[dmented7]

Having discoverd some of the bad mastering with today's CDs, I was wondering just how much better does a remastered cd compare to the original. I gather that the latest trick while mastering CDs is to make them louder, which givess the illusion of better sound Q, but looses dynamic range

. Is this what they do with remasters too?
In a nutshell, what I am trying to ask is how much of an improvement does a remastered CD offer compared to the original issue.

Edit: Obviously, It depends on the artists/producers, but on the whole, what have been your experiences with remastered material?

Edit again: awwww crap..... wrong thread.., if a mod could be so kind as to move it please

 

[LFC_SL]

Well yes, as you say it depends

'Miles Davis - Kind of Blue' Remaster is better according to the back - the original CD recorded the LP at the wrong speed!

'Notorious B.I.G. - Ready To Die' Remaster sounds very clean and well produced to me

 

[Fidelity]

Remastered vs original issue?

Depends on who is doing it and with what, my experience with "remastered" CD's are they don't sound any better than the original issue, sometimes even worse despite the "cleanup/filtering" of unwanted noise present in the original issue.

Edit: I've heard a few remastered CD's released in Japan/Asia (can't get them in European stores), 20/4-bit gold layered CD's costing 2-3 times the standard price of the CD, they sound bloody awesome!

 

[CSMR]

There is a trade-off between sound quality and noise floor when mastering from analog media and you often get quite a lot of different masterings which make different compromises between the two. You can sometimes tell what it will be like by the mastering company if it has a philosophy, otherwise the engineer. It's not a matter of new vs old masterings.

 

[Fidelity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSMR /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can sometimes tell what it will be like by the mastering company if it has a philosophy, otherwise the engineer. It's not a matter of new vs old masterings.

^ Spot on!

 

[hempcamp]

I prefer most of my remastered CDs to the original CD.

--Chris

 

[SeagramSeven]

You cannot make something from nothing. Mastering and remastering can not "add" anything to the overall quality, they can only subtract. They can filter to remove tape hiss or background noise, but details and ambience from the original will be wiped out with the noise. There is no free lunch. I would rather have the noise, without their tampering.

"REMASTERED" is almost universally accepted as a synonym for "reduced overall quality".

To this day I have never heard a "remastered" version of an album that had better quality than the original.

The only way for it to truly "sound better", is for them to re-record it with better gear, better microphone placements, better musicians, etc. Anything else is simply someone toying around in a sound editor trying to fool you into thinking whatever they did sounds better. The most common way of doing this is by compressing out dynamics, and increasing the overall signal level. The result is joe-blow saying, "Wow, this sounds better" when in reality it is much worse quality, just a few decibels louder.

Please view this thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=218397

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeagramSeven /img/forum/go_quote.gif "REMASTERED" is almost universally accepted as a synonym for "reduced overall quality".

Not universal, totally an opinion. It depends on whether you are talking about remasters of early CD releases, or whether you are getting into the whole analog vs. digital debate (NOT the OP's topic, I don't think).

When you take an old analog recording and move it to the digital domain, the equipment and engineer have a huge effect on the final product. If it's done right, a CD remaster produced in 2007 can sound vastly better than the original CD released in 1985. Same goes for some of the early DDD recordings -- they have been "remastered" to take advantage of better equipment and engineering techniques.

My favorite example of this is RCA Red Label Beethoven cycle directed by Wand. Sure, the 92khz/24bit label they stick on it is all marketing, but the CD itself is more precise and detailed than the original CD. Improvements in technology have allowed this to happen. The remastered series of Dire Straits is also a prime example of a re-release that, IMO, sounds better than the original DIGITAL release.

Not ALL studios and not ALL engineers have a problem with compression. Many remastered albums are worth every penny in the newer format.

--Chris

 

[SeagramSeven]

What makes it sound better? Newer equipment? The recording hasn't changed. It's still an old recording with all the limitations of the equipment it was originally made with. Processing it with modern equipment will not change this. The sound may be modified in ways, but nothing will "add details". The details are either there, or they are not.

Of course, no scientist should close the door completely on the theoretical possibility of something, so I leave it to you. Provide a single song, perhaps a favorite of yours, in both "Original" and "Remastered" form. A lossless rip would be preferable.

 

[kukrisna]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeagramSeven /img/forum/go_quote.gif What makes it sound better? Newer equipment? The recording hasn't changed. It's still an old recording with all the limitations of the equipment it was originally made with. Processing it with modern equipment will not change this. The sound may be modified in ways, but nothing will "add details". The details are either there, or they are not.

yeah but if there are new EQs, or compressors, or something that can seemingly bring out the details yet also reduce the perceived amount of noise, why not?

like im assuming there are some remasters of say classical recordings done in the 50s that might have a lot of noise and clicks and maybe with today's mastering equipment, a lot of that can be seemingly reduced more so than the original master thus producing a better master of the final mix - it is correct that you cannot add things that arent there and the recording is not being changed but the editing equipment available today is most likely better than it was 50 years ago and might be able to do a better mastering job if the engineer knows what s/he's doing than whatever mastering equipment was available back then

 

[infinitesymphony]

IMO, the main point of remastered CDs should be to correct deficiencies and errors in the original CD masters (i.e. when the analog-to-digital conversion first took place). Some early '80s masters suffer from the effects of primitive digital equipment. Digital stuff has come a long way since then, and various companies have found innovative new ways to complete the ADC process (ex. Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs [MFSL]).

Remasters can certainly make albums sound worse, though. I've heard a few albums where the original master sounds much, much better; the "remastering" consists of EQ, multi-band compression, and limiting, all of which tends to round off any unique edges and make the mix louder and more in-your-face.

So, for albums pre-1987, a remastered version will often sound much better, but for anything later, chances are it's just a re-hash unless there was something wrong with the original. There are exceptions to this, for example Steven Wilson of Porcupine Tree's recent remaster of the 1998 album Stupid Dream, but in my experience remasters like these aren't so common.

 

[Ahriman4891]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeagramSeven /img/forum/go_quote.gif What makes it sound better? Newer equipment? The recording hasn't changed. It's still an old recording with all the limitations of the equipment it was originally made with. Processing it with modern equipment will not change this. The sound may be modified in ways, but nothing will "add details". The details are either there, or they are not.

The details could have been lost in transition from analog to digital, because the 1985 equipment did not let them carry over. Take that same analog tape in 2007, and with 20+ years of improvement in analog-to-digital conversion, you'll get more details, among other benefits. Obviously, it depends on the engineer in the end.

 

[kukrisna]

hrmm - but cant the analog tape degrade after awhile so that you wont really be gaining much more, or maybe even less, with a new transfer? maybe not with more recent stuff, but really old stuff...

 

[werdwerdus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMO, the main point of remastered CDs should be to correct deficiencies and errors in the original CD masters (i.e. when the analog-to-digital conversion first took place). Some early '80s masters suffer from the effects of primitive digital equipment. Digital stuff has come a long way since then, and various companies have found innovative new ways to complete the ADC process (ex. Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs [MFSL]).

x2, qft

 

[gsansite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeagramSeven /img/forum/go_quote.gif What makes it sound better? Newer equipment? The recording hasn't changed. It's still an old recording with all the limitations of the equipment it was originally made with. Processing it with modern equipment will not change this. The sound may be modified in ways, but nothing will "add details". The details are either there, or they are not.

The source recording is higher quality than the CD (the limiting factor), therefore you can 'add' details by using a better ADC process or better digital mastering.

Remasters are a mixed bag, lots of great ones, lots of terrible ones. Try looking for reviews of the different versions before purchasing.