Remastered CDs: Color me a sceptic
Jun 1, 2010 at 7:55 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 38

TheWuss

Reviewer at Headphone.Guru
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Posts
2,967
Likes
141
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
So, it’s 2010, and my quest for audio nirvana has reached greater heights this year, particularly since joining head-fi in January.  My journey has been one with many peaks and valleys.  At times, headphone listening has been a source of great joy, and at other times a source of immense frustration. 
 
Fortunately, I’ve come to realize this frustration (for the most part) lies not with my choice of headphones, amp, dac or cables, but with the music I’m playing through those gadgets.  If I’ve read it once on head-fi, I’ve read it a hundred times:  Garbage in, garbage out.  But, like a tool, I paid no heed to those warnings, expecting my cans to sprinkle magic dust on the music of my preference.
 
So, what is the music of my preference, you ask?  Well, that’s where this story really begins.
 
Over the past 8 or 10 years I continually “upgraded” my CD collection with each significant remaster that hit the stores, slowly watching as the white spines with their red lettering became an endangered species on my shelves.  Having the latest version was a must for me.  Yes, I bought them for their bonus tracks.  I bought them for their deluxe packaging, their liner notes and sundry other goodies.  But moreover I bought them because I just knew they would sound better.
 
And, in those 8 to 10 years I carried on assuming that each of those newer CDs was the superior audio product.  But as I did my listening through car stereos or iPod ear buds, I wasn’t really testing this assertion.  And so, with perhaps greater faith than I realized at the time, I ditched or sold the older 80’s masters each time I upgraded.  Good riddance?
 
May, 2010.  I turned on my Woo amp, put on my DT880s, and began listening to the 2004 Rhino remaster of Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours.  “I’m in for a treat,” I thought.  However, during “Dreams” I kept hearing something:  distortion.  It was only happening here and there, but I just knew my ears weren’t deceiving me.  So, I switched headphones, switched sources, switched amps.  Still there.  Argh!
 
So, while out shopping last weekend, I spotted the original CD pressing of Rumours in the used bin.  And you can surely guess what happened:  I bought it.
 

 
And you can probably guess what else happened:  I took it home, ripped it to FLAC, and listened to it in A/B fashion against the remaster.
 
I am generally aware of the noise war, and have heard its effects on newer recordings (evident on the crappiest of systems).  I’m also aware that the loudness race has spilled over into the realm of remastered music.  However, I simply wasn’t prepared to favor the 80’s master over the 2004 remaster.  I wasn’t.  But here it was, getting my foot tapping, proving more visceral, more musical.  Each time Mick Fleetwood struck the toms and snare, I could picture his long arms being brought down with great force.  Lindsey Buckingham’s wah-wah guitar was now gently easing in and out of the mix between Stevie’s phrases.  I could almost see him stepping on the volume pedal, showing restraint.  And now John McVie’s bass fell perfectly in balance with the other instruments, not bloated or thrust forward like on the remaster.  Wow.  So, if all this was present in the 80’s pressing, then why did it need to be “remastered” (read: butchered)?
 
Well.  Maybe Rhino's intentions were noble.  Let’s just assume that for a moment.  I will concede that there are moments on the remaster where the clarity improves on the early pressing by a slight degree.  In all other areas, though, I favor the 80’s version, as the dynamic range adds so much to the listening experience.  Here, as it should be, the artists get quieter and louder, they push and pull; and that extra light and shade, that extra drama comes through.
 
And no distortion.
 
And, you know what?  Rumours is but one example.  And, to be honest, it’s offenses are very slight compared to others.  I opened Audacity, and looked at the MP3 files next to each other.  2004 Rumours isn’t even brickwalled.  It’s simply somewhat louder than the 80’s master.  But with even this amount of peak limiting, what is lost?  Well, enough where my sack cloth ears could appreciate the difference, that's certain.
 
So, what of the worst offenders, then (think: Genesis remasters)?  Well, I plan on making a list, and will keep it handy for when I’m browsing the used bins...
 
And in due time all that old music will be "old" again...  
 
Jun 2, 2010 at 8:32 AM Post #2 of 38
I just listened to the 1986 Invisible Touch master.  Superior in every way to the 2007 remaster.
 
 
Here's the original "Throwing it All Away" from 1986:

 
And here's the jacked up 2007 version:
 

 
Looks like someone has taken a hedge trimmer to all those lovely transients. 
 
 
 
 
Jun 2, 2010 at 10:11 AM Post #3 of 38
Haha, you just made me listen to this record again!
beerchug.gif

 
First of all: nice read! I really don't know what to think about remasters even after all this time I've spent with music. There are some good examples like the new Beatles remasters, but there's a shocking amount of re-releases with remastered content that is just depressing. In theory, remasters HAVE to be better, since the equipment (A-D converters, for instance) simply are a lot better now. I always feel a little bit weird about buying old CDs from the eighties because I have this in mind.
 
Kinda sad, but true: Today we've got vessels that could store A LOT MORE of precious information, but thanks to the state of the industry (or however you want to name it) we have to stick with "obsolete" records that were produced with more care. There's another sad thing about some remasters: sometimes record labels simply put them out in order to maximize their profits. The "Oh, by the Way" box set by Pink Floyd comes to mind... There's some nice art in there, but it's kind of a mess of different masters from different times and everything has been there before in a previous box set. It would have been nice if they had remastered all the studio albums in order to create one coherent, contemporary point of view, but no...
 
Jun 2, 2010 at 10:18 AM Post #4 of 38
glad you enjoyed the read.  in retrospect, it's probably a little much... 
biggrin.gif

 
yeah.  i bought the pink floyd box.  just to have the vinyl replica sleeves.  geez.
it's sick, isn't it?
 
and, you make a good point.  the a/d converters are getting better and better.  the detail they can retrieve from a baked 1st generation master tape is simply unreal.  but then they go and jack up the levels until the whole song has no life left in it whatsoever. 
 
it just stinks.  and so, for certain albums, the original product just sounds better.
 
next up for me will be graham nash's songs for beginners.  a favorite of mine.  and the 2008 remaster is brickwalled.  the kick drum farts when it hits.  rhino should be ashamed of that one...
 
 

 
 
 
Jun 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM Post #5 of 38
Sick? No! I don't think it's sick. If you enjoy the art in there (which is really nice, in my opinion), it's nothing to be ashamed about. I actually would like to buy this box, but honestly, as a student, this is a little much money for me. If it was anything like the Beatles remasters (sorry for mentioning them again) I would instantly buy the box. When I first heard about these remasters I was like "Meh...", but after I heard samples I was like "whoa, seems like I'm going to spend some money pretty soon!". I mean, all the official Pink Floyd remasters are actually pleasing to me, but it kind of still annoys me that these were mastered in different years by different persons. This is kind of non-coherent, isn't it? Or am I just weird here?
 
It just makes me sick that this sound butchering is virtually everywhere. Some days ago I bought closed cans for my DAP to listen to music when I'm on the road, and since I was in a hurry I just bought a pair of Sennheiser HD 212 Pro without trying them (yeah, I know...). Well, it said "powerful bass" on the box, but boy was I SHOCKED when I first heard them sing... I should have known better because it also says "DJ" on there, but this ridiculous amount of bass really took my breath away. I returned them, and now I've got AKG K 430 and they do the job pretty well.
 
Sennheiser, one of the most respected headphone manufacturers today. Why do they produce such headphones? Quite simple: BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT THEM. The same goes for our precious records...
frown.gif

 
Jun 2, 2010 at 12:04 PM Post #6 of 38
you're right.
the pink floyd box and the beatles box are great examples of polar opposites.
 
the pink floyd box smacks of cash grab.  they threw the same cds in there as were already in print.  no effort to improve upon the product sonically, just the packaging.
and even that was suspect to me.  some of the booklets were shoved into the sleeves carelessly, resulting in folded corners, etc.
heck, my Oh, By the Way box even has TWO Disc-1's for the Ummagumma album.  No Disc-2.  Wow, what superb quality control! 
very_evil_smiley.gif

 
the beatles box on the other hand, mono or stereo, is the very best example of remastering and careful treatment of the product that i can think of. 
the remastering and preservation of the music is just shockingly well done. 
and, with the packaging, it's tasteful and they certainly didn't mess anything up.
 
 
Jun 2, 2010 at 12:37 PM Post #8 of 38
true.  the Rhino Nuggets box (first one) is just horribly done.
and that is a pretty old box set.  maybe they thought, "hey, this is garage rock.  it should be loud."  hahaha.
 
 
 
Jun 2, 2010 at 1:04 PM Post #9 of 38
i notice this a lot too
 
one example is iron maiden with their 80s output the original CDs are good, the castle records remasters from 1995 are better, the current remasters are crap... i'd love to see the castle remasters re-issued or a new remaster done by someone who hasn't declared war on dynamic range
 
speaking of dynamic range and remasters... http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/492421/dynamic-range-of-cds-examples there are a few posts here which have some comparisons between different versions of a few albums
 
Jun 2, 2010 at 2:06 PM Post #10 of 38
I mostly agree that re-masters are fequently inferior to the originals as well.  Production has a lot to do with how a recording actually sounds and I think that today's production is heavily geared to making the music sound good on an Ipod (or whatever your preferred DAP is) and when compressed to MP3.  So those of us in the hifi world are usually better off sticking to the originals.  Music that was produced to sound best on larger and generally more demanding systems.
 
Jun 2, 2010 at 5:56 PM Post #13 of 38
that's the problem of perception.  somewhere along the line, someone thought:
 
loud = professional
 
quiet = DIY
 
and the rest was history...
 
Jun 3, 2010 at 3:51 AM Post #14 of 38


Quote:
So many great albums ruined by lazy remaster jobs. Daydream Nation is the best example I can think of, just look at this! Truly disgusting.
 

 


Truly disgusting.
 
I wish most engineers would grow a pair and stand up for something they know is right and refuse to ruin our music. Pisses me off!!!!!!
angry_face.gif

 
Jun 3, 2010 at 6:16 AM Post #15 of 38


Quote:
...
and, you make a good point.  the a/d converters are getting better and better.  the detail they can retrieve from a baked 1st generation master tape is simply unreal.  but then they go and jack up the levels until the whole song has no life left in it whatsoever. 
...

 
There is also the dilemma that the master tapes are degrading with time.  Many have not been stored in ideal conditions and I think that magnetic tape is prone to slow degradation over time.  Every now and then I read about previously "lost" master tapes being uncovered in some musty cupboard or basement.  That can't be good for them.  More background noise, print-through, etc.  So, the added dimension to this problem is deciding where the best balance is between master tape aging and improvement in converter technology (that is without even considering the subsequent processing that is the topic of this thread).  Some of these remasters are from tapes that are over half a century old now.
 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top