[SeagramSeven]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsansite /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

This may be true for modern recordings, but older recordings were almost universally all below CD resolution. What does this mean? If you have a digital recording from 1985, it most likely used 9 or 10-bit analog-to-digital converters. (which were the best they had at the time for sampling the signal). Post editing/mixing, this would then be transferred to a CD with a much greater bit depth(16), and equal or greater sample rate(44.1khz).

I fail to see how this translates to improved quality, unless your idea of better is someone fiddling around with an equalizer to "make things more snappy and fun".

If someone thinks, based on real-world experience, that remasters sound better, I would like to hear an example that brought them to that conclusion, as everything I have heard in "remastered" form vs the original release, has always, without exception, had worse overall quality. And it has worked both ways, sometimes it would be with an original I've owned for years---hear a remaster and the degredation is very noticable. Other times, the remaster is the first thing I hear. It might sound very bad, it might sound ok, until I hear the original and realize how much better it was.

 

[Audiofiler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hempcamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not ALL studios and not ALL engineers have a problem with compression. Many remastered albums are worth every penny in the newer format.

well put

 

[Jahn]

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]). 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.

QFT. You just have to search around to find which remasters are worth getting, and which are actually just making the tunes "radio friendly" = garbage.

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeagramSeven /img/forum/go_quote.gif If someone thinks, based on real-world experience, that remasters sound better, I would like to hear an example that brought them to that conclusion.

We've given you several suggestions, and if you search it won't take long to discover others. None of us here are going to go buy it for you, it's your own loss for setting up such a universal barrier against them.

For everyone else: Wiki has a great, very balanced explanation of remaster.

--Chris

 

[rincewind]

Done so many times before.... search. There is no yes or no answer.

 

[smeggy]

I think every album should be remastered by Vlado the impaler.

 

[gsansite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeagramSeven /img/forum/go_quote.gif This may be true for modern recordings, but older recordings were almost universally all below CD resolution. What does this mean? If you have a digital recording from 1985, it most likely used 9 or 10-bit analog-to-digital converters. (which were the best they had at the time for sampling the signal). Post editing/mixing, this would then be transferred to a CD with a much greater bit depth(16), and equal or greater sample rate(44.1khz). I fail to see how this translates to improved quality, unless your idea of better is someone fiddling around with an equalizer to "make things more snappy and fun". If someone thinks, based on real-world experience, that remasters sound better, I would like to hear an example that brought them to that conclusion, as everything I have heard in "remastered" form vs the original release, has always, without exception, had worse overall quality. And it has worked both ways, sometimes it would be with an original I've owned for years---hear a remaster and the degredation is very noticable. Other times, the remaster is the first thing I hear. It might sound very bad, it might sound ok, until I hear the original and realize how much better it was.

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

 

[Gonz]

It can really go either way, in my opinion. I'm not opposed to remastered material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeagramSeven /img/forum/go_quote.gif If someone thinks, based on real-world experience, that remasters sound better, I would like to hear an example that brought them to that conclusion, as everything I have heard in "remastered" form vs the original release, has always, without exception, had worse overall quality.

One of the latest re-issues that has really surprised me:
The Rolling Stones on ABKCO

This remastered material is pretty amazing work. I'm referring to the Redbook layer too, while the SACD layer is even better. I'm familiar with the original vinyl releases, so I do know "how it was".

 

[TheSonicTruth]

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.

Normally most individual mastering engineers, and mastering houses, have the "philosophy" of doing what the customer asks, and pays them, to do. I'd say only 1/10 engineers automatically squashes & limits every mastering project that comes their way.

 

[castleofargh]

seriously man, do you have to go resurrect all the topics related to mastering and dynamic compression?

 

[TheSonicTruth]

seriously man, do you have to go resurrect all the topics related to mastering and dynamic compression?

Are those subjects taboo here, as they are on Gearslutz and rec.audio.pro? Are you in the industry? Would you like to share your feelings about this? It's good to talk things over, let our feelings out, you know?

 

[yates7592]

I generally only go for remastered discs if there is bonus material, or if they are from my most favourite artists. Otherwise I find that 8 out of 10 times the original CD sounds better to my ears.