Sort of OT: Remastered Music

[hawkhuff]

The question may seem obvious but after giving it some thought I am not so sure.

 

I was listening to the album "Plastic Ono Band", by John Lennon. It's one of Lennon's first projects, post Beatles, that comprised Lennon, Ringo Starr, Claus Voorman on bass and then some sit in guests. It's a great album and Voorman was one hell of a replacement for McCartney, don't you think?

 

Anyway, there seems to be a wave of remasters coming out on the market and iPod has released the series of Lennon albums as remasters. So, here is my question.

 

Has anyone ever done a side by side comparison of an 'old' CD and a 'remastered' CD. Is this really an improvement, a noticeable difference in music quality/clarity or is this a gimmick to get you to buy your collection all over again (a la conspiracy)?

 

Using the "Plastic Ono Band" example this was a vinyl disc when first released and I bought the CD a few years ago. Of course, there is a big difference between the two media and I've been quite happy to make the conversion. But to remaster this means exactly what? Noise reduction, enhancements? I suspect they're all different depending on the original master.

 

Opinions please.

[Rippin' Robin]

Yep.

 

Sometimes 're-mastered' albums are compressed to hell, or have sound effects added, courtesy of the discretion of whoever the hell was in control of the whole operation.

 

Usually I hate remasters of original CDs I own.

[Bonoman]

I personally can't tell much of a difference between remastered and originals. Maybe a slight clarity in the sound, but that might also just be the difference between vinyl and CD.

[guitargod0dmw]

 

Usually I hate remasters of original CDs I own.

 

 

Yup! The ones that stand out in my head the most are all of the Megadeth remasters.

 

Listen to Rust in Peace regular version VS. Rust in Peace Remastered. Tell me that you can't hear the difference. On all of the remastered Megadeth, Mustaine redid vocals, solos, bass lines, and other weird stuff.

 

The intro to Sweating Bullets on the original Countdown To Extinction was really good...so he changed it all around and {censored}ed it all up!!! I don't understand why he redid everything that was already perfect in the first place.

[i_wanna_les_paul]

 

Yep. Sometimes 're-mastered' albums are compressed to hell, or have sound effects added, courtesy of the discretion of whoever the hell was in control of the whole operation. Usually I hate remasters of original CDs I own.

 

Or in the case of some of the Ozzy CD's, some instruments are re-recorded - that pisses a lot of people off, too.

[Rippin' Robin]

Yup! The ones that stand out in my head the most are all of the Megadeth remasters. Listen to Rust in Peace regular version VS. Rust in Peace Remastered. Tell me that you can't hear the difference. On all of the remastered Megadeth, Mustaine redid vocals, solos, bass lines, and other weird stuff. The intro to Sweating Bullets on the original Countdown To Extinction was really good...so he changed it all around and {censored}ed it all up!!! I don't understand why he redid everything that was already perfect in the first place.

 

I'm glad I have the non-remastered CDs

[i_wanna_les_paul]

I'm glad I have the non-remastered CDs

Sounds like they had George Lucas syndrome. Just because you can make it "better" doesn't necessarily mean you should

[Rippin' Robin]

"Yes, yes, I know Warner Brothers asked you to do it again, but they meant: do it BETTER!"

[Pickdust]

I have a remastered CD of Abbey Road and can hear Sir Paul playing the wrong note that was dropped out during the original mix of Oh Darling. I have heard subsequent copies of this CD that have been fixed.

 

The most glaring example of remixed masters is the early Beatles stuff. The remastered stuff eliminated all the heavy (CCCHHHHHHH!) ride cymbal stuff that added so much to the original recordings. Now they sound kind of sterile.

 

Thank god there is a limited number of albums available for remastering.

 

PD

[Super Bass]

Actually I got a 101'ers remastered cd last week. It was Elgin Avenue Revisted. The 101'ers was Joe Strummers first band. I've heard the songs before mastering and they were unlistenable, dirty noisey and not very clear. The remastered ones are excellent. So clear, not too much compression, they usually murder remastered cd's with comp. This one was nice.

[T. Alan Smith]

I usually buy remasters. Like any mastering job, there's parts where the engineer(s) did a good job, and parts where he/they f*cked up. The most annoying thing, to my ears, about remasters is the seemingly excessive treble, but the improved staging, depth & clarity is worth it to me.

[Jamacuco]

I thought the original purpose on remastering was plainly transferring the original data/music (that is a master, isn't it?) that was on corruptable media (old tapes, vinyls and other outdated media) to a digital media (that has a reputation for better endurance than tapes) so the material could be reissued whenever it was needed to.

 

Of course the music industry made a whole new meaning to it...

[T. Alan Smith]

I thought the original purpose on remastering was plainly transferring the original data/music (that is a master, isn't it?) that was on corruptable media (old tapes, vinyls and other outdated media) to a digital media (that has a reputation for better endurance than tapes) so the material could be reissued whenever it was needed to.

 

Yup. That how it was SUPPOSED to be.

 

 

Of course the music industry made a whole new meaning to it...

 

Yup...answered your own question.

[picker13]

Some remastered recordings are re-mixed, or have parts re-done, and it's obvious. And yea, it does piss me off. To answer your question I think it is a trick to get you to buy the same music again. I didn't even buy CD's to replace my vinyl.