Original vs. Remastered Albums? - Page 5

Why did the label "AAD" "ADD" and "DDD" die out.

Back in the day this help sort the wheat from the chaff, no one seems to use it anymore.

Does anyone know was it part of the red book standard or was it marketing?

Also, I'm sure the number of people who know what that stuff means (even with the helpful explanation a few albums I have give in the booklet) is so small that they don't even bother anymore because it would just clutter up the case copy. They've dropped the prominent Compact Disk logo these days as well (which I'm happy about because they usually put it right over the artwork).

Does anybody have a disc from the era when they used to put something like this on the label (I'm paraphrasing here):

The material on this program has been digitally remastered from analog media, and because of the high resolution of the compact disc format, limitations of the source format may be exposed.

I always smile a little when I read that, since I'm sure it drives subjectivist audiophiles/vinyl junkies up the wall every time they see it. High resolution?! Hah! Digital sounds cold and brittle and 16/44 isn't enough to render all the musical content!

I was worried ive gone crazy. I recently got a hold on several remastered (201X, all of them) albums that were originally AAD or ADD and I was shocked to find out that they sounded nothing like the original ones. For example: Inxs - Kick Remastered 2011 (this one was not bad at all actually), Bob Marley - Legend, Marvin Gaye (not sure which album) and I believe there was one Pink Floyd album as well.

They sounded very thin and as if all the instruments vocals were unrealistically placed.. sounded like convoluted garbage. I just got the 2011 remaster of Made in Heaven (Queen). I have never really liked Queen to be fairly honest, but I really like "You dont fool me" so I wanted to have this album as well.

I was shocked to discover that this song sounded NOTHING... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like I remember it. My K701s are acutely precise when it comes to imaging and instrument/vocal placement.. and I was really stunned to hear it like this. 

I thought that it might have to do with the fact that I have never heard this song on headphones, but I will definitely get the old version of the album, to make sure. 

Honestly, the song sounded so unnatural, that I am almost sure it has to be the remaster that's the problem. The rest of the songs had piercing treble and were unbearable to listen to. This happened with most of the other remasters. 

My question is, what is the point of ... (putting it straight forward) destroying albums like that? I am yet to uncover an album which bears that note "Remastered, 201X" and sounds good. Who is actually remastering and releasing these albums? Is it the initial producer of the original ones?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikiphile 

Who is actually remastering and releasing these albums? Is it the initial producer of the original ones?

Often engineers who work for the record label produce the remasters. The original producers aren't usually involved.