generational safety copy or a un-mastered mix or even a vinyl copy. Many CD remasters were JUNK.
However, "Subscription mastering" is actually a thing. Mobile Fidelity and Audio Fidelity were started on the concept of mastering albums to sound excellent. They spent long hours tracking down the mix masters and properly mastering them for CD and SA-CD and they are noticeably better in most cases. There are other examples as well.
Bob
However, "Subscription mastering" is actually a thing. Mobile Fidelity and Audio Fidelity were started on the concept of mastering albums to sound excellent. They spent long hours tracking down the mix masters and properly mastering them for CD and SA-CD and they are noticeably better in most cases. There are other examples as well.
Bob
Remastering can definitely have a giant impact on a recording, but it really helps if the albums were poorly mastered in the first place.
For my own enjoyment, I remastered a couple of albums that desperately needed it (Iggy Pop "Lust for Life" and Genesis "Duke") and both were hugely improved. I have a lot of experience mastering at the "pro-am" or "marginally professional" level, so I'd love it if a top notch guy got turned loose on those albums.
As a side note, I also tried to reconstruct the original track order of "Duke" as best I could to rebuild the huge prog rock medley. It ended up making a huge difference and the album becomes a much darker album, which is suspect is the main reason they broke it up.
That said, I am convinced that part of why vinyl still sounds better is because they mastered very differently for vinyl, and the style of mastering necessary for vinyl is generally more pleasing to the ear. The vinyl versions of audiophile level recordings still sound significantly better to my ears. The example that leaps to mind is Steely Dan "Gaucho". I have listened to my vinyl copy enough times that I probly should replace it, so when I got it on CD I was disturbed that it didn't sound as good. I slowly realized that the treble and bass boost on the CD remaster actually made the album sound worse to my ears. After that realization (this was 10 years ago FWIW), I digitized my copy of Gaucho and I only listen to my LP rip.
For my own enjoyment, I remastered a couple of albums that desperately needed it (Iggy Pop "Lust for Life" and Genesis "Duke") and both were hugely improved. I have a lot of experience mastering at the "pro-am" or "marginally professional" level, so I'd love it if a top notch guy got turned loose on those albums.
As a side note, I also tried to reconstruct the original track order of "Duke" as best I could to rebuild the huge prog rock medley. It ended up making a huge difference and the album becomes a much darker album, which is suspect is the main reason they broke it up.
That said, I am convinced that part of why vinyl still sounds better is because they mastered very differently for vinyl, and the style of mastering necessary for vinyl is generally more pleasing to the ear. The vinyl versions of audiophile level recordings still sound significantly better to my ears. The example that leaps to mind is Steely Dan "Gaucho". I have listened to my vinyl copy enough times that I probly should replace it, so when I got it on CD I was disturbed that it didn't sound as good. I slowly realized that the treble and bass boost on the CD remaster actually made the album sound worse to my ears. After that realization (this was 10 years ago FWIW), I digitized my copy of Gaucho and I only listen to my LP rip.
saltyseadog
Tele-Afflicted
The remastered version of Derek & the Dominoes live at the Fillmore is a huge upgrade on the original and probably in my top 5 of Eric Clapton.
I'm a huge Clapton fan, I need to check this out!!!
I think often 'remastered' is a marketing scheme for "copied poorly and sold illegally". I have purchased a few 'new remastered' CD's that are so tinny and bad they are unplayable actually. They also seem to immediately refund you if you complain. Probably not wanting to get on anyone's radar.
Yes I still buy CD's. I only buy used ones now with older dates.
I think there are some well re mixed albums out there though.
Yes I still buy CD's. I only buy used ones now with older dates.
I think there are some well re mixed albums out there though.
