Remastering that isn't any better and is sometimes worse

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Another Side, Dec 3, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Another Side

    Another Side Senior Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    San Francisco
    I was thinking about some recent major label remastered CD’s that actually don’t sound any better than the old CD from 10-15 years back and may sound worse. In the majority of cases the remastering improves the sound and sometimes it improves it dramatically, but sometimes it doesn’t work out that way. One example that comes to mind is the old John Wesley Harding CD, which sounds noticeably better than the new dual layer CD (although I haven’t heard the SACD layer, so I can’t speak to that). Without talking about remixing, which is a whole other animal, can you think of any other examples?
     
  2. Ryan

    Ryan That would be telling

    Location:
    New England
    Do a search on "John Wesley Harding" - thread title...your views are echoed by many others.

    There are many, MANY others..
     
  3. SMc

    SMc Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin TX
    How about Dire Straits?

    Stephen
     
  4. oxenholme

    oxenholme Senile member

    Location:
    Knoydart
    The Jam - the box set sounds abominable compared to the original releases.
     
  5. RZangpo2

    RZangpo2 Forum Know-It-All

    Location:
    New York
    As Ryan says, there are countless threads on this board about exactly this issue, both in relation to specific titles and generally. The "search" function will get you there. ;)

    As far as John Wesley Harding, IIRC Steve said that the earlier CD version was a flat transfer of the master, but that the album wasn't very well recorded to begin with.
     
  6. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    Will The Circle be Unbroken...twice as loud.
     
  7. Toby

    Toby Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Texas
  8. Grant

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

    I strongly believe the majority of new remasters sound worse due to the use of excessive compression, limiting, crazy EQ, and maybe NR.
     
  9. Another Side

    Another Side Senior Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    San Francisco
    Wow! I would think that it is more likely that engineers would use master tapes than before. But putting that aside, what's different about engineers now as opposed to 15 years ago (NR withstanding)?
     
  10. Grant

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

    It's not about using the correct master tapes. I find that since 1986 or so, most CDs are from the 1st generation masters.

    Engineers today have better converters and in some cases, tapes, but what they DO to the sound is an abomination! Over-compression suciks the live out of the tapes. You may thing being able to hear minor detail boosted by the process of compression, but you also must notice that the DYNAMICS are squashed to the point where they no longer sound natural.

    BTW, most mastering engineers are FORCED to compress by the artist and record company executives. Many people think a CD has to be LOUDER to sell. It kills the music. A 16-bit CD can only take so much before one has to use artificial means of making it LOUDER.
     
  11. Grant

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

    Do some reading and searches on this forum and on manyt websites. You will be enlightened.
     
  12. Larpy

    Larpy Active Member

    Location:
    USA
    Answering this question comprises probably 65% of what we discuss on this forum. Do various searches on "mastering," "maximizing" and "equalization" and you'll find more than you ever thought there was to know about modern mastering.

    Warning: it'll depress you.
     
  13. MikeP5877

    MikeP5877 V/VIII/MCMLXXVII

    Location:
    OH
    The other 35% being a combination of The Beatles and Who's Next :D
     
  14. SMc

    SMc Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin TX
    I'm not too keen on the sound of Compact Snap! Is there any word on the recently announced Hip-O version?

    Stephen
     
  15. deadcoldfish

    deadcoldfish Senior Member

    Location:
    Santa Rosa, CA
    don't know yet, it's on the way ....
     
  16. Dave D

    Dave D Done!

    Location:
    Milton, Canada
    It's not the engineers. It's the dopey yuppie suit that says "make this rock", or "make this sound like my Bose system when I put it on the Rock EQ". The engineers only do what they are told.
     
  17. MMM

    MMM Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Lodi, New Jersey
    Well, sometimes the engineer DOES seem (to me at least) to like this stuff - Norberg, Mew, Astley, etc.

    Here, make yourself comfortable, pour a strong drink if your so inclined, and read these: :sigh:

    http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan02/articles/jonastley.asp

    http://www.cedar-audio.com/news/2001awards.html

    http://www.audiomedia.com/archive/features/us-0399/us-0399-sinatra/us-0399-sinatra.htm

    http://www.islandnet.com/djml/cds/bsrequotes.html


    ...and my "baby" among numerous threads on this Forum on this subject:

    http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=14835
     
  18. Roland Stone

    Roland Stone Offending Member

    Well, isn't JOHN WESLEY HARDING an example of remastering revealing all the recording flaws that were beaten into submission for the LP? I'm not sure it's fair to call that remastering a failure; it sure sounds different, but more accurately reflects the tape.
     
  19. Grant

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

    ...and a sickening description of Bob Norberg's noise reduction methods:

    :cry:
     
  20. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    "Finally, every project is archived to Exabyte 8mm tape at 24-bit for posterity."


    OH GOODY. :(
     
  21. Grant

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

    yeah, so whenever they want something from them, or to run more copies, they just pull the latest and greatest. The original tapes sit for another 50-some years in the vaults, forgotten... :cry:
     
  22. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Exactly right! Depressing.
     
  23. oxenholme

    oxenholme Senile member

    Location:
    Knoydart
    Mine is the unremastered version, and the sputtering is corroding rapidly. It still sounds good.
     
  24. Andreas

    Andreas Senior Member

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    My take before I found the SH forum: 90 % of all remasters improve upon the older CD, but I have to find which older CDs belong to the remaining 10 %. I wonder if there is a forum on the internet where things like that are discussed.

    My take after a few months on the SH forum: 30 % of all remasters are improvements, 30 % of all remasters suck, and the remaining 40 % are controversial with opinions ranging from best to worst. Most of the forum is dedicated to those 40 %.

    My take today: About 5 % of all new remasters are improvements, and those are so openly promoted on this forum that you can't miss them. In all other cases, the task is to compare an audiophile or earlier remaster from the 1990s (pre 1995) to the original (mostly flat) CD from the 1980s.
     
  25. therockman

    therockman Senior Member In Memoriam


    I concur!!!!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine