Evidently there are people that thinks the original recordings need "help'.


My question is, after they work their magic.


Is the original still the original ? With all its blems, pimples and faults ?

And do the remaster people poll a thousand people about which version they they prefer ?



Does remastering increase the value of the original vinyl ?

quote:

Is the original still the original ? With all its blems, pimples and faults ?

As I understand it, the idea is to get rid of those.

Mastering is finalizing EQ, compression and raising the volume level to the song’s potential.

In the past mastering for vinyl has to be a lot lower or the needle would jump the groove. Those limitations aren’t there and with modern tech remastering can really improve a track. Not only for volume but also uncovering buried nuance.

I still buy CDs, several a month.

Remastered releases are not really too different from the original releases, But for me remixes make a difference, good or bad. With remixes, the assigned guy (Steven Wilson, Giles Martin) will take the original multi track tapes, and completely re-do the mix; volume, panning, EQ, effects, etc of each track. A good example is Gile Martins remix of The Beatles Sgt Pepper- instead of all of the instruments on one side, the vocals on the other, he used AI to separate the individual instruments from the 4-track tapes, and create something that resembles a modern mix.

Remastering just leverages today's technology to make it sound better.

To me, the quality of sound is much improved. I don’t want to hear hissing and buzzing. I want to hear the instruments.

Most of the remasters I hear ruin the music for me. The Megadeth remasters sound so sterile. It takes out the rage and emotion. Of everything I’ve listened to, I’d say somewhere north of 90% don’t do the music any Justice (at least to my untrained ear).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

For a number of the remastered CDs I have purchased, yes they sound worse than the original. In general, remixing involves taking the multi track recordings and working up a whole new mix of the various tracks (vocals, guitar, bass, drums, etc) while remastering takes the final 2-track mixed master and tweeking it a bit to adjust the balance of the frequency spectrum, and especially the use of compression to lessen the dynamic range making low sounds louder, high sounds lower to make the overall volume louder, etc. And for me, the latter technique is one that makes remastered CDs not any better than the original mix, and in some cases, worse.

The reason I buy remastered CDs is because they usually come out as "deluxe editions" containing extra tracks (unreleased songs, demos, B-sides, etc) and I like getting those, along with a more fleshed out booklet of info on the album.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

Remastered releases are not really too different from the original releases, But for me remixes make a difference, good or bad. With remixes, the assigned guy (Steven Wilson, Giles Martin) will take the original multi track tapes, and completely re-do the mix; volume, panning, EQ, effects, etc of each track. A good example is Gile Martins remix of The Beatles Sgt Pepper- instead of all of the instruments on one side, the vocals on the other, he used AI to separate the individual instruments from the 4-track tapes, and create something that resembles a modern mix.

Part of the genius of the Beatles albums is the placement of each voice or instrument. The recording desks were not designed for stereo as we think of it. They were designed for recording large ensembles such as an orchestra with multiple microphones.

A lot of creativity went into getting around that design, which led to the unique character of the final product. The original Sgt Pepper is much more interesting than a cookie cutter modern mix.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
The original Sgt Pepper is much more interesting than a cookie cutter modern mix.

"Cookie cutter" is not how I would exactly describe it, since it took a lot of modern technology to break down the individual instruments from four tracks. Paul McCartney has always preferred the mono mix to the original stereo mix (I do also) because of the extreme stereo separation of the instruments and vocals, and he was involved in the new remix that Giles Martin (son of George) did, approving the final mix.

Remastering like anything else is as good a the one doing it.
A non-issue for me but I have never did a studio quality listening session to compare.
I have lots of CD's that have been remastered and IMO, most all are as good if not better but frankly, unless they say > I wouldn't even know.
Non-issue.
YMMV

Not exactly a Remaster, a lifetime ago I bought the Beatles Abbey Road CD in Japan, this was BEFORE the official world release of the Beatles discography that was done in chronological order and happened to celebrate the anniversary of Sgt Peppers, so very likely in the year 1987.
Somehow, the Japanese had gone ahead before the rest of the market.

Have been a fan since my teens and was extremely familiar with the album, having listened to it hundreds if not thousands of times. The japanese wdition has/had new lauera of sound that took me by surprise. Obviously it didn’t add anything new that wasn’t there before but definitely there were things that vinyl didn’t expose to everyone’s benefit.

I was very proud of my Japanese pre-official edition. Still there, somewhere.

0-0

One of many ways to consider this (very subjective) matter is to determine the artist's intent.

As oddball said, McCartney likes the mono and the remaster, and apparently doesn't care for the stereo mix. Many people likely got the most exposure to the stereo mix, and therefore define that as the "original", and have a bias toward it.

An interesting example concerning one of my favorite bands, Type O Negative, is the "digipak" re-release of their album Bloody Kisses. The album was rearranged, and a couple tracks were omitted. Some fans (and bandmembers) decry this release, but the frontman, who inarguably largely defined the band, was the driving force behind it. I haven't heard the digipak version of the album, but I do choose to skip the tracks that ended up being omitted in that release, so maybe Peter was on to something.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
The original Sgt Pepper is much more interesting than a cookie cutter modern mix.

"Cookie cutter" is not how I would exactly describe it, since it took a lot of modern technology to break down the individual instruments from four tracks. Paul McCartney has always preferred the mono mix to the original stereo mix (I do also) because of the extreme stereo separation of the instruments and vocals, and he was involved in the new remix that Giles Martin (son of George) did, approving the final mix.

By cookie cutter I mean modern mixes are very formulaic. Where the instruments and voices are placed, eq, compression, reverb/delay, etc. Lead vocals down the middle, drums spread across the stage with multiple mics, sidechain multiband compression, keys and guitars placed somewhat off center. Most modern music has little variation from a basic mix formula.

Part of the character of the Beatles' albums (except Hey Jude iirc) is they were recorded on the Redd desks which did not allow for today's type of mixes. The drums all in one channel and vocals all in another channel is part of the experience.

Another impression I have gotten observing discussions about this stuff is the overall goal always seems to be the feeling that "you're in the room with them" or at the very best live performance possible. That doesn't go for all genres of music though.

A high school friend gave me a cassette recording he made of a Led Zepplin Album. When he made the recording the record was a little scratched. So I always heard the music with the periodic pops from the scratch.

when I hear those songs now, it always feels like something is missing because the periodic pops are not there from the scratch.

I feel the same way about remastered. It's like something is different.

Perhaps the problem is many folks are prone to take offense when something postures as being "better" than what came before. The very word remaster implies that the source material has been improved, and to not enjoy it more than preceding versions would be incorrect. Considering the subjective (and nostalgic) nature of music, it's no surprise that this is not the experience had by so many people.

It's probably best to approach a remaster as nothing more than a different version; not a supposedly better one. We (mostly) don't get annoyed when artists put a different spin on a song during a live performance. We should have the same attitude about the remastered versions.

^^^ some films are better in black and white, even if they are later 'colorized'

Of course it's subjective, but I almost always prefer the remastered/remixed versions. I've seen this discussion before, and it really does come down to personal preference.

A lot of these remasters are just a tactic to sell yet another copy to already existing owners, or to entice younger customers with the promise of being modern.