Mono or stereo version? Original or remastered? - Music

YoungPunk

I think it can go both ways. While I appreciated how Prince stuck to the original version of his album to maintain artistic control and integrity over his CDs, I must admit that I really like what Fleetwood Mac is doing with their remasters (Now just getting that old stuff off of YouTube Razz

)

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Graeme2 wrote:

Brings out stuff you don't pick up on the cd version I have.

I've noticed this as well on quite a few vinyl releases. Even when compared to FLAC.

The Smashing Pumpkins' Siamese Dream I bought for example said specifically mastered for vinyl... I thought it was a marketing gimmick, but I was picking up all kinds of subtleties I didn't get before after years of listening to them via CD/digitally.

Then there's the vinyl which comes from the digital masters.

Anyone know if in this case the medium matters or just the master was improved/changed (either as it got digitized or vice versa)? (I imagine the latter).

rkm

sethmadsen wrote:

I've noticed this as well on quite a few vinyl releases. Even when compared to FLAC.

The Smashing Pumpkins' Siamese Dream I bought for example said specifically mastered for vinyl... I thought it was a marketing gimmick, but I was picking up all kinds of subtleties I didn't get before after years of listening to them via CD/digitally.

Then there's the vinyl which comes from the digital masters.

Anyone know if in this case the medium matters or just the master was improved/changed (either as it got digitized or vice versa)? (I imagine the latter).

Ideally, a remaster should be done from the original studio mixes, not from an already mastered version. It’s mostly unclear with new vinyl exactly where the audio was sourced from.

Mastering is a broad term, but even if the source is a digital master, getting it onto vinyl may require some tweaking. By nature, vinyl has limitations. There’s only so much bottom end it can handle, and if the music is constantly loud there won’t be much recording time on offer. The medium of vinyl benefits from requiring more dynamic range.

Those things aside, even if a digital master was directly transferred to vinyl, there is the RIAA curve that is coded into the pressing, and decoded by your phono preamp. Some people feel that this process contributes a particular sound. There’s also the colouring that your particular gear: turntable, cartridge, phono preamp are contributing. So, at the end of the day, even if the mastering is intended to be the same on CD or Vinyl, you may hear a difference.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

rkm

For a long time I’ve wanted to buy the Beatles Mono Vinyl Box Set. Ideally, you need a mono cartridge for your turntable, apparently.

bobbyb5

Gender: Male
Location: New York

It varies so much. Sometimes remastered and stereo versions just sound all wrong. And other times they sound fuller and more exciting than the original. More often than not I find them disorienting. This could be because I'm so used to the original, but a lot of times it sounds like the singer's voice or the instruments are coming from the wrong place. As if the musicians took the wrong positions in the studio. I'm like... "Why is that guitar over here when it used to be over there?" Or maybe.. "Why is he singing in my right ear when he used to be singing right in front of me???". LMAO

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

You know one thing I really think I understand and then realize I have no idea what I'm talking about:
mono vs panned

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

rkm wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

I've noticed this as well on quite a few vinyl releases. Even when compared to FLAC.

The Smashing Pumpkins' Siamese Dream I bought for example said specifically mastered for vinyl... I thought it was a marketing gimmick, but I was picking up all kinds of subtleties I didn't get before after years of listening to them via CD/digitally.

Then there's the vinyl which comes from the digital masters.

Anyone know if in this case the medium matters or just the master was improved/changed (either as it got digitized or vice versa)? (I imagine the latter).

Ideally, a remaster should be done from the original studio mixes, not from an already mastered version. It’s mostly unclear with new vinyl exactly where the audio was sourced from.

Mastering is a broad term, but even if the source is a digital master, getting it onto vinyl may require some tweaking. By nature, vinyl has limitations. There’s only so much bottom end it can handle, and if the music is constantly loud there won’t be much recording time on offer. The medium of vinyl benefits from requiring more dynamic range.

Those things aside, even if a digital master was directly transferred to vinyl, there is the RIAA curve that is coded into the pressing, and decoded by your phono preamp. Some people feel that this process contributes a particular sound. There’s also the colouring that your particular gear: turntable, cartridge, phono preamp are contributing. So, at the end of the day, even if the mastering is intended to be the same on CD or Vinyl, you may hear a difference.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

Thanks for the info mate!

Graeme2

Gender: Male
Location: The Upside Down

I don't have much in depth technical knowledge in this area but when thinking of buying any new vinyl reissues of mass produced classic albums, best just avoid. Most I think are done on the cheap from some digital source and nearly always sound shite. If you see something along these lines you want and there is no sticker on the front giving extra info, avoid. I bought a "back to black" version of Nevermind as it was cheap. I knew it would be rubbish but because it was 8 quid I had a punt. Worst vinyl I've ever heard. Took it back for refund.
The Otis Blue I bought had a sticker on saying how it was mastered, that care had been taken to produce the best sound ever for the release. I do laugh though when I see stickers on vinyl only saying "pressed on 180g audiophile vinyl". Save your money on all theses mass produced mega sales albums and either buy an original or just get the cd for a fiver. Unless you want to frame the cover (cover art is normally spot on) or just play it on one of those portable things.

PurpleHazel

Lachapelle wrote:

I had only ever heard the original mix on CD and Spotify

You're obviously well aware of these issues, but for clarity's sake, I just wanted to point out there's a huge difference between the original vinyl and the first CD release if the CD came out before the mid-90s (Octopus' first CD reissue was released in 1990). Most back catalog CD releases from the 80s and early 90s sound terrible to my ears. New releases from the era might not sound so hot either, but most of the catalog ones, particularly from Warner Bros. (including Atlantic and Elektra) and CBS/Sony sound shitty to me.

Not an audiophile, but a vinyl rerelease from a digital source sounds completely self-defeating to me.

JOSweetHeart

Gender: Female
Age: 41
Location: East Tennessee

I guess that if an album can be remastered, going with that copy is the better option, but if such an option didn't exist, I would still be able to sleep when going to bed. Having one copy of your favorite music at all in my opinion is better than not having it at all.

God bless you always!!!

Holly
_________________
Me & my favorite singer James Otto

Check him out here when you can!