SIGforum
This remastering of music business

This topic can be found at:
https://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/320601935/m/8900067315

February 20, 2025, 06:12 PM
Prefontaine
This remastering of music business
Hit and miss, just like remastering films. Some LP’s, remarkable improvements. Others, destruction. It just depends. I just wait for the people with more money than me to waste, buy it, review it, then I make my decision if it is worth purchasing. I’ve learned to let others go first however, the hard way.



What am I doing? I'm talking to an empty telephone
February 20, 2025, 07:07 PM
oddball
quote:
Originally posted by KSGM:
It's probably best to approach a remaster as nothing more than a different version; not a supposedly better one.

Last year, I bought The Police Synchronicity 2 disc deluxe edition with disc 1 as the remastered version and disc 2 the outtakes and demos. Other than louder volume, there is no real difference between the new and old, and many of the remasters I buy follow the same pattern.
quote:
Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
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.

Pretty much. Like I stated before, I buy "remastered" CDs for the extra unreleased tracks and demos. And as I stated before, I will buy CDs of remixes, if done to an album of questionable mixing, or for hopefully a better sonic experience. Prime examples are the remixes for two of The Replacements albums Tim and Don't Tell a Soul. The new mixes are amazing compared to the old ones. But it is a crap shoot at times. Part of the nature of the hobby.



"I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965
February 20, 2025, 07:45 PM
KSGM
quote:
Other than louder volume, there is no real difference between the new and old
I have been under the impression that louder volume is indicative of a poor master, due to compression. I could be wrong. I seem to recall reading something about the "loudness wars" of the radio. If your song was mastered in such a way that boosted its volume, your song would standout against others on the radio. Therefore, compromises were made to achieve more volume, so loud=bad.
February 20, 2025, 07:54 PM
Beancooker
There is another reason for remastering, as I understand it.

When an artist remasters their album, they stop paying the record company the profits. There is a lot more money in the table for the artists when the remastered album sells.



quote:
Originally posted by sigmonkey:
I'd fly to Turks and Caicos with live ammo falling out of my pockets before getting within spitting distance of NJ with a firearm.
February 20, 2025, 08:02 PM
Lunasee
Remastering is basically cleaning up the overall sound. Removing unwanted (hiss, pops, quantization noise, etc.) content. It will seem louder when it's really just a lowered noise floor.
February 21, 2025, 10:38 AM
snwghst
quote:
Originally posted by Beancooker:
There is another reason for remastering, as I understand it.

When an artist remasters their album, they stop paying the record company the profits. There is a lot more money in the table for the artists when the remastered album sells.


Artists need to completely rerecord the songs and put them in different order if the label still owns the masters. Remastering doesn’t negate the label. This is why many artists, Taylor Swift being the most notable has re-recorded basically her whole initial catalog and released them so Scooter Braun doesn’t profit from them


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live today as if it may be your last and learn today as if you will live forever
February 21, 2025, 08:27 PM
Appliance Brad
Currently spinning my remastered copy of LZ 4 on clear vinyl.


__________________________
Writing the next chapter that I've been looking forward to.