Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Do remastered albums tend to be significantly better?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do remastered albums tend to be significantly better?

post #1 of 142
Thread Starter 
The CDs I'm looking at now are Yes - Close the the Edge and Relayer. Are the remastered versions necessarily much better? I don't care about any bonus tracks; just sound quality.
post #2 of 142
Without a doubt - I have those remasters, along with several AC/DC, Dire Straits, Led Zeppelin, Who's Next, a bunch of earlier remastered Who, Soundgarden, Heart Dog and Butterfly, Neil Young's Greatest Hits, Stones Hot Rocks - all outstanding to excellent. More detail, less noise, better control (shimmer, decay, etc), and tighter bass.

I do not listen to anything other than the remastered versions anymore.
post #3 of 142
I have to agree about those bands, most remasters are quite good. Some albums though old however, may sound even better. I find albums such as the first Van Halen to be greatly mastered.
post #4 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabbi1
Without a doubt - I have those remasters, along with several AC/DC, Dire Straits, Led Zeppelin, Who's Next, a bunch of earlier remastered Who, Soundgarden, Heart Dog and Butterfly, Neil Young's Greatest Hits, Stones Hot Rocks - all outstanding to excellent. More detail, less noise, better control (shimmer, decay, etc), and tighter bass.

I do not listen to anything other than the remastered versions anymore.
Remasters: lots are worse than the originals.
Those AC/DC & Zep remasters are not good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pabbi1
all outstanding to excellent. More detail, less noise, better control (shimmer, decay, etc), and tighter bass.

I do not listen to anything other than the remastered versions anymore.
Edited
post #5 of 142
A little snippy there eye... unnescessary, IMHO.

That said, I generally agree with you. Remasters vary in quality. While many gain something in fidelity and (often) are a bit better balanced in terms of EQ, they can lose a feeling of authenticity that many find pleasing.

Better mastering equipment in terms of stats does not nescessarily produce more enjoyable sound. Every tube-phile knows that.
post #6 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by blip
A little snippy there eye... unnescessary, IMHO.
I agree. I'll edit it.
post #7 of 142
the Led Zeppelin remasters box set is terrible. the Close to the Edge remaster sounds pretty nice.
post #8 of 142
it's really hit and miss. Being a huge classic rock fan, and owning many remastered disc and the original vinyls.... vinyl will never be surpassed, but some remasters do quite the good job
post #9 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLeader
vinyl will never be surpassed
never say never
post #10 of 142
With recent equipment upgrades, I've been obligated to get a lot of these "re-masters", and i agree with Blip, some lose there air of auntenticity. For instance, yestersay I purchased the Bruce Springsteen "Essentials" purportedly the only re-master of his early work, and it SUCKS!. Doesn't even sound like Bruce, more like a good wedding cover. If that's how they had presented these songs originally, Bruce would be nothing more than a footnote today.
post #11 of 142
When it comes to questions about which CD version of which album is the best, you really need to refer to www.stevehoffman.tv.

Steve's site is THE authority on the subject of what CD version of any given title is the "best".
post #12 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziddy
Do remastered albums tend to be significantly better?
Highly subjective topic and I would generally answer no, but one thing is indisputable about remasters these days, and that is they are nearly always much more compressed to make them LOUDER!

Case by case is the only way. What you like I may hate, and vice versa. Neither of us is wrong
post #13 of 142
It also depends on the particular remaster. You mention the Zep Remasters box set. Absolutely correct, it does suck.

Jimmy Page was pretty pissed off about that box set, because he wasn't consulted at all for the remastering.

So Jimmy did his own remastering of every single Zep studio album and put out another box set, which is really, really good:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=music
post #14 of 142
I think remastering almost always sounds better. In fact, when I listen to my ND5, I can usually tell by the sound quality what bit rate the remaster was (16-24, or not at all).
post #15 of 142
Remastering is either good or bad, depending on what is done to the music. If they just use a master closer to the original session tape, it can be excellent. If they go in and remix and replace tracks, it's awful. The worst remasters I've heard are the Zappa albums where he put digital drum tracks in replacing the original drummer, the lifeless, flabby Led Zeppelin box and the recent smoothed over and modernized Rolling Stones SACDs. The best ones, I usually don't notice... I'm too busy listening to the music.

By the way, Page supervised the first set too. At least it says so on the cover. I haven't heard the new remastering, but I have yet to hear a CD copy of LZ2 that comes close to the punch of the original LP.

See ya
Steve
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Do remastered albums tend to be significantly better?