Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music ›  Original vs. Remastered Albums?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Original vs. Remastered Albums? - Page 4

post #46 of 140

Is there any well put together list of Classic Rock remasters anywhere that canbe searched through? It's hard to track down all the remastering information sometimes.


Like now...I have a near complete set of the 'Rush Remasters' discs, then of course you have Sectors, HD Tracks has the 24/96 release, original vinyl, but what else?

 

There has to be a database somewhere...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LFF View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by jallen89 View Post



let us know if the remasters are any good. I've been looking at a few remasters but i don't want to waste the cash if they are brick walled



Which ones are you looking for?



 

 

post #47 of 140

I've heard the League Unlimited Orchestra remaster -- in this case, no, you have not wasted you money. :)!

post #48 of 140

I buy and sell used audio CDs online on some popular shopping sites.  On  one of them I found the used remastered versions for a few bucks but on the same site there are sellers asking 10 times that amount for the same album as an ordinary audio CD.

 

Am I missing something here or are some people willing to spend more on ordinary audio CDs than they would for newly remastered formats? Do the hisses, pops or other so-called imperfections help people reminisce or something?

post #49 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicDood View Post

I buy and sell used audio CDs online on some popular shopping sites.  On  one of them I found the used remastered versions for a few bucks but on the same site there are sellers asking 10 times that amount for the same album as an ordinary audio CD.

 

Am I missing something here or are some people willing to spend more on ordinary audio CDs than they would for newly remastered formats? Do the hisses, pops or other so-called imperfections help people reminisce or something?


Here you go...

post #50 of 140

i haven't bought any remastered cds at all. in fact, i dont even buy cd's anymore. the loudness war has really ruined music on cds for me. as for the original question. a remastered album has to be done correct or else its literally a waste of time. if those Black Sabbath remasters sound like crap, then i will stick to the originals that i've been used to for the past 35 years.

 

some recent remasters i have picked up are the first 4 Sonic Youth full length albums

as much as Sister is kinda recorded in that lo-fi'ish kinda sound. it still sounds pretty good

i've only owned the cd versions of Confusion Is Next / Bad Moon Rising / Evol / Sister back in high school

of course i dont have them anymore as i unloaded my cd collection over the past 10-15 years

 

but the one that i couldn't believe my ears

is the half speed mastered remasters of the early Genesis albums with Peter Gabriel

http://www.amazon.com/1970-1975-6-LP-180g-Vinyl/dp/B001UGIRF8/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1347213452&sr=1-4&keywords=genesis+box+set+lp

i couldn't believe how clear they sounded. and i couldn't stop playing them the entire weekend i bought it. must've played each album at least 5 or 6 times. the clarity on them was just amazing and nice and clear. i didn't hear that stupid loudness in them at all. which i will admit, i dont own a top of the line stereo system, but for what it sounded like cranked up on my crappy system. it was a total experience. i manged to luck out and score this box set for only $130 (with tax) and it is so worth it.

but i find myself wondering. is the cd version just as good or better sounding?

i like the fact that my car has both cd and a tape deck in it so i taped every album on cassette and usually end up playing them the most in the car. espically on long drives.

 

as for the most recent remaster i got, is Ozzy's Diary Of A Madman (180 gram lp)

it sounds alright, but i dont have an original album to compare it to. it sounds alright, but i wouldn't say its in heavy rotation, but a good album to just throw on and do the dishes or cook dinner.

 

the last remastered album i did order is the first Shadowy Men On A Shadowy Planet - Savvy Show Stoppers LP (180 gram)

they are bringing out all 3 of their albums again, and can't wait to hear the first 1 (i believe they are being released 6 months apart) just glad i still hung on to those cd's still. as much of "Cargo Records" catalog seems to be long out of print. it's just too bad they didn't have the album when i saw them live a couple months ago.

 

i am very cautious about remastered albums, and it all comes down to paying good money for 180 gram albums and just end up getting a crappy version that i refuse to listen to (which i'm glad i saw that Nirvana's Nevermind was mention here as crappy sounding, so i will stay away (lol) from that one by all means.

 

oh yeah, another good one i really liked is Alice Cooper's School Out (on Friday Music 180 gram)

that one does sound really good

oh yeah, and Deep Purple's Machine Head (180 gram)

 

maybe i should just sit in front of my record collection with the laptop to avoid me adding more stuff to this list

post #51 of 140

I have  Enrique Iglesias greatest hits and i have  his 1999 album enrique and when i rip and compare the track from the original about vs the greatest hit album (not they all have the same replay gain and peaks) the ones from the original sound better blink.gif, i had to do a blind test to see if somethings was wrong with my ears but nope , its actually sound better (not by a wooping figure) but enough to make me wanna replace the greatest hits rip with the original ones. now im kinda sceptic when buying greatest hits albums rolleyes.gif

 

-Bailamos wink_face.gif

post #52 of 140

I agree with most of what has been said here. The remasters are louder and compressed. The remasters only really sound better to me when the original releases sound very technically flawed. The original Bat Out of Hell  CD is so noisy. I can't believe they released it that way. The remaster is much more pleasurable to listen to. Some other remasters I bought were rather disappointing. They are typically much louder and compressed. They also don't clearly specify when there is remixing or just remastering. Remixing might not sound bad, but at least people should be warned that with remixing the music might not sound exactly the same as the original. Many want the sound exactly as the original but with better fidelity.

post #53 of 140
I agree it's rare that the remaster sounds better than the original digital. C,S,N&Y 4 Way Street did improve. Almost all the DSotM versions were not as good until the latest set (I think the MFgold is also good) and I'm only going by what those buying it have reported. The artists that have gone back and remixed their master tapes may have done a better job but I've not been into it so much as to buy their efforts. To me, it's not worth owning several copies of the same music for a crap shoot. Not when there is so much more music to explore.

edit. When I say better, CSN&Y was a dirty background recording. For acoustic music and vocals, the removal of the background noise allowed for better hearing of the original signal.
Edited by Happy Camper - 10/4/12 at 11:49am
post #54 of 140
In classical music, with the exception of pre HiFi material, remasters almost always mean better sound quality. Whole labels, like Columbia have been completely remastered to better than they ever were before. I had the big silver Stravinsky Conducts Stavinsky Columbia box set of LPs, and the sound was compressed and had a boxy acoustic. I got the recent CD remaster and it's like a completely new recording. The same is true of the Leonard Bernstein 60s LPs and the pre stereo Rubinstein. I'm like a pig in mud, because great performances that I used to have to make allowances for miserable sound now sound perfect.

There's a lot more to work with in classical music. Sound quality was pretty low on the list of priorities for classic album rock. I always think it's ironic that people spend so much money on fancy audiophile remasters of records that were recorded and mixed in a week on the cheap originally.
post #55 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

In classical music, with the exception of pre HiFi material, remasters almost always mean better sound quality. Whole labels, like Columbia have been completely remastered to better than they ever were before. I had the big silver Stravinsky Conducts Stavinsky Columbia box set of LPs, and the sound was compressed and had a boxy acoustic. I got the recent CD remaster and it's like a completely new recording. The same is true of the Leonard Bernstein 60s LPs and the pre stereo Rubinstein. I'm like a pig in mud, because great performances that I used to have to make allowances for miserable sound now sound perfect.
There's a lot more to work with in classical music. Sound quality was pretty low on the list of priorities for classic album rock. I always think it's ironic that people spend so much money on fancy audiophile remasters of records that were recorded and mixed in a week on the cheap originally.

Yes sir, there are genre that more readily express the cleanup and tweaking a quality remaster can provide. The rock arena has been more about making money on reissues while the artists (and their fans) are still alive than artfully making the material sound "subjectively" better. I have no doubt that in 50 years there will be a 50th anniversary re-master of Justin.......

A lot of the classical pieces were done in an era that wasn't technically capable of hi fidelity. So in that regard, it's the artistry of today's technicians that brings the sound out of the technological trash. Trash removal will help any recording but the music itself will never be better than the signal that's there. So is that the purpose of a remaster?
Edited by Happy Camper - 10/4/12 at 11:47am
post #56 of 140
Since the introduction of magnetic tape and stereo, recording technology has been capable of phenominal sound quality. The best recording I have ever heard, Fiedler's Offenbach on Living Stereo, was recorded in 1952. The four track decks and microphones used to record classical music are still state of the art when it comes to sound quality. And the binaural miking techniques used added even more realism. The limiting factor was the LP format. Vinyl was cable of sounding very good, but it didn't come close to sounding as good as the master tapes. Now, when these records are being released on CD, we're finally hearing the quality that the engineers laid down with no compromises. The remastering isn't fixing stuff, it's just presenting it faithfully for the first time. These old classical recordings often sound *better* than modern ones because the engineers back then were better.

Rock music is a different story. It was recorded quickly, cheaply, with multi miking and lots of editing and mixing. The end destination was mass produced vinyl, and they didn't bother to make it sound any better than they had to. There's only so much of a silk purse that can be made of a sow's ear. Garbage in, garbage out.
post #57 of 140

i have the aja 1999 remaster, as you've probably heard by now sound quality is superb. conversely steely, dan's pretzel logic remaster and the royal scam sound to be honest, bad.  i have all the doors remasters and sometimes its as if you are sitting on a folding chair at sunset sound studios, its that intimate, but i will say that the first album, "the doors" is not as good as the rest, but this could be down to the fact recording technology was always evolving.


Edited by raymag 75 - 12/2/12 at 2:54am
post #58 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by raymag 75 View Post

i have the aja 1999 remaster, as you've probably heard by now sound quality is superb. conversely steely, dan's pretzel logic remaster and the royal scam sound to be honest, bad.  i have all the doors remasters and sometimes its as if you are sitting on a folding chair at sunset sound studios, its that intimate, but i will say that the first album, "the doors" is not as good as the rest, but this could be down to the fact recording technology was always evolving.

 

Someone from the Steve Hoffman forum commented that the 1999 Aja remaster is loud and harsh.

post #59 of 140

I think people have stereos that have responses that are all over the map. You can't tell what the remaster sounds like if their system emphasizes certain frequencies.

post #60 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I think people have stereos that have responses that are all over the map. You can't tell what the remaster sounds like if their system emphasizes certain frequencies.

 

I know. But I bet his/her system is not since he cares about the sound and he's a member of a forum who cares about the sound.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music ›  Original vs. Remastered Albums?