Do Remastered Records Sound Better? - A Hoffmanite worthy article

A-ha Remasters
ELO Sony Remasters
Delerium-Karma, the old cd trumps the vinyl re-issue
New Order/Depeche Mode Remasters except Ultra
Cocteau Twins Remasters
Peter Gabriel Remasters except 'Up'
James-Millionaires (I stopped with this one)
The Moody Blues-To Are Children's (I stopped with this one)
Abba-The Album 1/2 Speed 2x12
Def Leopard-Hysteria 2x12
These are just some where I prefer the old compact disc mastering's

 

Agreed. I was responding to an absolute statement with my own absolute statement intended to restore balance.

 

Probably many, if not most, early CDs were sourced from tapes originally intended for vinyl. Which, at least, eliminated most of the issues inherent to the vinyl format. Pops, clicks, sibilance and inner-groove distortion were successfully banished.

The biggest problem, back in the 80s, were the crappy D/A converters built into the CD players. These weren't capable of simply faithfully reproducing the data present on the disc. Which, by default, made the corresponding LP sound better.

The logical answer, of course, was to go back to the original source - the master tape - and re-do the transfers to include all the possibilities of the digital format. And herein lies the rub, as far as I'm concerned. The problem here was the liberty taken by the engineers doing the remaster(s). Discounting the niche labels - MFSL/DCC for example - the trend seemed to begin to be to "overcook" these new transfers and sometimes adding noise reduction to the mix. Sort of like "look what my new gee-whiz gizmo can do" rather than faithful reproduction of the source using all the advantages of the digital format. And then, of course, someone somewhere decided to make everything louder than everything else, damn the torpedoes.

I still maintain that given proper care and attention, 16/44.1 can sound great. Unfortunately, outside of the aforementioned boutique labels, the opportunity to do so has somehow been lost along the way.

 

Chances are it was still the same master, DR scores for vinyl rips are wholly unreliable IMO. I’ve seen 5dB differences when I know the CD was the source for the vinyl lol.

 

You have the digital cutting files for the vinyl to measure?

 

If it’s the same master, it can’t possibly be more dynamic. Some posters here may disagree, but very unlikely any mastering engineers will.

Perhaps a poll at Gearslutz is warranted?

 

I don’t understand. Could they not be mastered differently?

 

I think re-mixed sound better.

 

Well true to all of the above, (love the LP ritual) but in my case my analog playback system is just a lot better than my digital 2-channel so LPs typically are much more of a musical experience.

 

There's just no way that vinyl playback would objectively measure better than digital playback of the same. I could give a rats **** however.

 

Because there is electronics in the playback equipment that boosts the bass artificially for records. That's why turntables have a special input all to themselves on the amp, or why they have to be run through pre-amps on the new post-turntable amps.

ANd, it's also why I laugh at people who claim records are a more accurate reproduction of the sound than CDs, since the CDs don't have that artificial boost.

 

Actually there are two types of preamps for phono cartridges - moving magnet (typical) and moving coil (usually for more expensive systems).

Moving coil has the advantage of less mass, therefor a bit less inertia, than a moving magnet, tho erecent development of rare earth materials may make this a moot point. Aslo moving coil cartridges usually exhibit a bit lower output than the moving magnets - tho, again newer magnetic materials may blur this difference..

Regardless - both preamps have the RIAA de-emphasis curve built into them.

When I was a tech at Opus One years ago I got a MC equipped Kenwood on the lift. Was being used with a supex cartridge ( a big mfg of MC back then) and was picking up Radio Moscow on one channel - honestly that was what was on the service ticket.

So I go upstairs and ask the sales guy "Really?"

"Yea - the customer runs the electron microscope at CMU ... he swears it does"

I end up going to the guy's house one evening and sure enough as the sunsets (and the atmosphere ionization changes - ask any non-clear channel AM radio guy what that does to broadcast AM stations) I hear BBC long wave on the MC preamp. Turns out he's a DX'r - people that listen to LW/SW and had a long wire antenna right outside the wall where his stereo was plugged in - and more importantly - the grounding of his phono preamp. The outlet outside was on the same circuit and was also the place where his antenna lightning arrestor (which was significantly corroded) was also connected.

A few inductors and caps along with some ferrite solved his issues...

I'm not a big vinyl guy either.... in fact years ago I wrote a marketturd rant about it:
Vinyl Sucks and Your Little Dog Too!

But who am I to say... just a reflection of the years and years (about 40 by now) that I spent designing and fixing that stuff.
Wayne Mitzen - Portfolio

One client I work with is the guy from the first wireless mic company - Vega Wireless. I've designed about 300 PCB's with that guy.

When I asked him - he mentioned that he learned to never try to second guess how another person perceives audio.

Even tho he knew what was in one of the least expensive lav mics they made, and actually talked to the guy that won the award for field audio for Romancing the Stone and the guy mentions the only reason he used that was it was the crappiest thing in his mic locker and was looking for something that if it got damaged during the trip over the waterfall he wouldn't miss it - he never tried to understand why all these film sound guys loved it so.

Then there's the story about the time he used the wrong value coupling cap in one of the mics they made ... but that's another story. Of course everyone loved the sound - tho it was totally wrong.

Oh - and the time they rebuild some of the first wireless Shafer-Vega units that came back from Van Halen and "upgraded the opamps...

Man they hated that.

C'est la vie
Wayne Mitzen - Portfolio
Marketturd Quarterly - rants for Prehensile Chimps

 

a lot people complained When Spandau Ballet remasters came out..
You couldn't hear the originals sure boosted up so what..
Strange all huey lewis cds sound great and not remastered.?

 

They could be, but highly unlikely unless there is a separate vinyl mastering credit in my experience.

 

One man's fantastic is another man's tacky and cheap. Fact.

 

Maybe Bob Katz mastered a few dance albums recently, but I wonder how much new music he actually consumes.

I have quite a few newer LP's that just sound better than their CD / lossless counterparts. Compression futzing or stylus colorization, I don't know why. Only what I hear.

 

You couldn't be more wrong.

Ok, then.

Absolutely.

The Beatles remixes.
Winehouse Back to Black
Blue and Lonesome
Metallica Hardwired to Self Destruct
Buckingham/McVie

Are just a few titles this applies to.

A lot of it has to do with too much bass EQ in the digital realm. Bass frequencies are bigger than other frequencies in the comic spectrum, physically, and over take the other frequencies. A lot of the 'sub' bass gets rolled off on the vinyl. It gets compressed on the digital.

The Beatles remixes, in particular, have too much bass on the digital versions, which gets compressed and makes the music sound a soupy mess. The vinyl mastering relieves that issue fairly considerably, allowing a more natural sounding recording, and thus a more enjoyable listening experience, I've found...

 

How so?

Are you saying the the sub bass necessarily get's compressed on the digital? How's that?

I don't think this is true. Which digital versions are you talking about, the remixes?

 

No.

 

Because physics.

Because, in the examples I listed, the digital is compressed top to bottom. The bass takes up more frequency range, and the compression reduces dynamics, making the bass just as loud as everything else.

Yes. I stated that specifically in the post that you quoted.

 

That answer didn't help me understand why you believe Mr Sneis is wrong that "There's just no way that vinyl playback would objectively measure better than digital playback of the same."

I'm decent at physics and engineering, so please help me understand.

Let me try to explain where I'm coming from. Sneis said "playback of the same" which I interpret to mean the same mix with the same mastering processing applied, except for the RIAA curve of course.

So for the digital playback case an analog stereo master tape go goes through ADC which introduce noise. Upon playback the signal goes through a DAC which introduces noise.

In the vinyl case an analog stereo master tape is equalized as per RIAA and is cut to the master which is then pressed onto vinyl. Each of those steps is necessarily imperfect therefor introducing noise, reducing fidelity (even if ever so slightly). Then on playback you have the characteristics of the record player components like stylus, preamp with RIAA filter, and given the nature of the playback device there is surface noise as well.

With vinyl playback there are more stages at which the original signal is processed and noise introduced compared to digital playback. There are more variables, each one reducing fidelity to the original signal.

Bass does not take up more frequency range, it uses more energy (which on a vinyl translates to more physical space). To reduce that energy you don't have to compress the bass, you can simply turn it down if you want to, preserving the dynamics down there. Or you can apply a high pass filter.

If I compare vinyl vs digital playback for those examples I'm almost surely not comparing the same mastering process through different media. If one has more bass than the other it is because that's how the people involved chose to make it sound. I'm not comparing vinyl vs digital playback, I'm comparing one mastering job for vinyl playback to another mastering job with a different sonic goal for digital playback.

Got it, sorry about my poor reading skills.

 

In the case of the Beatles remixes and the Stones Blue and Lonesome, we are absolutely speaking of the exact same digital masters in the commercially available digital product and the vinyl pressings available. In the case of both instances, I have the 1/2 speed mastered versions from Abbey Road on vinyl, and the Hi-res digital from HD Tracks.

The vinyl just sounds clearer, less bassy, less harsh...

The vinyl is cut from digital, and it still sounds better.

Mr. Sneis either has a Crosley, or he hasn't made the comparisons, because there's no question which is more, well, musical.

I've always said that "it's all about the mastering", and 9 times out of 10, the mastering for vinyl sounds better than the commercially available digital counterparts.

However it gets there, that's what happens.

Digital CAN sound amazing...it just usually doesn't, for whatever reasons, usually mastering.

I have some fantastic sounding CDs, SACDs, and DVD-A.

I have more digital music than vinyl.

I listen to vinyl more often, because it sounds better.

At the end of the day, I just use my ears and the answer is obvious...

 

I think from this point on ALL remastered albums should be done as 45 RPM versions (like MOFI).Sure it will raise the price considerably per title but think of the SQ improvement! Plus the labels will make more money! -lol

 

Well you’re going to be rather embarrassed then when I reveal that there are ZERO differences between the 24/96 digital files on the Blu-Ray and the vinyl mastering, Miles Showell confirmed that for The Beatles they put the vinyl cutting master on the Blu-Ray unlike with Peppers where the high res had peak limiting which the vinyl didn’t, there were still no eQ difference though.