[FrederikS|TPU]

Hi Guys and Girls,
Just wanted to get your thought on the new remasters old CDs.

So far I got both the remastered and orginal versions of Dire Straits, On Every Street, Making Movies, and Brothers in Arms. I have listened closely to each of the CDs and the remasters are a bit brighter with a little more emphasis on vocals and guitar, also the composition of the some of the tracks are changed a bit.

Take Six Blade Knife for instance, the vocals are lifted from the background and the guitar part seems more sparkly. At first I thought it was because of the raised base volume (not clipped in any way), but even after compensating for that the new CDs were still different.

The effect on some of the tracks left me a bit baffled because Six Blade Knife lost some of its underplayed moody style in favor for a somewhat clearer sound. It is clear here that the subtle change in tonality alters the mood of the song, and I am not sure I like it.

What is your opinion on this matter? New with marginally clearer sound or the old version with more "soul"?

I don't want to limit this thread to talks about Dire Straits if you have good examples of remasters that have severely altered old songs, please feel free to debate them here.

Best,
Frederik

 

[progo]

Most remasters are pretty compressed, it seems to destroy soundstage at least for me. And the sound can be fatiguing. So I say the originals are better, if not superior to the remasters.

 

[cerbie]

I don't think there's a perfect answer. The tapes get moved around, lost, and decayed. Often times the tapes used are not ones that can very easily be transferred without a little extra work. You get a little bit of the preferences and interpretations of the folks (or person) controlling the remaster in the end result.

Oh, then you have the occasional remix remasters. With enough time, to acquire every pressing, I could probably write a decent essay just for the Ozzy remasters. Anyway, the newest ones are actually not the original mixes, and are plain horrible. They are too hot, and don't rock. Some of the original pressings leave a great deal to be desired, too (CBS No Rest For The Wicked, FI). The proper ones are the '95 remasters. Ugh.

...and now I'll have to remember to try to pick up an original version of a Dire Straits album to compare. Until this, I didn't find the remasters lacking, but only have an original Money For Nothing to compare with.

Quote:

What is your opinion on this matter? New with marginally clearer sound or the old version with more "soul"?

If it's exclusive, the old one will always win.

 

[FrederikS|TPU]

Excellent points cerbie and progo. I think the Dire Straits remasters are execute with great attention to detail, but tampering with the artists interpretations is always tricky, one mans garbage could be another mans gold.

The Dire Straits remasters are not compressed in any way they have roughly the same dynamic range as the originals, at least from what I can see in audacity and there is no clipping at all. In that sense these types of remasters are done the right way, very subtle changes on the majority tracks with enough positive affects to warrant their existence. I actually find it interesting to check out the difference, in a sense it is just like have the same artist do two slightly different versions of the same track.

 

[Uncle Erik]

It seems to depend on the genre. I've heard very good remasterings of classical and jazz... not always the case for rock. For rock, I try to find CDs that were pressed before the Loudness Wars began. Many of those sound good. Though I always pick vinyl or SACD first, if available. Not to reignite the SACD resolution debate, but I appreciate that the majority of them were mastered for audiophiles. If that costs me an extra $3 or $4, I'll pay it.

 

[chinesekiwi]

If you want an example of extremely bad remastering, try some ABBA remastered CD's.
ugh.....
You can find examples on Youtube (I know, Youtube sound quality = lols but shows the example = its purpose not SQ).

 

[Sherwood]

Remasters are tricky, really.

First off, I should point out that artists very rarely get a final say on their master. Some artists might, but mastering is a secretive, crazy art and it was even more so 30 years ago. The mix that leaves the studio is the artist's interpretation, but it does not usually resemble the original master. Most masters, even bad masters, are so much more polished than the mix that artists accept it. Usually you're sick of an album by that point anyways.

Remasters can be motivated by a desire to get more life out of a company's back catalog, and they can really be performed poorly, but often they are beneficial. Most remasters aren't getting played on top 40 radio anyway, so they're not as subject to the loudness war.

In jazz and classical, I think remasters are for the better about 85% of the time. That number probably drops to around 70% with classic rock.

Still, if you're playing the numbers, remasters are a good bet. Mastering equipment is far, far better today than it was 30 years ago, and if they put a good recording on tape the first time you're more likely to hear that recording today than you used to be.

 

[TimJo]

I'd say it really depends on who is doing the remastering. Many times they are better than the original if a good engineer is doing it. Oftentimes they are worse if it is driven by the record label trying to cash in on a performers popularity. I realize this is a gross generalization, but more times than not, it proves true.

If you want to research the quality of a remaster before buying, try searching for the artist/title on the Steve Hoffman music forum. Most times you'll find a thread with all sorts of opinions.

 

[Tiger27]

I came across Physical Graffiti in the library and picked it up in hopes that the cd might sound better than the 191k AAC version I have on my iPOD. The most obvious difference initially noticeable is the sound level (edit: the cd is considerably quieter than my AAC file). After crudely adjusting the sound level by ear, I definitely preferred the compressed/downloaded version (from Allofmp3 when they were still accessible). The difference is not night and day, but I had no desire to do anything with the files from the cd. Of course, there is no way to know the original source of the 191 AAC version, but it does beat out the cd, imo. So, this would seem to confirm that the remaster v. original contest should be played out on a case-by-case basis.

-Tigger


P.S. No, for this recording I do not trust Jimmy Page to remaster.

 

[MD1032]

Remasters are usually underwhelming for me. I have two good examples: Kansas's Leftoverture and The Who's Quadrophenia. Leftoverture sounds very compressed and while certain aspects of the music are less wet delay-wise and higher SQ, the overall sound has less dynamic range and sounds worse. The drums expecially sound extremely compressed. Quadrophenia had a lot of potential, but the mixes are terrible. John Entwistle re-recorded the whole deal on a 5-string bass for the remaster and then you can still barely hear him and the piano at times.

 

[FrederikS|TPU]

You really can't tell before you dig in and listen to the records. The Dire Straits record with SBM are perfect when it comes to maintaining dynamic range, however, they have still raise the sound a bit although without compressing the sound. I have heard some very bad remasters of AC/DC records.

Uncle Erik agreed most jazz and classical are done in tune with the artists intentions I have a 1999 Steely Dan - Aja "Digitally Remastered" and they actually managed to fix some errors in the mix without making the record inferior in any way (at least to my ears).