Why remaster?

I know this might sound like a stupid question on here, but I really wonder why albums constantly are being remastered? Many classic albums have perfect sound and dynamics as they are on their orignal formats need no new mastering at all. So why remaster them??

 

So they can be sold all over again. It's as simple as that.

 

A lot of times it’s just a record company gimmick to get someone an incentive to buy the album again.
There are instances where they are done right and sourced from master tapes in which they sound much better but it also comes down to the mastering. You’ll just have to pick and choose what’s worth picking up out there. That’s why I find this site very resourceful.

 

to make money

 

So people on SHTV with no taste or standards can gush about how "awesome" they sound. And then when you disagree they tell you to fill out your equipment profile.

 

I'm sure there are different reasons for albums to be remastered. In some cases, it puts an older album back into the public eye which brings in more money. Other reasons might be that the band or label wants to attempt to make an album better. Of course in many cases they are not better ;however, it is what it is. Some may do it just to follow the trend and stay relevant. I'm sure there are other reasons but those are the only ones I can think of at the moment.

I will say that at this point there really is no reason to get upset about it anymore. I'm not saying it isn't frustrating but rather it's a practice that has gone on for a long time now and is showing no signs of stopping. Hold onto your originals is the best advice I could give anyone.

 

Yes it is often a gimmick but in principle if better source tapes are found, or if the earlier effort was poor in terms of EQ or errors such as digital clicks, missing bits etc, then a remaster can be very worthwhile.

Unfortunately it can just mean MAKE IT LOUDER.

Tim

 

No, there is a hype cycle.

Hey, this awesome remaster is coming, gonna be great, old CD sounded rubbish.

[buys new remaster]

Hey, that remaster is rubbish, you really need the old CD, sounded great.

[uh huh]

Tim

 

I've often wondered why new pressings of vinyl are always "remastered" or recut. It seems like old albums could just be repressed from the original stampers if they're still available, but I've never heard of an old album repressed from originals. Did nobody keep the original plates? I realize that for albums that sold a gazillion copies, the stampers get worn out and new ones have to be made, but surely some could be reused? Did all the record companies just throw out all their master plates in the late 80s? Have any originals ever found their way into the hands of private collectors, like old film prints do?

 

The latest Erasure lp campaign used the oldies. Which sound like the good ol' compact discs, except The Innocents-They should of remastered that one. My US compact disc trumps it.

 

Most classic albums are mastered for vinyl and are all analog recordings, so it makes sense they to be remembered when the digital technology advances. Are the results better with every new remaster... this is another story

 

Because we are never satisfied.

 

I have bought a lot of "remastered" CDs and I am now of the opinion that if it sounds different it is inferior (i.e.1990's Bowie) and most cases (OK Computer 20th Ann I'm talking to you) it sounds the same.
I don't even pay attention anymore to anything that is labeled "remastered".

 

Good questions.

If only they could find a decent set of stampers used for the RL cut of Led Zeppelin II.

 

I've been hoping to see a similar trend at live shows:

The show finishes. The lead singer walks up to the mic and instead of saying "Goodnight," they say, "We think we can make that sound better. We're going to change some settings on the mixing board and try it again . . . and from the top--1, 2, 3, 4"

 

Sometimes it's a rights thing. Although now with every record label being swallowed by giant überlabels that's less of an issue... mind you, cutting lathe and pressing tech HAS improved over the decades, so sometimes there are advantages to re-cutting the stampers, even if you use the original production (EQ'd) cutting tapes as opposed to going back to the master mix reels like our host does

 

People moaned because the old CDs are ‘quiet’. They’re a big flop when played on phones and iPods (if they still exist) because the poor listener has to stop what they’re doing and turn the sound up. Then of course they have to turn it down again when a ‘modern’ remaster comes on. It is indeed a hard life.

 

Not how it works. The more frequent response to a remaster here is "This remaster sucks, you need the older version." The best way to redeem one version of a CD is to issue a newer one. As annoying and predictable as the is, it's not often wrong.

 

That’s about it. No matter how great it sounds or who mastered it, it *might* be able to improve it somehow.

 

Of course the main reason is to make money. However, very often a remaster will include bonus material and unreleased tracks. The bonus material can make it worth the investment for some. A good audiophile label remaster that actually improves the sound is a good thing.

 

I’ve never understood the thing about equipment profiles here... The last thing I do when someone disagrees with me on a sound point is rush to their profile page to see what kind of speaker cable they’re using...

 

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a common, chronic and long-lasting disorder in which a person has uncontrollable, reoccurring thoughts (obsessions) and behaviors (compulsions) that he or she feels the urge to repeat over and over.

 

I think a bigger question is if they are so terrible, why do we keep buying them? I'm just as guilty of it. There have been plenty of times when I will buy a remaster even though I already have the original. I don't care about bonus tracks or any of the other bells and whistles they may come with so why did I do it? Thankfully I have stopped doing it. The only remasters I purchase now are the ones that I don't already have a copy of. I have a pretty strong tolerance to remasters so as long as the SQ doesn't bother me too much then I will take it. This is especially true when the remaster is easier to obtain.

 

I never understood this either.