What remastered CDs have blown you away ?

[timetohunt]

On remastered CDs. - (something of which I actually know very little)

1. What has been your overall experience? Worth replacing your original?

2. What are some remasters that blew you away ?

- for me one was the rolling stones abck remaster of beggars banquet (i'm not much of a stones fan, but that recording took em up a notch for me, world of difference)

3. What were some remasters that should have been criminally prosecuted for fraud ? ie. junk, in your opinion.

4. What is the deal with 24ct gold remasters? Absolute gimmick or is there actually something redeaming other than collector interest? (yea, I know the price of gold is thru the roof)

5. And one more, after what year roughly, does remastering seem to have less general impact. I guess you could really have some poor work/judgment made in recent years, so that a remaster could be a great improvement. Outside of that, at what point in time did it generally become meaningless due to the increased sophistication of equipment?

Any other thoughts on remastering welcome. Just answer what ya want. I know its a lot of questions. Thanks

 

[Nomo]

Remastering to me means loud with no dynamic range. Several of the Heart re-releases as an example. Not to pick on them, they were simply my latest purchases.
There are very few if any CD remasters that have given a good experience.

Some SACDs are the exception. The obvious Pink Floyd's DSOM and also Elton John's Madman Across the Water were, to me, head and shoulders above the originals. But not so much for their superior sound quality as much as for the multi channel experience.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

The Alan Parsons remasters are great. So is the remaster of Jethro Tull's Songs from the Wood that I listened to last night. The Genesis "definitive edition" remasters from a few years back were really good, but I have been told that the ones in the new boxed set suck.
I generally find that I prefer a remaster to any original CD released earlier than about 1995 or so. A few, however, are not much better than the originals (eg the Eno solo CDs, Kate Bush's Hounds of Love.)

 

[stratman]

I have a few remasters from Mo-Fi, Pink Floyd, Boz Scaggs and Steely Dan that are excellent, they're all from the the late 80s and their sound isn't compressed, but to be frank I don't find stellar night-to-day differences between those and the original releases. Maybe it's because the orignal release were of such high quality that the "re-master" was more "gimmicky" than anything else, new packaging, pretty gold CD, more money......

 

[Hawkeye]

The Alan Parsons remasters are great.

I wish I could agree with you. I want to, really. I was left somewhat disappointed with the APP remasters. I think they do sound, in many cases, a bit better than the original release cds but unfortunately a bit more digitally compressed than I would have preferred. Don't get me wrong, overall I like them, but I thought they should have been better. Still worth it to me to get them just for the extras. Now that IR, TOAFC, and EITS are once again available in HDAD format, those are the way to go since they leave the remasters in their dust. Also, if you can find it pick up MoFi's "Tales of Mystery..." cd. It's the definitive (and the original) version of the Project's first release.

Remasters in general? Hit or miss. Depends on who is doing the mastering I suppose. In many cases (all too many unfortunately) remastered does not automatically mean better.

 

[Biggiesized]

My favorite remaster is the 1997 re-issue of "Raw Power" by Iggy Pop and the Stooges.

 

[shokhead]

CCR's SACD's done by Steve Hoffman, Greaaaaaaaaaaaat!
Some of the Essentials like Heart and SRV were ok.
Any DCC done by Hoffman and alot of the MFSL are keepers always.

 

[Biggiesized]

This'll be a perfect time to ask.

Who's the girl in shokhead's avatar?

 

[shokhead]

Maybe not her!

 

[STRONGBADF1]

Maybe not her!

Sick man...

 

[Pyrrho]

I have never been "blown away" by remastered CDs. But in all cases of the ones I have purchased, the remastered version was better. For example, I have purchased at least 3 different copies of Mozart's Horn Concerti with Dennis Brain (it has been remastered at least twice), and each time, the newer remastered version was slightly better than the earlier version.

In my experience, if you already have a version, a remastered one is only worthwhile if you have money to burn, or really like the particular disc in question. And, of course, you should hang onto your old version until after hearing the new one, in case you don't like the new one.

The biggest difference I have ever heard in remastering has been with the Beatles Yellow Submarine Songtrack (Let it Be...Naked was a different mix, eliminating the choir, so it goes beyond simply remastering). The Yellow Submarine Songtrack is much clearer than the original, but, still, one needs to like the music on it more than just casually for it to be worth it, unless, of course, one has money to burn.

I suppose I should point out that some music that is very old, and is now in the public domain, has been issued by more than one company, and each mastering by different companies may differ in quality considerably. Surprisingly enough, though, it is often the case that an "off brand" does a better job with it than the original company. Here are a couple of good examples of "off brands" doing a good job:

http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Fives-Sevens-Louis-Armstrong/dp/B00001ZWLP/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00030B92K/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

With both of the above, they can be purchased one disc at a time, instead of in the above sets, if one wishes.

Also, some people prefer that with such old recordings, that great effort is done to remove record surface noise. Unfortunately, that always interferes with the music, so it sounds less natural when made quieter. The above sets sound as natural as you will probably ever be able to hear them, so they both contain record surface noise.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

The biggest difference I have ever heard in remastering has been with the Beatles Yellow Submarine Songtrack (Let it Be...Naked was a different mix, eliminating the choir, so it goes beyond simply remastering). noise.

Oh, I agree, and thank's for the reminder. I wish the same people would remaster the rest of the Beatles calalog, because that one sounds dramatically better than any of the others. (Not counting Love, of course.)

 

[Biggiesized]

I think Rhino does a great job with remasters. I've listened to some CDs of Sam Cooke and Bobby Darin that they've done. Top notch!

 

[Pyrrho]

Oh, I agree, and thank's for the reminder. I wish the same people would remaster the rest of the Beatles calalog, because that one sounds dramatically better than any of the others. (Not counting Love, of course.)

I think one reason the Yellow Submarine Songtrack sounds much better is that they went back to the multi-track tapes and converted each track to digital, and then remixed it, seemingly trying to get basically the same balance as the original mix. I don't know how many generations of analog they went through with the original release, but every time you make an analog copy, you add distortion, add noise/hiss, add wow and flutter, and mess up the frequency response further. So, if one can go to the original tracks and convert them to digital for remixing, one can eliminate a lot of problems. If, however, one had a two track stereo recording of a live performance, and it was simply a copy of that that was released, then improving it would be more difficult. Thus, a remastered version of such a thing would not be likely to be a vast improvement over the original. And, of course, in the case of a multi-track recording, if the original multi-track recording was not kept, or not properly stored, then, again, it would be difficult to get such an improvement as was obtained with the Yellow Submarine Songtrack. But with the Beatles, they were a valuable commodity, and their tapes were probably kept and stored better than most bands of their era. They might remix everything the Beatles did on multi-track tape eventually, if they think they can make enough of a profit from doing so. But given that the other sells, and that remixing costs money, they might not think it is a good investment for them to remix it all. Plus, of course, there are legal considerations of rights to the recordings, and the various parties involved need to agree about what is to be done before it can be rereleased.

 

[shokhead]

I have never been "blown away" by remastered CDs. But in all cases of the ones I have purchased, the remastered version was better. For example, I have purchased at least 3 different copies of Mozart's Horn Concerti with Dennis Brain (it has been remastered at least twice), and each time, the newer remastered version was slightly better than the earlier version.

In my experience, if you already have a version, a remastered one is only worthwhile if you have money to burn, or really like the particular disc in question. And, of course, you should hang onto your old version until after hearing the new one, in case you don't like the new one.

The biggest difference I have ever heard in remastering has been with the Beatles Yellow Submarine Songtrack (Let it Be...Naked was a different mix, eliminating the choir, so it goes beyond simply remastering). The Yellow Submarine Songtrack is much clearer than the original, but, still, one needs to like the music on it more than just casually for it to be worth it, unless, of course, one has money to burn.

I suppose I should point out that some music that is very old, and is now in the public domain, has been issued by more than one company, and each mastering by different companies may differ in quality considerably. Surprisingly enough, though, it is often the case that an "off brand" does a better job with it than the original company. Here are a couple of good examples of "off brands" doing a good job:

http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Fives-Sevens-Louis-Armstrong/dp/B00001ZWLP/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00030B92K/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

With both of the above, they can be purchased one disc at a time, instead of in the above sets, if one wishes.

Also, some people prefer that with such old recordings, that great effort is done to remove record surface noise. Unfortunately, that always interferes with the music, so it sounds less natural when made quieter. The above sets sound as natural as you will probably ever be able to hear them, so they both contain record surface noise.

It's what is used to remaster not who did it or the label. If you remaster with a second or third generation master who cars.

 

[Biggiesized]

FYI, the Beatles albums ARE being remastered right now. McCartney has been wanting to do it and I believe they've been working on them since last year.

 

[MDS]

I think Rhino does a great job with remasters.

I agree with that. I think Rhino does a very good job with remasters. They pump up the average level (volume) a bit but don't seem to crush the life out of it.

Rhino's Flashback label is the absolute best bang for the buck if you are looking for older bands and greatest hits kind of compilations. They use the original masters with just a bit of cleaning up and they sound great, not to mention they are cheap (under $10 usually).

 

[Pyrrho]

It's what is used to remaster not who did it or the label. If you remaster with a second or third generation master who cars.

No, that is not true. If you listen to the CDs at the link above, and compare with the RCA and Columbia releases of both sets, you will hear a very different thing, even though all are mastered from 78s. RCA and Columbia tried to remove the record surface noise, and the others tried to preserve the audio that was recorded. Thus, the "off brands" listed have more record surface noise on the CDs, but sound more natural. The RCA and Columbia sets have less record surface noise, but sound less natural. Of course, had RCA and Columbia wanted to do so, they could have followed the same types of procedures as Naxos and JSP. But RCA and Columbia chose to process the sound to try to get rid of record surface noise instead.

In other words, it isn't just a matter of what source is used to master a CD, but also the choices that are made with regard to how it is processed that affect the end results. Different companies tend to follow different approaches to such matters, as the above examples illustrate.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I wish I could agree with you. I want to, really. I was left somewhat disappointed with the APP remasters.

Well, my remasters of Pyramid and Turn of a Freindly Card arrived last night, and "blown away" is definitely the phrase I would use. I am probably more familiar with Pyramid than any other recording in existence, so I really appreciated the fact that I was able to hear subtleties that I have never picked up on before.

 

[shokhead]

No, that is not true. If you listen to the CDs at the link above, and compare with the RCA and Columbia releases of both sets, you will hear a very different thing, even though all are mastered from 78s. RCA and Columbia tried to remove the record surface noise, and the others tried to preserve the audio that was recorded. Thus, the "off brands" listed have more record surface noise on the CDs, but sound more natural. The RCA and Columbia sets have less record surface noise, but sound less natural. Of course, had RCA and Columbia wanted to do so, they could have followed the same types of procedures as Naxos and JSP. But RCA and Columbia chose to process the sound to try to get rid of record surface noise instead.

In other words, it isn't just a matter of what source is used to master a CD, but also the choices that are made with regard to how it is processed that affect the end results. Different companies tend to follow different approaches to such matters, as the above examples illustrate.

Best way to get a true good remaster is from the org master tape. Of course even that can be screwed up by the person picked to re-master. Sometimes they need a little help to clean that master up but nowadays they seem to want to add 10db and take all the life out of them. How many times have you put in another cd without touching the volume only to be blasted because of that wonderful remaster or a new cd. Listen to some early cd from the 80's and to the new cd's now. Now sometimes they work out like LZ Mothership. A little loud but a pretty good job otherwise.