your opinion of Remastered CDs ?

I actually prefer the old vinyl versions. CDs sound fake, the more doctored they are the faker they sound.

 Yessongs is a great live album but as far as sound quality goes its never going to sound good even cleaned up.  Yes were very dissapointed when they first heard that recording I read . 

Yorkie X wrote:  Yessongs is a great live album but as far as sound quality goes its never going to sound good even cleaned up.  Yes were very dissapointed when they first heard that recording I read .

We all were.

There is a very real difference in the mastering process for CD's as opposed to LP's. Because LP's had more "rumble" the closer you got to the center, they had to compensate for this by rolling off the bass gradually as you got to the end of the side. These same masters were used for the first generation CD's. When a CD is "remastered", it means they are taking the original mix and optimaizing it for the CD format. Some people claim that low end is"boosted' during remastering. This is true. LP's couldn't handle the low frequencies as well as CD's can. People say that it's not natural, but there is nothing on the CD that wasn't there aon the original multitrack tapes. If LP's could have reproduced the low end properly, don't you think they would have left it on instead of rolling it off?

ProgBagel wrote: What can possibly be bad about increasing the quality?

Often the people remastering the albums cut things out or the mixing is done in poor taste.  So yes I take the original LPs over the remastered CDs.

 ^ that would qualify as re-recording, and I agree with you

Yorkie X wrote: From a certain perspective I feel that sometimes a certain charm is lost in the remastering process,  I was listening to yes close to the edge remastered recently and from a technical point of view it is superior however there's something lost from cleaning things up ... sometimes its hard to explain what I mean but lets just say the sound I grew up knowing is what I identify with and if its changed I`ll notice and maybe not adapt the same way to it even if its perfected.  Anyway enough of my thoughts on this  what do you think ?

 

Many remastered CDs use heavy compression to increase the apparent loudness - this is a modern trend that also affects new releases. This kills the dynamics of the recording - quiet passages are now louder than before and loud passages are often distorted - a effect noticable in bright sounds like crash cymbals. Because of this over compressed CDs can be hard-work to listen to. (for more on this subject see a very informative article here: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug07/5429)

ClassicRocker wrote: I can't agree with that. You can't create a "fake" recording. Remastering is vital for cd releases so the music can be transferred to a digital format on PCs (couldn't live w/o that!), and most remasters clean up the sound and get rid of static/distortions, etc. I know vinyl has sentimental value for many people, but if you can't hear half of what's going on in an album (i.e. a live record or something), then it's almost not worth it. Example that comes to my mind: Yessongs, which is in desperate need of remastering/cleaning-up.

Most CDs are made from the master studio tapes (so no static/distortions, clicks or scratches - and eventhough there is some tape hiss ... it is barely noticable and nothing like what cassettes used to be like since studio tape is wider and runs at far higher speeds). The limitations of CD sampling-frequencies and the imposed bamdwithd (20Hz-20KHz) is less than that of the original master tape - CD is also limited to 16-bit resolution - tape and vinyl are not limited at all.

Remastering has nothing to do with vinyl and the *love* of vinyl has nothing to do with sentimentality there aer inherrant physical differences in the two media that means some people prefer one over the other - CD is not the *perfect* digital media for historical reasons.

No one can "clean-up" a live recording by remastering - if the original recording was poor it will remain poor.

Walker wrote: There is a very real difference in the mastering process for CD's as opposed to LP's. Because LP's had more "rumble" the closer you got to the center, they had to compensate for this by rolling off the bass gradually as you got to the end of the side. These same masters were used for the first generation CD's. When a CD is "remastered", it means they are taking the original mix and optimaizing it for the CD format. Some people claim that low end is"boosted' during remastering. This is true. LP's couldn't handle the low frequencies as well as CD's can. People say that it's not natural, but there is nothing on the CD that wasn't there aon the original multitrack tapes. If LP's could have reproduced the low end properly, don't you think they would have left it on instead of rolling it off?

I have never heard of rolling off the bass gradually towards the centre of the disc before and I am now intrigued because it doesn't make sense - reducing the bass in the recording would make the increased rumble in the medium even more noticable - do you have a source for this piece of information?

Well, I grew up with vinyls and aside from the space that LPs provided for album art, I basically hate them.  They were the best thing out there though until CD's came along.  LP's suffer from bad pressings.  My copy of PFM's the World Became The World sounded like it had dust caked on it.  I also have copy of Cook that out of round toward the middle and you could see it noticeably when the needle got there and the music went wow.  Even the best pressings were easily damaged.  Though I have heard some audiophiles think they can hear something missing in the digital versions. Tim Gane of Stereolab comes to mind.  I guess my ears just aren't that good.

Yorkie X wrote: All I am trying to convey by this topic is be careful getting rid of your original recording thinking that the remastered copy is automaticaly better  CD's like Kansas "Point Of Know Return" remastered are largely known as a botch job ...  I`m sure their are others to watch out for sometimes remastered doesn't mean better but its a sure way to get another dollar and sell the same item twice

darqdean wrote: I have never heard of rolling off the bass gradually towards the centre of the disc before and I am now intrigued because it doesn't make sense - reducing the bass in the recording would make the increased rumble in the medium even more noticable - do you have a source for this piece of information?

Edited by Walker - September 24 2007 at 22:12