What is "Remastered"
post-226407
Thread Starter
Post #1 of 5

lextek

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 22, 2001
Messages
4,425
Reaction score
34
Joined
Oct 22, 2001
Posts
4,425
Likes
34
What exactly is "remastered"? I'm guessing using modern recording tech to rerecord from the original master tapes? If so is the difference worth purchasing a remastered version of a CD?
 
     Share This Post       
post-226413
Post #2 of 5

Braver

Will upgrade headphoneswhen there's a MX600.
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
24
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
2,427
Likes
24
I usually look to get the most recent remaster of a CD. just to make sure they sound good. and sometimes they add little extras, or even HDCD encoding. never compared an old version to a new remaster, but from comments one the King Crimson remasters on AMG, and on Peter Gabriel remasters here on Head-Fi, I bet they do sound better.
 
     Share This Post       
post-226467
Post #3 of 5

Old Pa

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 9, 2001
Messages
5,110
Reaction score
15
Joined
Dec 9, 2001
Posts
5,110
Likes
15
Remaster means going back to the recording's original master recording, either analog or digital, and changing either a little or a lot to come up with a new analog or digital consumer recording. I have had some remasters with track and track order changes. I have had some remasters with digital word length or digital sampling rate changes. I have seen some remasters with equalization and digital signal processing changes.

Generally speaking, mastering is an art form and a work in progress (especially digital for the last 20 years). Since the redbook CD format was exposed to be not the audio perfection that it was originally portrayed as, recording engineers and the recording industry have come a long way to identify and fix the format's shortcomings. How they have succeeded in these "fixes" is a matter of great and primal debate among hifi folks (especially from the LP and tube devotees section), but there is little question that the digital remasters of the last several years are generally worthwhile. CDs mastered in the 80s are especially subject to improvement through remastering. Hope this helps.
 
     Share This Post       
post-226490
Post #4 of 5

markl

Hangin' with the monkeys.
Member of the Trade: Lawton Audio
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
9,130
Reaction score
39
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
9,130
Likes
39
Digital re-mastering really came of age post '95, but really post '98 to be safe. It's not that the master analog tapes have been "restored" (you can't add back information that was never recorded in the first place), it's just that the process of transferring those analog master tapes to the CD digital medium has improved dramatically in the last 7 years or so.

If it has a copyright date of '97/'98 or later, you can rest assured it will absolutely sound better than the original issue circa '82-'94.

Mark
 
     Share This Post       
post-226537
Post #5 of 5

CaptBubba

Not dumb enough fora custom title...so he thought.
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,615
Reaction score
11
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Posts
1,615
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally posted by markl
If it has a copyright date of '97/'98 or later, you can rest assured it will absolutely sound better than the original issue circa '82-'94.
Mark


That's not necisarily true, for example I have heard the original release, the newest remaster, and the LP of "Chicago Transit Authority". The remaster sounds like a low-quality mp3, digital mush, while the old release sounds more like the LP.

The only way you can be sure is to listen.
 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top