So I used to be a big believer in remastered CD reissues. I bought into the notion that the remaster would sound better, and I would rebuy albums to update them. Some remasters are a major improvement, but some actually sound worse as warmth and dynamics are sacrificed for clarity that is sometimes a little too clear. It might just be my stereo, but the instruments on the high end especially, like cymbals and tambourines, just sound harsh to my ears with a lot of remasters. Recently, I listened to tracks from the Big Star box set and some of the Pogues reissues, and I just felt like I was getting a headache. I don't want to hear the high hat that much! And the mandolin is high-pitched enough as it is. It shouldn't be compressed. And then sometimes the powers that be revise history, like in the Doors first album reissue (Well, Jim cussed more then and times have changed so even though it's more obnoxious and over the top, let's put it back in. Also, let's correct that weird pitch thing and make the Doors sound like an ordinary garage band again) WTF!
Anyway, I'm curious, what's been your experience with remasters? Which one's sound good, and which one's sound too compressed? Are remasters in general a ripoff scam on the part of the record companies? What makes them worth buying? At one point in time did some remasters start to suck soundwise? Is it just my stereo or my overly-sensitive ears? Let me know what you think. I'm curious.
I think it depends on genre, I dont have any examples at the moment, but I just know that Metal albums should be left the way they are _________________ Having a family is the kind of thing that could be held against a person
Generally I agree that remasters are pretty pointless if the original is good. I liked the 5.1 mix of The Flaming Lips Soft Bulletin, but it had more tracks...
random question concerning remasters, which version of Stooges Raw Power is best?
The Beatles remasters were mind-boggling, and I believe the John Lennon remasters coming later this year will be the same.
I agree. The Beatles remasters were done very tastefully and with the utmost care, but some aren't. With some, they crank up the compression so much it just ruins the sound, especially with acoustic instruments.
I'm not entirely sure what to type in this thread but to answer the orignal question, a bad point would be 'Would the artist have liked this'?
Considering that a lot of classic albums get remastered after the artist has died, they're not there to give their approval of whether they would like the music to have sounded a particular way.
Remasters are GOOD. Generally better sound and more tracks (unreleased, demos, alt takes, etc). Often better booklets too.
I'm fine with adding unreleased tracks, singles, B-sides and stuff like that, but I really don't like alternate takes and demos. They really cut up the flow of the album, to me. _________________ I love all music. It makes you feel like living. Silence is death.
Remasters are GOOD. Generally better sound and more tracks (unreleased, demos, alt takes, etc). Often better booklets too.
I'm fine with adding unreleased tracks, singles, B-sides and stuff like that, but I really don't like alternate takes and demos. They really cut up the flow of the album, to me.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Mr. Shankly
thomas697
Boogn1sh
RFNAPLES
40footwolf
