Originally Posted by Pete7
Hey, thanks for pointing out that it was my opinion I was giving. If you and whoever else feel differently, you are certainly entitled to your humble opinion, also. That still doesn't necessarily mean I have to agree. As a former musician with near perfect pitch, for me, remastered editions have always sounded better. Boy, it's so good to know I have an opinion.
Well, considering most everybody with "near perfect pitch" would completely disagree with you, it is not uncommon to point out an 'opinion' like that.
Many of us, including I, are also musicians with such ears. It's plain science that an album with noise reduction would sound worse dynamically and tonally than one without it. If you like a background better than higher quality sound, then you must specify that -- otherwise, most audio nuts and musicians alike will think you are talking about the actual quality of the sound, and not the lack of floor noise.
Which brings me to my next question: Do you really
think that the more recessed, noise-reduction tracks sound better than the original mixes??
You may be completely by yourself on this one!
Sure, there are some albums like "A Love Supreme" that were re-mastered by the original recording engineers -- but very few of them live up to that standard. The majority of "re-masters" merely increase volume, decrease noise, and lower dynamics in order to meet the average consumer base's demands - music that can be cranked louder!