Remastered CDs

Thought I'd start a discussion on the merits (or, in some cases, lack thereof) of remastered versions of old albums.

I jut came back from the gym and stopped at Wal-Mart on the way. While I was there, I noticed that the new remasters of the first 3 Led Zeppelin records are out. Yay. I was wondering, anyone heard 'em yet? Thinking about getting them, but I'm wondering whether or not they clip, and if so, how badly.

I also have the remasters of the first 5 albums by The Jesus And Mary Chain on order at the local record store. I've heard good things about those online, but anyone here have any comment on that? And, finally, the first Oasis album's just been remastered (again). The previous Oasis remasters had TERRIBLE clipping going on. Absolutely atrocious, was wondering if the new one is better...

On the subject of REALLY BAD clipping, of course, it doesn't get much worse than Iggy Pop's 90s remaster of Raw Power, but the previous Oasis remasters sure as hell try...

If you want a really good version of Raw Power, you should check out the 2012 vinyl version of the album (I think it was a Record Store Day exclusive) if you haven't already and if you can track it down. It includes a new version of that infamous remaster except without the awful distortion and clipping. It's probably the best mix of that album I've ever heard.

Also, isn't this like the fourth time they've remastered the Led Zeppelin catalogue?

Another bad remaster example: the Nirvana remasters, sans any and all dynamic range.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

I recently got the remaster of "Superunknown" by Soundgarden, but I don't really hear any difference when compared to the original. Still, the bonus disc with demo's and b-sides is nice enough.

Sing the song of sixpence that goes burn the witch, we know where you live

Honestly, with regard to sound differences in remastering, I would think that, ideally, there really shouldn't be any differences at all from what was originally released. The purpose of remastering is essentially to keep the original master tapes of older albums in good condition (especially the older ones recorded on analog systems) or to transfer analog recordings to a digital format. Then, once that's done, they rerelease the music to a) make sure the market still has the music in its collective consciousness, and b) to replace the older versions of the music on the market, which at that point may have been sourced from when the tapes had been worn out to a point, before being recleaned and refurbished.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

I was unaware they'd ever remastered that record. Then again, they (unnecessarily) remastered Nirvana's key albums, so why the hell not? Though the lack of dynamic range on the Nevermind remaster is annoying. Still, I've heard much worse.

I don't have a record player, and I'm not motivated to get one. Vinyl would take up space that I don't have much of as is... And it damages easily. And it's more trouble to rip than C Ds are. And it can wind up with that annoying crackly shit... On the other hand, it usually does have better dynamics and less clipping. Usually. Still, I can probly find that mix online someplace. Since I already have a CD version of Raw Power, I won't feel any guilt over downloading another mix of it...

I think it's only the third time they've done it- and the old CD versions are kinda muddy sounding and quiet, the way most 80s/early 90s C Ds are- I like my music loud, but not so loud as to clip (and, of course, dynamic range is important). The main use of remastering, in my view, is to keep the masters in good shape/transfer them to digital (like ya said), remove muddiness and enhance clarity (and, in some cases, correct transfer errors that sometimes exist in older versions- for example, The Doors first album apparently played a bit slow in earlier pressings, causing all the songs on it to be somewhat out of tune...) and to make it louder (hopefully without removing the dynamics and without causing excessive clipping) than previous, often excessively quiet versions.

The remaster came out last friday, so it's understandable you missed it.

Sing the song of sixpence that goes burn the witch, we know where you live

Fair enough. I'll wait for that one until they remaster the rest of Soundgarden's discography. Or maybe not bother at all, the original CD isn't too bad...

As far as making albums "less muddy", sometimes fans prefer the muddy sound. I remember when Gold by Starflyer 59 got remastered, some fans were thrilled that the instruments were clearer—and others lamented that the album had been ruined. (There was also a slight loss in dynamics with the remaster but it's not that noticeable.) I'm personally of the opinion that the original does sound a little better, but the new version wasn't ruined.

edited 4th Jun '14 12:32:44 PM by MetaFour

See, that I never quite got with album mastering. With mastering, say, a radio single more loudly, I can see the logic behind that, since the louder it is, the more easily it will catch people's attention. With an album? They already have it, and if they want to hear it more loudly, they can just turn up their speakers. If you make it too loud (even ignoring the distortion and dynamic range issues), it could just be fatiguing and, if you need to turn it down for what for some reason, could be kinda difficult. I know I have some music which is jarringly much louder than others—I remember once I was half asleep listening to music on my iPod at the lowest volume possible, and suddenly a Kanye West song came on and I was shocked awake.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

It all depends on how much louder, and on how loud your player (or speakers/headphones) go up- sometime players play everything (even very loud records) QUIETLY- my second diskman (I've had three over the years before switching to my current mp3 player) was like that. I had great sound (t'was expensive), but it was really friggin' quiet, so outside noises could easily drown out the music. And noise cancelling headphones (which render the whole "outside noises drowning out the music" issue a nonentity) were beyond my budget at the time (I was in high school, and the player was beyond my budget too- it was a gift).

Nowadays the whole thing is much less of an issue to me- only in rare cases is an album to quiet for my current portable system, and my computer has a lot more flexibility in terms of volume anyways...

Basically, for me there's an ideal volume level- loud, but not so loud it actually causes pain or fatigue. And I don't much care for having to twiddle too many knobs to get it.

Muddiness is a function of genre, like pretty much all other aspects of production. Some things are intentionally murky, and that's not always a bad thing. Depends how it's done and what the music is.

Remastering has nothing to do with sound quality. That depends solely on the people involved. If they use their brains and don't %*#@ up, the result will sound as nice as the source tapes (or source digital files). I have several remastered discs, some sound terrible, some amazing. I own the original and remastered releases of The Rhythmatist by Stewart Copeland. The original was produced from a copy of a copy (at least), so the sound is weak and there is a lot of tape hiss (audible by me because my ears are just that good). The remastered version has much less hiss, slightly louder volume (louder than "too quiet"), and overall better everything.

The worst story dealing with remastering I can tell is about the third album by Sad Lovers & Giants (who totally deserve a page btw). The original was released on vinyl in 1987, and on CD a year later, containing all the b-sides from it. The original 1988 release was "remastered" in 2010. The mixing is worse. And while it is not super terrible, it is sad feels inducing, to hear the original and remake side by side. Did the people responsible even care?? But the mixing is not the real sad part. No, the new release has some extra instruments added to the perfect original versions, at times very awkwardly, destroying the original minimalist feel. And if that wasn't sad enough, the original release is almost unavailable. I was extremely lucky to find two copies on sale on a website I trust. I got one, and now there is only one left. Only one left on the entire web. And it was put on iTunes, but the quality is strangely low (do they even know how to extract from a CD properly?) and the last track has an artifact created by bad ripping on their part. I am happy for owning the original, and I will find a way to share it with the world, but I am also sad for all the potential fans who will never own a hard copy of the original release.

edited 4th Jun '14 8:22:55 PM by KlarkKentThe3rd

Eh, I personally don't like the white noise given off by noise-cancelling headphones—messes too much with the sound for my tastes. I'd say you're better off without 'em.

Ah, but see, if old. stale tapes are being used as the source for current releases, then remastering those tapes would involve getting them back to sounding the way they should, and, thus, better, right?

Like I said earlier, though, certainly, an ideal remaster should sound just like the original recording on the day it was first mastered.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

My point is the same as yours.

Seems to depend on the headphones. Some have white noise issues, some don't. The white noise is less noticeable in most cases when the music's on and there's outside noise in the background, since it's meant to cancel out outside noise via destructive interference (I believe). You need to spend a few hundred dollars and get the expensive shit. I have the resources to do that now.

Also, I record music (both my own and other people's) in my spare time (took courses in sound engineering a few years back, have been purchasing recording equipment for a while now), so having noise-cancelling phones would be useful, since I don't have the luxury of being able to be in a separate room from the artist(s) I'm working with yet (still live with the parents for now, usually use the basement for recording, since it has pretty good acoustics- high ceiling, lotsa space). It'd be nice to hear what I'm getting into my mics rather than what the rest of the room sounds like...

Agreed, in principle. Basically, remastering is for getting rid of tape noise/unwanted murkiness caused by degraded tapes or just questionable tape quality. It's NOT about fucking with the sound unnecessarily. Anyone who does that is mud in my books... If they go back and tamper with the music substantially, they'd be (re)editing or remixing it, not remastering it. I think the primary point is to get into a digital medium, more than anything else, though, and to save the masters that way before the tape goes completely.

I know Kraftwerk remastered their albums somewhat recently. I can't hear much of a difference though and since I already have the old CD releases I'm not motivated to rebuy them. Then again, I was never that picky about audio, as long as it isn't enough to distract me from the music.

My tropes launched: https://surenity2.blogspot.com/2021/02/my-tropes-on-tv-tropes.html

The Kraftwerk remasters are pretty good, dude. Nice and clear, and a bit louder than the first CD edition, but not excessively compressed, which I like. My only complaint is that Computer World can only be obtained as an import...

Nice to have ya join us, man. Been a while.

The Kraftwerk albums were painstakingly remastered. That box set and the re-releases were actually all delayed by a matter of years (they were originally supposed to come out in 2004 or something instead of 2009) because Ralf Hütter was unhappy with how the remastering supposedly "destroyed" some of the sounds that were generated out of pink noise and white noise generators. I remember reading about it somewhere and knowing how much of a perfectionist he is I wasn't surprised at all. I guess you can compare the original remaster and the final remaster if you're willing to track down one of the promo copies of what the box set was originally supposed to be : http://www.discogs.com/release/989658

As far as the actual remastering goes, I have to say I haven't really bothered with the new ones, since I already owned almost all the albums on there beforehand. However I have a couple of the new cds (Electric Café, um sorry Techno Pop, and Radioactivity) but haven't really took the time to compare them. I did notice Elec... Techno Pop sounded quite a lot punchier than I remembered though.

edited 5th Jun '14 3:00:35 PM by Akalabth

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

Wouldn't you be better served getting a noise-canceling *microphone* instead of headphones? And then use a really good pair of non-noise canceling cans that are nonetheless closed and able to block out the sound?

I say just get passive noise cancelling ones, cause the active ones alter the sound, and that's terrible. I recommend ATH M40x.

edited 5th Jun '14 6:05:40 PM by KlarkKentThe3rd

The Kraftwerk remasters are some of the best remasters I've ever heard. Very clear and clean.

The remaster/reissue of Serge Gainsbourg Histoire de Melody Nelson is pretty good, apart from the fact that the bass has slightly less volume than the original one.

The Can remasters of those famous three albums are also good.

edited 5th Jun '14 7:08:52 PM by Quag15

I like remasters that leave a bit of the old rawness around but get rid of the static, fuzz, and excess distorion. You still have a jagged piece of work but it's not buried under a veil of murk now. Adramelch's ''Irae Melanox'' is a great example, with the original having a very thin and raw production that greatly emphasized its lead melodies and gave it a gloomy and vast feel. The remaster doesn't change this but clears away enough of the sonic fog so you can better appreciate the bigger picture it presents.

Only Death Is Real

@ Nettacki: Are noise-cancelling mics even a thing? Generally, mics catch whatever they're pointed at, in my experience, that's the point, after all. It's not my mics that are making unwanted noise. They're catching what they're supposed to catch, generally speaking. It's that, since I don't have a separate control room (since this is in my basement), I normally can't hear the headphone mix (i.e. the stuff that's actually being recorded) over the sound of the band playing. In professional studios, everything's soundproofed, so the sound of the band playing in the room (or in separate rooms, or booths, or whatever) doesn't reach the control room so much, and what plays over the studio monitors in said control room is just the stuff the mics are picking up...

You have a point, though- a really GOOD pair of closed cans would probly do the job at least somewhat better. Actually, I'm pretty sure closed cans would count as passive noise-cancelling ones anyways...

@ Klark Kent The3rd: Maybe I'll do that. I'll keep that model in mind, if I can find anywhere in town...

@ Quag 15: I've heard good things about those Can remasters. I need to actually get Can's discography sometime anyways, maybe when I have all my JAMC and Zeppelin remasters. Just got the first two JAMC ones yesterday (Psychocandy and Darklands) as well as the remastered version of Soundgarden's Superunknown and the double-disc version of the Bluesbreakers album with Eric Clapton...

@ Stillbirth: I tend to agree here. Good remasters don't change the sound too much except to remove UNWANTED noise and such. The overall intent of the music shouldn't be changed. I'll take your example as a recommendation. I've heard a few songs of that one, good stuff...

How are the Peter Gabriel or Police albums?

The Police albums needed remastering. I own Message in a Box, and I can honestly say it does not sound good, with tape hiss and weak sound. The remasters sound great, with only slight increase in volume, and no compression to speak of.