your opinion of Remastered CDs ?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics related to progressive music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=41982
Printed Date: March 06 2025 at 11:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: your opinion of Remastered CDs ?
Posted By: Yorkie X
Subject: your opinion of Remastered CDs ?
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 21:02
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 ?  |
Replies:
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 21:08
| I actually prefer the old vinyl versions. CDs sound fake, the more doctored they are the faker they sound. |
Posted By: ClassicRocker
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 21:13
|
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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 21:24
|
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 .
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 21:34
|
Yeah, I'm gonna have to give a shout for the remastered cd's. I grew up on LP's and once cds came out I was immediately taken by the improvement in sound quality on most of the cds. Of course, a few of them sounded tinny, but for the most part the cd's sounded much better. I had a crap turntable, but years after cd's made their debut, I had a friend who owned a $3,000 turntable, and I still thought cd's sounded better on a $100 cd player.
Generally, the remastered cd's have even better sound quality. I know some of my old VDGG sounded a little too high pitched in parts, but the remastering took care of that problem. Of course, we could get into a Star Wars problem, where the original is constantly being redone until it is no longer recognizable as the original, but so far I haven't noticed that problem. I prefer remastered all the way. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 22:02
|
Yorkie X wrote:Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 22:33
| What can possibly be bad about increasing the quality? |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 22:34
| 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? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 22:41
|
^ interesting point... to me, if a recording is remastered, or 'reproduced', in a way that is closer to the original session - that is, close to what it sounded like in the studio when recorded, or after post-production - it is an improvement. That is after all what's meant by 'fidelity'.. a sound that is true and loyal to the original. |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 23:29
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. |
Posted By: Melisma
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 23:55
|
I don't mind a remastering when the original version is not quite up to quality listening and needs noise reduction. As for remastering an original CD version, it depends: Take Rush's Vapor Trails for instance. That one needs a remastering Big time, well come to think of it, maybe a remix! However, I'm not a fan of remastering when the original recording is messed with, and changes are made to the original song. Steven Wilson cleaned up some of PT's older albums and I must admit being slightly disappointed in some of the instrumental changes... When I'm used to hearing a song played a certain way on a studio album, I like to have that kept in a way. You can clean it up all you want, but don't mess with the notes! ------------- Melisma Life is a trip! Death is an odyssey... |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 23:59
| ^ that would qualify as re-recording, and I agree with you |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 01:16
The situation you describe goes beyond the definition of mastering. I would not approve editing the music or remixing the music in any way, but I do think the remastering adds to the overall quality of sound. You can remaster an album without remixing it or editing it. Most remastered CD's on the market are NOT remixed. Please tell me some remastered CD's that you think sections have been cut out of or the mixing was done in poor taste please. I would be interested to know, because I've never found one.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 05:32
|
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 - http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug07/5429 )
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.
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? ------------- What? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 05:48
I think that people simply got used to the sound of their vinyls ... this sound defines "real" for them, and it's pretty hard to "undefine" something which you've known for decades. Oliverstoned calls it "overbumped" ... people who grew up listening to CDs might call vinyls "underbumped".  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to: 
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 06:16
|
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.
There was a big problem when CD's first came out in that the record companys would often release stuff simply off the LP masters. There is something about the LP mastering process that really makes it unsuitable for CD. I believe Robert Fripp has something useful to say about this, but it's been a long time since I read it and haven't been able to put my hands on it. It does have something to do with the mechanics of the LP's grooves.
So it's basically remasters all the way for me, but I am glad to see there's a market for my used unremastered CDs that I've relplaced with remasters and my LPs I'm not hanging on to for the cover art. I've used half.com to sell CD's in the past. Might start listing some stuff there again soon if anyone is interested, hadn't even considered doing LPs there. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 06:55
| All I am trying to convey by this topic is be careful getting rid of your original recording thinking that the remastered copy is automatically better Cd's like Kansas "Point Of Know Return" remastered are largely known as a botch job many people have expressed dissatisfaction from the job they did on Queensryche's Operation Mindcrime so I held onto the original recording and played it safe . ... I`m sure there 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 |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 06:58
I thought the Point Of Know Return remaster was decent. I've never replaced a remaster with another remaster. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: sean
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 10:47
| overall, i prefer the sound of the original vinyl recordings, however for cds it's necessary to remaster to make it sound right on the cd format. |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 21:28
I read about in a mastering magazine several years ago... I'll see if I can dig up a copy..
EDIT: ok I have scoured the internet looking for a copy of that article and I can't find it. I used to have a subscription to MIX magazine back when I was working in a studio and doing live sound, and I think that's where I read it. I'll keep looking.
|
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 21:42
|
Whatever makes my listening experience more fun and challenging! ------------- 
|
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 21:54
| If I have to pick between a late 80s/early 90s CD issue of an album or a late 90s/early 2000s reissue and if they are similarly priced, I'll go for the remastered version. If the price disparity is too large, I'll go for the most affordable one. I'd rather have two decent items than one excellent-sounding one. |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 23:13
Check out Kiss's "Hotter Than Hell" and Mountain's "Climbing!" remastered CD copies. They are absolutely hideous.. |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: September 24 2007 at 23:30
|
^ not really into to Kiss, but I have the remaster of Mountain Climbing. I never heard the original album, so I can't compare. Was something cut out, or do you think the sound is bad on that one?
|
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 12:21
I have been remastering CDs myself using a program called http://www.goldwave.com/ - GoldWave - Audio Editing, Recording, Restoration, & Analysis Softwareit is amazing how good they sound some of these older prog recordingsCheck this relatively inexpensive program out and save your money on inferior remastered CDs I believe anybody with half a brain can polish a "turd"  |
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 14:48
|
Whether I preffer a remastered cd or the original recording depends on how well the remaster is done. I have had some terrible cd's over the years which didn't stand up to the original vinyl version. One that imediately springs to mind is Rainbow's "Rising". Cozy Powell's drum intro on "Stargazer" was so low in the mix it totally ruined the track. It amazed me how such a glaringly obvious error could slip out. I was very reluctant to switch to cd from vinyl initially but I must admit that although vinyl can sound great I did get sick of crappy pressings with surface noise and I've certainly returned far more LP's than cd's over the years. With a good pressing though Vinyl can sound great. I've owned 3 versions of Deep Purple's "Made in Japan" and none of the cd versions can touch my original Vinyl copy.
As for a remasted cd against an original cd I would say in general most have been improvements, especially when the original release was rushed out to capitalize on the then new cd market probably using masters intended for Vinyl. Now some of them are abysmal!
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 14:53
^ i know i've been telling them this for months...
-------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: September 25 2007 at 15:11
I prefer Remastered, but not enough to go out and repurchase a CD I already have which hasn't been remastered; there's too much new, good music out there for spending your money that way.... ------------- Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: September 26 2007 at 00:09
I'm not sure if anything was cut out, but it sounds terrible in comparison. Its a bit "tinny" and the instruments are mixed oddly. I think they boosted the guitar and vox up way way over the bass and drums. The original vinyl release sounds much better in my opinion. |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: September 26 2007 at 08:26
|
As said on a previous thread on this topic: it depends. Some remasters are cons, in particular to encourage the disc buyer dump the original remaster in favour of something claimed to be more state of the art, but in reality needs an oscilloscope and whole batch of electronics to measure performance improvements e.g. 24 bit/SACD variants, which the human ear and typical hifi equipment are incapable of differentiating.
However, there have been vinyl recordings that needed significant clean up, often due to overlayering to make the mastertape thereby increasing noise to signal ratios from tape hiss etc. The best example of that is Deep Purple's In Rock. I was also really impressed with Caravan's If I Could Do It All Over Again as the remaster. But Mahavishnu Orchestra's Birds Of Fire I believe has at least 3 versions of remaster ed CD issue, where complaints have been: can't tell the difference or the sound quality has been made worse.
Perhaps the question of remixing with remastering should also come into play here. The first CD issues of Genesis sounded very treble top heavy. In part this because to fit the analog signal onto 2 or 4 sides of vinyl, there had low and high frequency clipping losing high frequency treble especially - with the CD it this was back and cut through and often dominated the original intended mix. Not only the early Charisma Genesis recordings showed this, so did other's e.g. Jean Luc Ponty's Enigmatic Ocean. But also liberties were taken in remixing a few 70's recording to give an 80's audio feel - Free suffered from this, and more recently the Door's classics have been mucked about with 00's rhythmic sections.
For a lot of 60's and 70's recordings the old fashioned approach to stereo mixing still works well (unless heard on headphones), i.e. specific instruments/voices in one channel, others largely isolated into the other channel - which make channel shifting/sweeping effects the more dramatic, e.g. Edgar Winter's Frankenstein, several ELP tunes including Welcome Back. However, Ginger Baker's Toad solo on Fresh Cream isolated to one channel on some formats (as on the original vinyl stereo) doesn't feel aurally right - and can be uncomfortable when heard on headphones. ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: September 26 2007 at 12:06
|
Yes, I dislike remixes as a rule. The Free ones were absolutely ghastly; I remember we had a best of called 'All Right Now' and all the drum tracks sounded very '80s' all of a sudden and totally at odds with the timeless-sounding (IMHO) originals. I didn't buy the Doors ones either in fear of a similar mess.
I'm not an audiophile, but some remasters are not necessarily always all that wonderful. Certainly, the Sanctuary Uriah Heep ones are very hit and miss; 'Return To Fantasy' in particular is a real mess, especially on 'Prima Donna' where there's drop-out at the start where there shouldn't be, and the instrumental section of 'Devil's Daughter' unaccountably gets quieter! The new Genesis ones I can't say I was impressed by the way they sounded on 2 channel; I find the new one of 'And Then There Were Three' unlistenable, actually. The others weren't quite so bad, IMHO, though some of them unaccountably had musical bits disappeared; the backing vocals on 'Your Own Special Way' in the climax were gone (the 'of holding my hand...' bit) and a guitar sting from 'Misunderstanding' similarly vanished! I bought them for the 5.1 versions and the various footage...
I remember the very first pressing of the 'Deep Purple In Rock' remastered CD had a flaw; it jumped all over the place on 'Living Wreck' and Blackmore's guitar burnout on 'Hard Lovin' Man' cut off suddenly! I actually found this out to my detriment when buying the remaster for the first time 5 years ago, yet I read that all these copies should have been withdrawn years before that!!
Some of the audiophiles were not pleased by the VDGG remasters, but I thought those were excellent.
|
Posted By: Zargus
Date Posted: September 26 2007 at 13:11
I heard a vinyl LP of "In Rock" by Deep Purple one time and it was a real dissapointment the sound was flat and simply lame no action, comperede to my remastered CD wich has much beter bass and dynamic. So i prefer CDs by far but i gues it depend what you grow up with. Another bad thing with LPs is they are so BIG! one whonder where you put thos things?  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 26 2007 at 13:52
They may be big, but they are also quite thin,
So in any given width, you can squeeze a lot in. ------------- What? |
Posted By: jimidom
Date Posted: September 26 2007 at 13:56
Yeah, except for those 180g Classic Records reissues and 200g MFSL half speeds in my collection ------------- "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - HST |
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: September 26 2007 at 15:24
|
Leaving vinyl out of this, I greatly prefer remastered CD's. They usually sound better and surely not worse(except perhaps a few rare exceptions, but I'd know before buying), and the package is always miles better, plus the often excellent bonus tracks. I'm really into special/limited editions as well
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: ten years after
Date Posted: September 27 2007 at 09:12
|
Improving technical quality does not necesarily improve artistic quality. Indeed, it can introduce an element of sterility. Also, enjoyment of music involves many inputs that are nothing to do with musical perfection. As a teenager some of my albums acquired a few audible scratches from being played to death. I've long since lost all of those albums but listening now to the CD i often find i miss a familiar click or hiss . This is, of course, nostalgia rather than musical appreciation but so what..
|
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: September 27 2007 at 12:10
|
Just add EQ normally add treble and bass (pending) next step is to apply the dreaded compression but only of the high peaks nothing else best not to over do this next maximise volume to just below where it starts to clip ...and Bobs your uncle 90% of standard original recordings are improved greatly not much point fooling around with recordings made later than about 1990 in my opinion they are normally done with CD in mind a good result should lift the gain of the recording by about 2 - 4 DB and without any added clipping !!! but also make it very dynamic and rich in texture for older recordings tape hiss is noticable there are tools for removing this but expect to change sounds like cymbals ect ... I just accept the hiss ... you should hear how well the first Pavlov's Dog CD I did today come up .. its fantastic apart from the original tape hiss which isn't bad and certainly no worse that it was before I started working on it but I want to keep the personality there just build on it. could easily remove the hiss but if you know anything about engineering every action seems to have a reaction ( like not hearing any cymbals) so I just left it. |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: September 28 2007 at 01:20
Speak for yourself. Yessongs was the first Yes album I heard and I was not pleased with the boxy sound of the studio albums I heard later. So I will take a slightly dirty sound if the alternative is to sacrifice rawness and power. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: September 28 2007 at 01:26
| Glad you like it, I just thought it lacked bass, rough sound is OK with me. |
Posted By: Philip
Date Posted: September 28 2007 at 14:14
|
The original recordings most of the times.
See "Days of Future Passed" by Moody Blues and all the cd remastered versions of this great album.
|
Posted By: ten years after
Date Posted: September 29 2007 at 00:15
| Agree. With the exception of Perpetual Change (with its rather half-hearted drun solo), I prefer the Yessongs version to the album version of every track. |
Posted By: Meng
Date Posted: October 04 2007 at 18:29
|
Try this for lots of interesting threads/discussions on this subject:
www.stevehoffman.tv ------------- "Who are all these people in my office anyway?" |
Posted By: Phil
Date Posted: October 04 2007 at 18:37
| In general, the CD's. As an example, I have a lot of affection for my first vinyl copy of Close to the Edge, but the second one (the forst simply wore out) was poor quality; the first CD was a pretty poor transcript, but the subsequent re master was much better (and the rhino sleeve notes and art did a decent job of recapturing some of the spirit of the original) |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 04 2007 at 18:47
Have you tried making scratch noises with you mouth when listen to them? Scrrc Scrrc Scrrc. And who can forget this classic vinyl sound: Voooiiipe. And maybe your cat can chip in with some hissing if you have one. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: October 04 2007 at 18:59
Voooiiipe <-----LMAO!
|