Your thoughts on albums being remastered

 

Although the extras weren't really more than 'one play' affairs, the Rhino remasters were superb. They sound truly vibrant and fresh to me- haven't dated a jot. I wonder what the 5.1 Genesis releases will be like too- extras are promised, as well as a DVD of extra material for all discs, I believe.

 

I certainly wouldn't underestimate the cynicism of record companies getting fans to re-buy  the same material for the umpteenth time.  On the other hand, when new remasters come out it can actually mean the chance to pick up bargains if you're not bothered about having the shiny new version.  As people upgrade their collections and retailers clear out 'obsolete' stock you can often find the old CDs for peanuts on E-Bay and from Amazon sellers.

 

I do sometimes re-buy when remasters come out, but mainly if I'm unhappy with the sound on the versions I've got or the remasters have additional material that actually seems interesting (pretty rare for me).  I loved the King Crimson and Gentle Giant anniversary reissues for instance, but I'm not much interested in the new Yes remasters.  To my ears the Joe Gastwirt nineties versions sound very good indeed and I'm sceptical of how much real improvement can be squeezed out by making yet another pass at those seventies master tapes.  And I certainly don't want to own a copy of Relayer with stuff like a "studio run through" of GoD tacked onto it.  I'll just listen to the version they actually finished and were happy with, thanks...

 

It appeared that taking the original masters prepared for vinyl and directly using them for CD, lead to some aural inbalance being introduced - CDs have  a fuller aural range (cf. LPs >15 minutes per side), so top end frequencies appeared up front. Hence remasters that fixed that were a godsend. However, remasters taking you from x bits to x+ y bits  seem more difficult to detect any real beneficial changes (e.g. comment often made about some Mahavishnu Orchestra (re)remasters).

 

 

Remastering of old 78rpm discs (often meaning more than clean-up of surface noise) , especially when the masters have long disappeared, can be really excellent. Check out  Aussie recording engineer Robert Armstrong's  series of recordings issued by the BBC Records in the late 80's - some of the Bix Beiderbeck remasters have gained a wonderful depth of clarity. Sony's Roots'n'Blues label, largely devoted to issuing 20's to 40's blues recordings (plus the odd Taj Mahal, Mike Bloomfield album) has used the Cambridge CEDAR aural clean -up and remastering system with some staggering results. However, I still wait to heard Blind Lemon Jefferson in scratch-free aural clarity. My favourite story of aural clean up and remastering, is what Nimbus records did on discovery of  heap of mint live long forgotten opera recordings found stored at La Scala Milan. The Nimbus engineers realised the large format 78rpm discs were intended to be heard on a traditional 78rpm gramophone - so they built the best modern electronic 78rpm player known and recorded the sound coming from the horn onto digital tape. Apparently some of the 30's operatic divas sound perfect.

 

 

For comparison, the Jethro Tull remasters really sound enhanced and you can heard the details of the music much better.  The music also sounds less dated (like it was recorded more recently).  On the other hand, the Gentle Giant and Genesis "pseudo-remasters" only sound marginally better (more bass), and don't seem worth the extra expense if one already has the earlier versions on CD (although the lyrics are great to have).  

 

As soundsweird points out above, an EQ (equalizer) in a person's stereo system can make most dated CD's sound remastered.   That's probably the best improvement anyone can do.  Then you don't have to rely on the CD manufacturer's to get the right sound.

 

Bonus tracks (especially studio) and enhanced album art are other usual benefits.  It's great when there are pictures, album recording notes, and when lyrics are restored.

 

Again, I'd point to the Jethro Tull remasters as one of the best examples of how it should be done.  It looks like a lot of attention and care went into producing those.  A quality-oriented approach, even if probably expensive for the record companies.

 

It all boils down to knowing what "improvements" really exist on the remasters before buying, to avoid high expectations.  That way you can avoid wasting money on the fake/hyped ones, and can only focus on the true enhanced ones...

  

 

 

 

 

However, I think 'Aqualung' NEEDS a overhaul desparately. The Thick As A Brick one sounds great to me, and was done around the same time, but the Aqualung 'remaster' sounds terrible- really flat, especially when compared to the later remasters. Also, the extras were largely superfluous- BBC sessions from 1968, which had not only been already released, but Aqualung came out in 1971!!