Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by radiocaster, Nov 23, 2020.
I've heard a few, 95-99% of the time it doesn't sound better, usually it sounds worse.
All depends who (what engineers and equip) is doing it.
I remember when they first started doing CD's from old albums, some studio forgot to add the prominent bass in Deep Purple
smoke on the Water. intro...that stood out..lol..........it was disgusting..
Well yeah, obviously when they first started making CDs they'd consider it to give higher fidelity if you'd have so much high end that it would make any album better to sound like fingernails across a chalkboard.
But there are so many remasters, they just add compression, or do some kind of remaster just for the sake of it if there was nothing wrong with it in the first place, even for reissues of vinyl on vinyl. There is the cash in element of remastering the Beatles again and again and so on.
They will put an obscure bonus outtake on it, so you just have to buy it.
It's somehow related to the fascination of making money.
its true..a moneygrab by people who think they know better than the likes of George Martin and the like
(they dont...most ought to be put on trial for Crimes Against Music)...verdict is a foregone conclusion...guilty as charged ...sentence...a lifetime of forced listening to The Tweets-The Birdie Song (on hearing that sentence most would beg to be shot at Dawn)
Love it!!...you liked it before i had even finished writing it
Nice One my Friend
I know of one "Remaster" by a band everyone knows, where the mixdown masters to a particular album were lost. So, the "Remaster" is just a slightly EQ'd version of the regular CD release.
That Steven Wilson fella has essentially become the 'Oprah's Book Club' of remastering albums. Such hype is built around anything he touches
thing that smarts too...the original artist of old work that some bozo has murdered with a remix/remaster...anyone could actually do it..we just dont on principle...audio cleaning / boosting software is readily available...they rip a CD or old record... then "enhance" it to their own taste...taking the scratches out of worn records..(also destroying much of the sound in process)
dont object...suddenly theyre making money again...long after they would have faded from view otherwise (hypocrites)
i know we live in a world of recycling...but some things are beyond the pail
its a disgrace
Mixing is not the same as mastering. Come on guys, you're supposed to be musicians. Mastering takes fully mixed tracks and prepares them for pressing.
The same waveform pressed to vinyl and cd will sound different from the speakers. So when your favorite album was made in 1960 or 1970, CDs weren't around yet. So to put the album on CD, they remastered it. Now, we have MP3s, then along came the smartphone, so MP3s have to sound good out of a little speaker. And we have more remasters.
The one remaster I like: The Doors, Break on Through. Original version Jim sings :She get.....,
Remastered version, "She get high......she get high....."
Explain the huge number of vinyl remasters that have appeared over the last decade. The ones I've heard all, without exception, sound worse than the original to me.
If done well remasters can be a good thing. For all the reasons Allan mentioned. Especially for old recordings a little light work can assist their fidelity a good deal. A good example would be records of the Mississippi Sheiks released back in the day vs. the ones cleaned up, remastered and released by Third Man Records.
It should be noted that Third Man Records did this in collaboration with Document Records (perhaps the greatest label in the history of music) and I'm not sure who did what.
All the best 1950s rock and roll ***DIGITALLY REMASTERED***!!!!
Please, just give me back my 78s, 45s and a Dansette. Otherwise, please kill me now.
if it is something so old and obscure that you cant hear the music above hiss and scratch is one thing....like old 78rpm records that were played using a stylus the size of the eiffel tower with a great lump broken out of it or a knitting needle on properly recorded good clear music is another...most just make a total pigs botty of the job
old music always sounds best played on old stuff
You can only do so much, as the recording's are what they are.
But, old 98's can be cleaned up quite a bit, by attenuating certain frequencies that contain "hiss" or "pops."
And, boosting certain frequencies to bring out a bit more bass or mid-range to help clarify certain instruments and/or vocals, etc.
Again, only so much can be done.
A few years ago I remastered a bunch of recordings (mainy live) from the 70's and early 80's.
These were from various bands that I played in during those years.
They were mostly on cassette tapes and I was transferring them to CD format to better preserve them.
I used a 31 band stereo equalizer, a Mackie mixer and a sonic maximizer to do it.
They came out ok...
... but I could only do so much.
Agree but 78s are better than playing them at 98...
And nothing wrong with re doing your own music from back when...i do the same.
but would never contemplate doing it to already good sounding and successful music as a commercial enterprise
thats just a big NONO in my book...if it wasnt broken theres nothing to fix
Easy, the Universal Master fire of 2008 wiped out all the original masters. Reissue has to come from somewhere.