“Just get the remaster”

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Rundfunk, Feb 19, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lucidae

    Lucidae AAD

    Location:
    Australia
    Sound quality is completely subjective regardless of what gear you have, so I personally don't place much importance in that area.
    You might consider that some members don't want their opinions to be dismissed just because their system doesn't look that great on paper.
     
    mooseman and Gems-A-Bems like this.
  2. rcsrich

    rcsrich Forum Resident

    Location:
    Virginia
    Excellent example- I feel lucky to have found a copy...
     
    mdm08033 likes this.
  3. xcqn

    xcqn Audiophile

    Location:
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Not important, the better master will sound better even thru earbuds.
     
    Holy Diver likes this.
  4. Lucidae

    Lucidae AAD

    Location:
    Australia
    I'm sure all of us on these forums have at least an entry level system, enough to figure out the difference between a dynamic and warm mastering or a harsh and loud one, don't you think?
     
    mooseman likes this.
  5. bhazen

    bhazen I Am The Walrus

    Location:
    Deepest suburbia
    I do. But my view remains the same.
     
  6. curbach

    curbach Some guy on the internet

    Location:
    The ATX
    No, I don't.
     
  7. Lucidae

    Lucidae AAD

    Location:
    Australia
    Which part do you disagree with?
     
  8. Dino

    Dino Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kansas City - USA
    Excessive compression/limiting is the #1 sound quality that can "make good music feel bad" for me. The saddest cases are when the music is modern enough to have no dynamic alternative mastering. There is music that I would love to enjoy listening to, but I rarely can enjoy listening to dynamically squashed music at even a moderate volume. Not to sound overly dramatic - but this breaks my heart not to be able to enjoy listening to some of the newer music that otherwise appeals to me.

    I don't understand "people who don't recognize what excessive compression sounds like or don't see a problem with it" but I realize that people are wired differently. I don't mind if they get defensive about their sound preferences. What gets to me are the people who seem to take some kind of glee in the displeasure of those that have a negative reaction to overcompression. And they really come out when DR numbers are discussed or graphs are posted. (I find them useful myself. They often correlate with the sound that I hear.) I would feel cruel if I took pleasure in something that destroys another's enjoyment of music.

    I would think that what we all have in common, on this forum, is a love of music.
     
    rcsrich, fantgolf and mozz like this.
  9. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    There are many types of compression, and they all have a different sound. I enjoy a mushy compressed sound on many songs that were played on the radio back in the 60s and 70s. I love that mushy, dreamy sound. Sure, it's unnatural.
     
  10. curbach

    curbach Some guy on the internet

    Location:
    The ATX
    Both. Plenty of members have sub entry level systems and plenty of members, regardless of system, clearly cannot tell the difference between masterings, do not care, or prefer masterings that some of us would consider harsh and loud. Not that there's anything wrong with that ;)
     
    scobb likes this.
  11. Guy E

    Guy E Senior Member

    Location:
    Antalya, Turkey
    I think you're misinterpreting the remarks. They're usually coming from people who have heard more than one mastering of a given title and they often come in response to posts such as, "I've never heard U2. Where should I start and what are the best sounding versions of their albums?" Why send a neophyte like that on a wild goose chase? Maybe it's an inquiry about a band that isn't so well known, someone like Badfinger, but still...

    More importantly, have you EVER seen a consensus of agreement here on SH about what the best sounding master is? I haven't.
     
    bandguy and Grant like this.
  12. Guy E

    Guy E Senior Member

    Location:
    Antalya, Turkey
    I'm surprised that some people follow a fixed rule that the first master of a CD release is always the best. The industry was flinging digital music into the marketplace in the early days of the format and from what I've read, the mastering process often lacked the keen ear and finesse that had gone into LP mastering. It took time for engineers to develop and apply those skills (or not).

    Early Byrds CD's sounded lifeless. The Beatles and Stones catalogs weren't much better. One of the first albums I re-bought on CD was a German Mercury issue of Beautiful Vision by Van Morrison. The CD should have been credited to Tom Dollinger and his Magic High-Hat! (featuring Van Morrison on vocals).

    Early CD's may not have suffered from brick-wall compression, but that doesn't mean that they were always great.
     
    mooseman, Gems-A-Bems and Grant like this.
  13. kozy814

    kozy814 Forum Resident

    I lot of the re-issues sound real good. And it's often budget line CDs that have no obvious markings and are w/o bonus tracks. I pay attentian to the mastering engineer and studio when info is available. The $5 bin at Meijers and Target are a nice place to find gems.
     
  14. Lucidae

    Lucidae AAD

    Location:
    Australia
    Nobody is saying the first CD release is *always* the best, that would be silly - but it's a pretty good success rate, at least in my experience.
    A lot of early CD's are either flat transfers or have very little EQ applied, they are never digitally compressed, and most of the time noise reduction was not used.
    I also feel that the philosophy of mastering engineers and/or record labels has changed over the years, today they are more concerned with "improving" the sound rather than letting it speak for itself.
     
    ricks likes this.
  15. ricks

    ricks Senior Member

    Location:
    127.0.0.1:443
    Seems you went 'out of your way' and even cited examples to bash older CD's but nary a negative comment about remasters. There are no absolutes when dealing with old cd's, new remasters, or anything in-between and my apologies if I have misinterpreted your intentions. BTW Mr Hoffman would disagree with you every thing regarding Beatles Pepper and later as they are still his preferred versions :)

    Once again, the main point is there are no absolutes regarding sound quality and everyone hears differently. Folks must learn what there are preferences are in sound quality before taking advice from ANYONE. I mean no insult but someone who asks "What is the best sounding version for xxx catalog" is not going about things in the smartest manner. Sure they have the "right" to ask the question and "follow" whatever answer they want BUT seriously how do they know any of the recommendations will be something they will prefer or even like unless they know themselves what constitutes good sound quality to their own ears.

    To glean the correct knowledge of what you own ears prefer takes effort and leg work. It's not easy at first, and requires at least initially a bit of cash outlay although that does not have to mean big money as long as they avoid Pink Floyd :). As an example even for the Zepp catalog this can be done; Get the original CD's which are now under $5 each even in my area which has one of the highest costs of living in the US, The 90's remasters [cheap on ebay now], and the new remasters [not the super deluxe-s of course] and do their own compares. Sell of what you don't like - sadly that will be at loss but think of it as and investment in the future.

    Once you understand the type of sound you prefer look for others that have similar opinions for the catalogs you did on your own and then you can use their recommendations on other catalogs as a reference point. Oh and it is impossible, I think, to completely agree with someone else recommendation 100% of the time. If you do find someone that you agree with 80-85% of the time that would probably be the maximum, find few folks like that and you you are somewhat set. In all my years here I have only found 4 folks like that 1 of which has been gone from this place quite a while. I have another handful of members whom I figure I agree with 50% of the time. If you find you prefer all things remastered then you my friend have hit the mother lode as the thread title states "Just Get The Remaster" - I sure wish I was still one of those folks would make things very easy and inexpensive :) In my case other than the headaches ignorance was bliss.
     
  16. rcsrich

    rcsrich Forum Resident

    Location:
    Virginia
    The sad truth is that often, picking from the initial release & subsequent remasters of a given album is a "lesser of evils" exercise. The original pressing might have great dynamic range, but a complete lack of bass or be sourced from a 10th generation tape. The remaster might have a great, balanced EQ, but be a DR 7 instead of the original DR14...compressed within an inch of its life. Sometimes you luck out & one or the other is really good, but more often than not, there is some level of compromise- only you can decide how to prioritize advantages & disadvantages.
     
    Gems-A-Bems, mdm08033 and ricks like this.
  17. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Don't forget that the converters were primitive, and sounded terrible.

    People always want the easy way out. They have a black and white mentality. They use DR ratings to decide for them without listening.
     
    Gems-A-Bems likes this.
  18. I think it is very helpful if people fill out their system profile.For example I have a few sets of headphones and swapping from one to another can make a huge difference to how I reguard the sq on a recording. A very good friend has several setups, all quite expensive but some I find far too bright for my tastes and it does sway any judgement I may be making about the music.
    I dont look at a members profile to pass judgement but to to get an insight into how they could be hearing a recording. For instance if someone is using a basic computer sound card and earbuds then their experience is going to be different than mine and I'd like to be able to take that into account. In this case it's not about the cost of the delivery system but the system itself.

    As for the thread topic, I do tend to go mostly with reissues for the simple fact that good, clean originals can be very difficult/expensive to find here in NZ now and the hassles and costs of buying from EBay and the like just aren't worth it for me. I would also hesitate to say now with the state of my hearing(age/noise/work) that I could really perceive any minor differences between an original and a good reissue.
     
  19. Ephi82

    Ephi82 Still have two ears working

    Location:
    S FL
    Long thread.....getting longer

    I come here to get feedback for what recordings people really love, so that gives me some guidance as to what to invest in.

    What I think is more important are the masters or remasters or original release that many people say are lousy. That's even more valuable.....

    Last, i generally check out DR values for a sniff test, and read reviews. I find that in many cases some AMAZON reviewers do a good job.
     
    rcsrich likes this.
  20. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Yeah, there are, on this forum. If you haven't been around here long, that's probably why you haven't seen it.

    But, they they are flat transfers of tapes that weren't the correct/best tapes, or they followed the notes on the tape box that said to boost the treble.
     
  21. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    There's no point in that. I could give you a nice long list of recordings I think sound great, but they would be of MUSIC you don't care about. So, why waste the energy except to prove you all don't care about the music I like?
     
  22. curbach

    curbach Some guy on the internet

    Location:
    The ATX
    This is why a serious enthusiast should not be without a turntable. Of course, sometimes the lp isn't any good either :)
     
    rcsrich likes this.
  23. KeithH

    KeithH Success With Honor...then and now

    Location:
    Beaver Stadium
    Hence, labels like DCC, MFSL, and others have filled an important void. It's a niche void for neurotics like us, of course, but they serve a purpose. :)
     
    rcsrich likes this.
  24. rcsrich

    rcsrich Forum Resident

    Location:
    Virginia
    Sadly, I guess I am not a serious enthusiast...with a small child in a small apartment & two long-haired cats that jump on everything, I have my turntable (not that great anyway) and LP collection stored. The risks outweigh the benefits. ;) I will say that I do have needle-drops from some of my favorites. Of course, that means that...gasp...I've converted them to digital!
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2015
    Guy E likes this.
  25. Guy E

    Guy E Senior Member

    Location:
    Antalya, Turkey
    Reread my post: I was simply challenging the "first is best" statements that have appeared throughout this thread. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. I named three catalogs by life-long favorite groups as examples of "sometimes they aren't" (IMO. And I agree that Sgt. Pepper sounded very good on the first CD issue. The White Album... I dunno, but the bass on the remaster was definitely juiced a little too high).

    I have 7,000+ CD's with doubles and triples of many titles so I'm in no need of guidance when it comes to music collecting. I have no hard and fast rules when it comes to old, new or in-between and I avoid generalizations because they don't stick. I know there are plenty of bad brick-wall masters, but lucky for me my tastes tend to veer away from mainstream rock where most of the worst offenses seem to proliferate (ex: The Who). If I like an album, I probably have the first issue regardless, and I do keep 'em all.

    I tend to notice poor EQ tinkering and find it more objectionable. The Rudy Van Gelder Edition remasters on Blue Note are a good example of too much high-end... those CD's induce listener fatigue (in this listener).

    The Roxy Music catalog is a good example of "personal taste" entering into the dialog. The Complete Studio Recordings remasters will be my go-to Roxy discs til the end of days, but I know some people prefer the late-90's editions. Go figure.

    Ultimately I'm more interested in pursing new, unheard music. I have a number of MSFL editions, but I rarely scour around for holy grail masters and I rarely weigh-in with an opinion on "best version" threads.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2015
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine