Do Remastered Records Sound Better? - A Hoffmanite worthy article

For your enjoyment

https://gearpatrol.com/2019/04/18/remastered-records/

 

I enjoyed this article. Thanks for sharing. I didn't know that bass takes up more space on a record. This must be why a lot of the CDs I had from the 80s had very little bass. Many of them probably came from the same master they used for the LP. I guess that might be why anyway.

 

Yes, when CDs were first released in the 80’s, the labels were in a rush to roll out their catalog to take advantage of the new media... along with the massive profits.

So, they used recording masters that were EQ’d for vinyl (basically whatever was in the closets ...ummm, archives)
Also, cover and artwork was reproduced on the cheap, too.
Bare, minimal, or no liner notes.

Some genius soon realised that “reissues” of “remasters” could even double that windfall.

 

What’s your take on the article?

 

I would like to see a list of CDs mastered from vinyl masters. I know it happened on occasion but how often?

The article is incorrect to say there is no point in modern vinyl releases from digital masters. Well, in theory there is no point, but if the digital release is compressed to hell the vinyl release does sometimes sound better.

Tim

 

Case in point. What Gilles Martin has done with the Beatles 2017 Sgt Pepper & the 2018 white album. Talk about loud wars.....

 

Giles did a great job remixing those albums.

 

I think a lot of people here would disagree with this:

“Sometimes it works, like with ‘Some Girls’ by The Rolling Stones, remastered by Bob Ludwig, [who is] one of the best in the field. His version was vastly superior because it sounds cleaner, less harsh and brittle, and more nuanced.”

Not my favorite version of Some Girls for sure.

 

Also, I don't see an HDTracks version of Dark Side of the Moon. The gist of the article is "it depends" which I do agree with.

 

"Then again, there are some people out there who don’t seem to mind the masochistic tango of turning the LP over every song,” Katz chuckles.

Mind? The guy obviously has no grasp of masochism . . . or vinyl!

 

God, I HATE that quote though: "For older release, vinyl is definitely better. For new music, there's no point as there was never tape involved." Well there sure is a point if the CD is mastered with a DR of 5 and the LP 14. Digital source or not.

 

The physical limitations of vinyl like you're describing, which aren't limitations for CD, make me consistently scratch my head when I see people obsess over early CDs that are the same mastering as the vinyl. (Though I do the same, for some stuff.) I know the possible benefits, but I can't help but think that those early masterings (if they were compromised by the physical limitations of vinyl...I imagine not all were) could be improved on. Granted, remasters sometimes do more harm than good. But at the same time I'm hesitant to think that those early CDs are definitive.

 

How come my 80s vinyl has tons of bass though, if the correspondong CDs supposedly sourced from the same masters are bass-shy?

 

Great read

 

I well remember the most easily heard benefit of the CD's i bought was the better, deeper bass compared to the LP. Although those LP's were not 60's oldies.

 

So what do you think?

I enjoyed that. Thanks for posting.

 

I agree with you! I have found this on quite a few occasions, and any quick check on the Dynamic Range database will show the vinyl version of most to be more dynamic.

 

Wasn't there an issue with vinyl DR results that calls a lot of those database entries into question?

 

Well it's the internet, so I guess fact checking isn't required. A single expert was used and the only fact out of his mouth is a lie.

 

Not that type of vinyl/masochism.

 

Maybe. But to my ears, and what my amp indicates when I A/B cd vs vinyl versions, I think the assessments prove accurate enough.

 

I'm just talking about the numbers in the DR database, not a CD vs. vinyl debate.

 

I would imagine it has something to do with the RIAA eq that is built into your phono preamp, but is not in the low voltage inputs. I have an old preamp that will allow flat playback of records. It doesn't sound nearly as full. This would be similar to the effect you get playing back a cd mastered from tapes that had been rolled off for lp.

You can look up the wiki article on the RIAA rolloff curve:

RIAA equalization is a form of pre-emphasis on recording and de-emphasis on playback. A recording is made with the low frequencies reduced and the high frequencies boosted, and on playback the opposite occurs. The net result is a flat frequency response, but with attenuation of high frequency noise such as hiss and clicks that arise from the recording medium. Reducing the low frequencies also limits the excursions the cutter needs to make when cutting a groove. Groove width is thus reduced, allowing more grooves to fit into a given surface area, permitting longer recording times. This also reduces physical stresses on the stylus which might otherwise cause distortion or groove damage during playback.

 

I’m sorry. You said there may be an issue with vinyl DR results. All I’m saying is whatever they’re reporting sounds right to me when I compare the two media.

 

Yeah I hear you. I just seem to remember reading about some issue with the vinyl numbers being inaccurate, but I don't remember if that applies to all or just some. Regardless, if the DR database says a record is 14 but it's actually 12, while the CD version is 8, there's still more dynamics in the record (which I think is what you're getting at). I'm not trying to say all the vinyl numbers are complete BS, just wondering how many are perhaps a bit skewed.