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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Currently spinning my remastered copy of LZ 4 on clear vinyl.