Remastered doesn't mean its any better

[Jean-Luc Pickguard]

Just tried listening to the new 20th anniverary remaster (was it really released that long ago?) of Trouble by Ray Lamontagne. The only way I can describe it compared to the original CD is that if it was a photo, it has had the colour saturation turned up to make it resemble a cartoon version of the original with all the instruments clumsily fighting for attention. Some things should be left alone.

 

Its not that I don't like change — I really like the 2018 remix of Pink Floyd's Animals which is a joy to listen to.

[Lozz196]

I’ve got two remasters, Never Mind The Bollocks by The Sex Pistols, and Appetite for Destruction by Guns N Roses. 
 

NMTB has a bit more oomph to the bass and the guitars seem a tad sharper/less middy.

 

AFD has better separation of the guitars so easier to tell which is Slash or Izzy, and the bass is boosted - a bit too much imo for listening at home but good for the car.

 

But for me when listening at home I prefer the originals, I bought the remasters for the car and the added low end on both was good for that.

[casapete]

I’m never sure whether it’s a good thing to interfere with stuff retrospectively.

There are arguments for leaving stuff as they were - of the time / how the artist

wanted it / equipment it was mixed to be played back on etc etc, with the flip side

being altering things to try and offset the original recordings being badly recorded 

& mixed to make them more ‘correct’ and suitable for modern times.

Personally I believe unless the originals were really catastrophic then it’s best to 

let them remain as they were intended, warts and all. 

[Cato]

I remeber being hugely underwhelmed by Led Zeppelin Remasters back in the 90s, especially after all the hype tjere was at the time

 

To be fair I was a poor student at the time and didn't have a high end hi fi system, but to me there was little difference between Remasters and the Led Zep albums I already had on cd, meaning I'd essentially bought a superfluous compilation album of stuff I already owned.

 

I've been skeptical of remastered rereleases ever since.

 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Cato

[Jean-Luc Pickguard]

I can see the point of a new mix/master if tracks were mastered for vinyl and the remastering improves how it sounds keeping the vibe of the original. For me, the PF's Animals '18 remix sounds more detailed as if it was painted with smaller brush strokes. Nothing has been made too prominent at the expense of anything else, but the '25 RL Trouble master sounds like every instrument is trying to be more upfront than everything else making it sound cluttered and fatiguing to listen to.

 

One album that genuinely baffles me though is the stooges' raw power. I have a few versions of this album and all sound a bit like they were mixed/mastered by someone with cotton wool in their ears.

 

The original mix sounds like there's a blanket over the speakers, the 1997 mix sounds like its being played too loud through speakers with ripped cones, and there's a 'legacy' version which sounds like the guitars are in another room with the door closed.

[Crusoe]

I know bugger all about music production. What is the difference between remixing a track and remastering it?

[Magister Ludi]

1 hour ago, casapete said:

I’m never sure whether it’s a good thing to interfere with stuff retrospectively.

There are arguments for leaving stuff as they were - of the time / how the artist

wanted it / equipment it was mixed to be played back on etc etc, with the flip side

being altering things to try and offset the original recordings being badly recorded 

& mixed to make them more ‘correct’ and suitable for modern times.

Personally I believe unless the originals were really catastrophic then it’s best to 

let them remain as they were intended, warts and all. 

^This

The other reason for change is greed....ie 'Apple"  they appear to have converted their entire back catalogue,not once but multiple times in some cases-and what garbage comes back ? An American view of all music created by back street studios wholesale with no no finesse at all- just mass producing the music for apples viewpoint. And of course that new noise is a bigger profit for them times how much ? I hate remastered stuff in the main-because having grownup with the music why should I have to suffer the dirges produced for the different tech offered by a company that is just another US trillion dollar company wanting more shareholder bucks.

Rant over........

[BigRedX]

Just now, Crusoe said:

I know bugger all about music production. What is the difference between remixing a track and remastering it?

 

Mastering is applied to the final stereo (or mono) mix. It involves EQ, compression - usually multi-band - and for vinyl collapsing any stereo imaging of low frequencies into mono. All the changes are global and any apparent change to the mix will be the result of the EQ and multi-band compression. Generally a separate master is required for each delivery medium - vinyl, Compact Cassette, CD/Uncompressed Digital, Compressed Digital in order to play to the strengths of each, and in the case of vinyl make sure the audio capable of being cut. 

 

Anything involving the use of the original multi-track recording or "stems" should be labelled as a remix.

[howdenspur]

1 hour ago, Jean-Luc Pickguard said:

I can see the point of a new mix/master if tracks were mastered for vinyl and the remastering improves how it sounds keeping the vibe of the original. For me, the PF's Animals '18 remix sounds more detailed as if it was painted with smaller brush strokes. Nothing has been made too prominent at the expense of anything else, but the '25 RL Trouble master sounds like every instrument is trying to be more upfront than everything else making it sound cluttered and fatiguing to listen to.

 

One album that genuinely baffles me though is the stooges' raw power. I have a few versions of this album and all sound a bit like they were mixed/mastered by someone with cotton wool in their ears.

 

The original mix sounds like there's a blanket over the speakers, the 1997 mix sounds like its being played too loud through speakers with ripped cones, and there's a 'legacy' version which sounds like the guitars are in another room with the door closed.

I was going to chip in on Raw Power. I'd got used to the weird muffled original production I'd got on vinyl. Bought the Iggy remaster and nearly crashed the car when Search and Destroy kicked off.

Too loud man...

[RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE]

I heard that there was a huge fire which destroyed all the original recordings on the universal label a few years ago..

A friend of mine thinks that Universal purchased all the original recordings of so many artists , and that a lot of original material is lost forever.

I think he has the wrong end of the stick , and has misheard / misread the information .

 

I do know ( well 90+% sure ) that a lot of the original tapes of the United Artists Back catalogue did get thrown out / erased and are no longer available .

For example ,’warrior on the edge of time ‘by Hawkwind . 
Can somebody please clarify / correct please .

 

Anyway , briefly I think remasters in general vary . I do love the way the Rolling Stones and Black Sabbath did a great job on their CDs with original artwork just like the vinyl.

Other stuff not so much . Rush for example ; their original remaster CDs can be had at a pittance. Now everything has to have lots of extras thrown in to inflate the price .

Metallica ; And Justuce For All in a deluxe box set 😹😹😹.  They have always been a lazy band in the studio, and I just cannot be bothered getting fleeced by them .

I think audio wise ( not too expensive )compared to deluxe rip off prices  , the original Japanese pressings ( cd and vinyl ) sound fantastic most of the time , and often better than original U.K./ European/ us pressings . Only imho of course 

[AMV001]

47 minutes ago, RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE said:

For example ,’warrior on the edge of time ‘by Hawkwind . 
Can somebody please clarify / correct please .

Those masters still exist, as it recently had the Steven Wilson remix treatment- https://www.cherryred.co.uk/warrior-on-the-edge-of-time-three-disc-expanded-edition

 

Same with 'Space Ritual' and 'Doremi...'. and I see 'Hall Of The Mountain Grill' is due in August.

Edited 7 hours ago by AMV001

[AMV001]

4 hours ago, Jean-Luc Pickguard said:

One album that genuinely baffles me though is the stooges' raw power. I have a few versions of this album and all sound a bit like they were mixed/mastered by someone with cotton wool in their ears.

I'm with you on that one as 'Raw Power' is one of my favourite albums of all time. The accepted reason for its poor quality for a long time was that the rhythm section tracks had been bounced down and were therefore all Bowie had to work with when he did the original mix. Obviously Iggy's 1997 mix blew that fact out of the water but that remix is such an utter piece of garbage that its unlistenable.

'Raw Power' really deserves to be remixed by someone competent. So do the pre 'Raw Power' demos of all the great tracks that Main Man rejected ('I Got A Right' 'Scene Of The Crime' etc) although, as demos, the chances of those multitracks existing would be slight, I would suspect. Mind you, even in their current state they still sound better than anything on any version of 'Raw Power'.

Edited 7 hours ago by AMV001

[prowla]

I've got some good remasters & remixes and some not so good.

The Beatles Giles Martin ones are really good (though you can tell that Macca was involved and Ringo wasn't!).

Steve Wilson does some good stuff, but sometimes he's hampered by whether the originals are available to work from (a couple of albums are missing bits).

Rush ones can be variable - one of the albums was deliberately recorded to sound good on cheap radios and the information simply isn't there to get back.

I think some of the remixes/remasters were done by people who've lost the upper ranges of their hearing, because they can be like sandpaper on the ears.

It's all very much a mixed bag.

[PaulWarning]

Remixes can make a big difference, remasters not so much, most remixers/remasters I've heard involve the bass being boosted, no bad thing IMO

[Marvin]

The remixed versions of the early ZZ Top albums were atrocious.  The added reverb sucked all the life out of the songs. 

[paul_5]

6 hours ago, Cato said:

I remeber being hugely underwhelmed by Led Zeppelin Remasters back in the 90s, especially after all the hype tjere was at the time

 

To be fair I was a poor student at the time and didn't have a high end hi fi system, but to me there was little difference between Remasters and the Led Zep albums I already had on cd, meaning I'd essentially bought a superfluous compilation album of stuff I already owned.

 

I've been skeptical of remastered rereleases ever since.

 

 

The latest remasters of the ZEP back catalogue is well worth buying the albums again - they sound amazing(er)!

[paul_5]

Could I also add that I’d like the vinyl pressing of ‘Californication’ to be remastered so that it’s a bit quieter - I have to add an extra half gram to my stylus whenever I listen to it to stop it jumping!

[Paul C]

I liked the remix/master of Pearl Jams Ten....but I know a few that don't as well

[MacDaddy]

12 hours ago, casapete said:

 

Personally I believe unless the originals were really catastrophic then it’s best to 

let them remain as they were intended, warts and all. 

 

IME this is the issue. The lack of control most bands would have had over how their first album sounded cannot be overstated. What the band intended and what the record company paid for are very different things.