[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl Every time there is available a newly re-mastered CD of something I own and love, I buy it and replace the older original issue. I can't think of a single re-master I've bought that sounded "worse" than the original wooly, thin, "digital", un-dynamic and distant CDs that were issued up til the mid-90s. IMO, the CD has come a long way in the last 5-7 years

You are joking, right? Too many of the recently remastered CD's sound awful. They've been compressed, maximized, No-Noised and sound truly awful. Yes, there are exceptions and there have been some big improvements over original CD releases, but far too many recordings have been ruined by tasteless mastering engineers and their equipment. Actually, the mastering engineer probably has taste, it's the record company person with the gun to his head, screaming "MAKE IT LOUD LOUD LOUD" who is the one lacking taste and decorum.

 

[markl]

Beagle,
Not in my collection. Maybe you have some bad ones, can you be specific? Do you REALLY prefer the crappy 80s issue CDs?? If so, you have strange taste, IMO, but to each his own. I also really doubt the record company has the slightest interest in, knowledge of, or involvement in the re-mastering process itself.

mark

 

[rickcr42]

remastering can suck if you already know a cd inside out

the Aqualung CD by tull while sounding way more clear also sounds different than the original , and not in a good way

instruments that were in the background are now forward and the 'tonality" seems different to my ears

mixed bag

test drive ,ymmv

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl Do you REALLY prefer the crappy 80s issue CDs?? If so, you have strange taste, IMO, but to each his own. I also really doubt the record company has the slightest interest in, knowledge of, or involvement in the re-mastering process itself. mark

Of course they don't. They just tell the mastering engineer to make it LOUD and sound good on the worst playback source i.e. a boom box. Boost the bass, crank up the treble. The music is compromised for the lowest common denominator and sounds awful through a high resolution playback system.

For starters, the Judas Priest remasters are awful. And compare an original Led Zeppelin "Houses Of The Holy" with the remastered version.

 

[markl]

OK, but they didn't do that in the 80s for the original issues? This is a new thing they woke up and started doing recently? Sorry, i guess we just disagree...

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle Too many of the recently remastered CD's sound awful. They've been compressed, maximized, No-Noised and sound truly awful.

Agreed, although I believe you're overstating things.

But -- read what the original poster said. That's not what he's describing. What it sounds like he's describing are those awful original issue CD's that needed remastering. I think this is a different issue, and I honestly can't believe how anyone would prefer that.

 

[Matthew-Spaltro]

I find it really hard to believe that awfull early 80s CD pressings can sound better then newly remastered versions. It's just a little hard to swallow. And did anyone notice how low volume the early 80s CDs sound?

 

[Audio-Me]

Maybe the original recording isnt too hot, and the "high fidelity" remasters are simply revealing that where as the original mastering was produced to cover up the flaws?

I say this because most of the jazz remasters I have sound awesome.

 

[fyrfytrhoges]

the pink floyd "echoes" remasters are awesome, except for the very earliest songs, and on these you can tell that the source from which the remaster is coming is flawed (as in old, decayed in some way) but overall I believe remasters are a good thing. one example - peter gabriel back catalog, masterful job there, but on the other hand, I have a remastered hawkwind cd that sounds like ****, I imagine the source for that remaster was **** as well as it is 30 some years old and who knows where it was stored for all those years, you win some and you lose some!

 

[millerdog]

dudes,
you guys really have to check out Steve Hoffmans site and read about what remasters really are.
So many variables....

 

[SPLASTiK]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle For starters, the Judas Priest remasters are awful. And compare an original Led Zeppelin "Houses Of The Holy" with the remastered version.

I didnt think the Priest Remasters sounded bad at all. In fact, I bought all of them. All of them shine with improvement, especially Painkiller which lacked a lot of low end on the original release.

 

[DarkAngel]

Quote:

Originally posted by SPLASTiK I didnt think the Priest Remasters sounded bad at all. In fact, I bought all of them. All of them shine with improvement, especially Painkiller which lacked a lot of low end on the original release.

Judas Priest are excellent remasters for me also, some of the best examples I can think of how 20-30yr music was dramtically improved in every way and released at reduced price with extra bonus tracks. I agree that bass especially has much more detail and impact, these are rock classics transformed!

As far as remasters in general, I agree that not all are improvements over previous CD. The first remasters that appeared in early 1990's especially were hit and miss affairs. In the late 1990's to present remasters have improved greatly, and now I'd say 90% are noticable improvements.

Some engineers have 100% success such as Bob Ludwig for one.

 

[sacriste]

Quote:

Originally posted by millerdog dudes, you guys really have to check out Steve Hoffmans site and read about what remasters really are. So many variables....

Post a link, please.

Matthew-Spaltro,
Low volume is a a symptom of high dynamic range and low artifitial compression. Just crank it up and you could enjoy what the musicians intended to do (in the level domain) in the first place.

fyrfytrhoges,
About Peter Gabriel's reissues, it's funny, because the famous mastering engineer Bob Katz says that Security album "reportedly is defective and have lost his sonic attributes".

Audio&Me,
Jazz Remasters are made to a different standard, a higher one, not the general public CRAZY LOUD standard.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl OK, but they didn't do that in the 80s for the original issues? This is a new thing they woke up and started doing recently? Sorry, i guess we just disagree...

markl, it's a mixed bag. In the early 80's, d/a converters were not that hot but they were often working from original master tapes and were not inserting all kinds of noise reduction/compression gear into the chain. I find many of the original CD releases sound quite natural and have some sense of dynamics to them. In the 80's there were no 'level wars' like today, where everyone is fighting to have the loudest CD so they push everything to the max and it's all LOUD from start to finish. You should check out the June Stereophile. They discuss this in great detail.

If others like the Priest remasters, fine. I can't stand them. The Beatles 1 compilation is the most hideous sounding Beatles record I've ever heard, and it sold billions. And the sad thing is that if this is what people want, that's what we're all gonna get.

 

[scottpaul_iu]

Quote:

Originally posted by sacriste Post a link, please.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/
go to discussion forums
usually in music corner.
hoffman actively participates on this board.