Recent remasters vs. older remasters...

Newbie greetings to fellow members of the esteemed Hoffman Board!

Being a fan of numerous 70s bands, I tend to listen to a fair number of CD remasters of old analogue recordings. Over the past couple of years I seem to have noticed a trend when comparing 'recent' remasters (released say in the last seven or eight years) compared with 'older' remasters (from, say late nineties to early noughties) i.e. the treble is generally a lot better on the recent remasters. It just sounds more natural and 'analogue'. With older remasters the treble is often sharper and thinner somehow.

Has anyone else noticed this? Is this due to better analogue-to-digital transfer equipment, or do these things just go in trends (like, say, loudness). In terms of specific releases, I am comparing , say the 2014 Zeppelin IV and much of the Steve Wilson treatment of Jethro Tull and Yes with some of the older Yes Rhino remasters and the Tull remasters from the early noughties ....although I can think of numerous other examples.

What do people think?

 

It seems to me that in recent years, labels have found a compromise between loudness-war-era practices and actual good sound. They probably don't want to alienate serious music fans, but they also need to be able to offer a product that will satisfy those who lisen to their music on ipods-computer speakers.

(BEWARE: Beatles-content ahead) I'd say that a huge factor might have been the 2009 Beatles remasters. They sound great overall (even though I prefer 2 or 3 of their albums on older CDs, the remasters are good anyway), without compression and a "relatively" natural sound (slightly boosted bass maybe), they got positive reviews and I suppose they sold quite well.

Other examples: the Pink Floyd remasters. Or the Moondance remaster.

 

Nothing new, just a different approach.
The "remaster" was the best business to music industry since fake stereo, stereo... etc. The industry is just following the market.
However, audiophile labels are a different case... and I'm not being politically correct.

 

I'm not sure if remasters are getting better or I'm just getting pickier and making reasonably sure I'll like them before buying (i.e., reading this forum). Whichever it is, I'm batting a much higher percentage than I used to. And I agree with @irong about the compromise between loudness and good sound -- the 2013 Clash London Calling CD is a good example.

 

To my ears, older remasters tend to veer between over-bright (too much artificial boosting of treble) to overly dull (possibly caused by filtering out excess tape hiss from the original master). In just one Mahavishnu Orchestra box set you have both! 'Birds of fire' very good but possibly a shade over-bright, but 'The Inner Mounting Flame' dull, flat and lacklustre. Modern remasters seem to have plenty of treble, but it's smooth and natural sounding and not thin and unnaturally sharp. I wonder if part of this improvement is because remastering engineers are happy to allow through a bit more tape hiss and so the sound is less 'processed'.

 

The 2012 Japanese Judas Priest remasters have more analog-sounding EQ (ie - less treble) compared to the 2001 remasters. Even though the newer ones are still very compressed, they sound smoother and better than their DR suggests. Aside from the bonus tracks, there's little-to-no noise reduction. This makes me suspect that Jon Astley's tapes weren't used.

 

I also believe EQ makes differences but I m still surprised to hear very compressed remasters
Do you believe digital can sound analog like lps after processing?

 

Ah, here's a good place to ask a question I had earlier today: which (English) Beat remasters sound better, the 1999 ones or the 2012's? I know the earlier ones are louder, but I read in another thread that the more recent ones may have the channels reversed as well as a few other glitches. Any input here would be appreciated as I'm looking into whether to upgrade. Thanks.

 

Good remasters are getting harder and harder to find. Most of the music I listen to is fine, but there are a few, like the 2009 Rolling Stones reissues, that are just bad. Most of the best ones have already been mentioned. The general trend seems to be: 80s, high treble, low bass - 90s, high treble and bass - 00 and 10s, usually a good balance between the two without being overly bright or dull (when they're not being brickwalled that is).

 

Even if DAC make the hard work , the remasters should sound similar to best lps rip to have opinion on how should be
a good remaster
I compared over 15 lp rips to cd rip and for sure lp rips sound much better
than cd on 16/44, or converted to 32/176,or converted to dsd256...
No way
pros
more dynamic
more fluid high
widened sound stage
con
noise at low level (sometimes)
distorsion
I ve been working 4 yeras to find out a solution to producing relevant remasters
Thanks

 

Too often do I hesitate between the remastered versions and the original pressing of the same album. The original ones tend to be a bit more expensive. Shame there isn't a website which compares every damn release. That would take a thousand years to do.

 

I think you can have samples on
vinylizedcdsound.com

On digital I never found wide stereo, dynamic, air and precision in good proportions
Some vinyl rip i have these features
The uhqr and many 45rpm vinyls

 

Older remasters = digital compression, limiting
Newer remasters = digital compression, limiting, brickwalling
Most remasters = desecration of the intent of the original recording (IMHO)

 

Instead, we should seek you.

 

One solution is probably to have a look there

YouTube https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGAdjz56Bj5Nidt4kQND5kqyJWUCsGsyh