Remastered CD's good or bad

Posted by: Henners on 01 November 2007

Hi everyone hope the coffee is working its way through, mine has kicked in at last.

I would be interested to know of your experiences on remastered CD's. Following a accident to my TT during the upgrade of my Naim system I decided to change my favourite vinyl artistes to CD remasters whilst I can save enough to get an equivalant TT set up. (Was Townshend Rock reference)

I have found that the quality of these CD's varies.

For example Frank Zappa, The Doors, Led Zepplin and Jethro Tull are very good. But I had these before anyway.

I have recently bought Focus - the entire catalogue, Mountain and Gentle Giant and frankly they seem to need an Aural Health Warning with them. (Some may say they needed that anyway.)

What are your experiences with Remasters? (no I dont intend to go back to vinyl just yet, my wife would kill me)

Regards

Henners
Posted on: 01 November 2007 by Steve S1
Same as yours. They do vary a lot but on balance, I've had many more that are better than (admittedly poor) originals.

I can think of some truly excellent Island remasters, Free, Joe Cocker etc. Other good examples include T. Dolby's remaster of Prefab Sprout's Steve McQueen, and many albums by Rush, Allman Bros, Joe Jackson, Steely Dan, Fleetwood Mac.

Steve
Posted on: 01 November 2007 by rupert bear
The Joni Mitchell HDCD remasters of a few years ago were light years ahead of the original Warners CDs. Conversely, for example, the latest Police best of 2CD remaster sounds horrible to my ears, compared to the box set of the mid-90s.
Posted on: 01 November 2007 by Briz Vegas
This is that hot remaster issue isn't it!

Remasters vary alot. The worst thing is that it is hard what it good until you get them home.

Cream's Disraeli gears remaster has two versions in the one package - the mono version sounds better probably because it is less hot - in fact it is much quieter than the stereo version so you just turn it up.
Posted on: 01 November 2007 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:
Originally posted by Henners:


Following a accident to my TT during the upgrade of my Naim system I decided to change my favourite vinyl artistes to CD remasters whilst I can save enough to get an equivalant TT set up. (Was Townshend Rock reference)

Regards

Henners


You have no insurance?
Posted on: 01 November 2007 by bhazen
Some remastered CDs sound good, and are an improvement on versions released in the 1980's that sounded wooly and dull (an example: Yes' Fragile.) But far too many remasters are either a) too loud, going into digital distortion (VERY unpleasant); b) compressed and/or limited (to make everything as loud as everything else, losing dynamics); c) equalised in an unnatural/unpleasant way (the usual thing being, making it hot 'n' spiky in the treble frequencies, to increase "transparency") or d) smothered with noise reduction software, all the air and life sucked out with the tape hiss - or some awful combo of all four attributes.

Until I figured this out, I made the mistake of replacing many CDs with remastered versions that, in retrospect, are harsher and more fatiguing. This has led to me seeking out the old versions, and spending money (sometimes) three or four times for the same album!! My current policy is, if I enjoy a CD I currently have, I ignore reissues of same - unless nearly everyone on the various music chat fora I frequent expresses massive love for the new version. Then, perhaps, I may seek out the remastered CD; but I'll hang onto the old one until I'm sure of the sonic superiority of the new version.

BTW, my fave chat shop for finding info on remasters is the Steve Hoffman Forum (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/), in the Music Corner. Folks there can have wildly different opinions on the virtues of any given CD (or LP), but research there can yield big dividends.
Posted on: 02 November 2007 by Henners
Thats what I thought

I would agree about the Free remasters they are a band I heard a lot of whae I was at school, but never really went for. However as my tatses changed I bought the remasters and they are sensational, gives you a real insight into what is happening during the performance.

I have insurance, but its a question of what do I get to replace the TT there is so much choice now and I have followed CD improvements over the years, but not TT developments. So claiming on the insurance is something that I am thinking about.

I have upgraded my Naim system from Olive to 5 series with cds3 over tha last 4 weeks so Im reluctant to start buying New Vinyl versions of my collection at the moment.

Problems problems, but nice ones I have to admit.

Thanks for the Link I'll use it at the weekend

Regards Henners
Posted on: 03 November 2007 by Harry
It’s a total lottery. The only consistent ray of sunshine – as Rupert pointed out – has been HDCD. I haven’t heard one yet that fails to improve on it’s predecessors. I don’t think you can safely back a particular artist either. I have some superb Tull remasters and one awful one, which stopped me dead in my tracks on Tull remasters. Kate Bush has suffered IMO but The Dreaming for some reason shines as a remaster. Yes have a better remastered catalogue on Rhino but a couple of them turned out quite dull – although all their HDCDs have been worth the money. Zep 1 and 2 turned out pretty good last year to my ears but the mini LP analogy was taken a bit far with hard cardboard inners which scratched the CDs if you didn’t use surgical precision to slide them out. Lou Reed’s Transformer turned out to be a remaster of two parts, half of it being vital and adsorbing, the other being a bit muffled. Berlin however, is a cracker remastered. I could go on……

With the almost ubiquitous naff sound quality of many CDs now being produced (too loud, no dynamic range) and the variable record of remasters it really is a shot in the dark. I take many of my cues from places like this.

Cheers
Posted on: 05 November 2007 by bhazen
Harry -

Just my opinion, YMMV etc., but I think the original CDs of the first few Led Zeppelin albums, mastered by Barry Diament, sound better than the Page/Marino remasters (which source the mini-LP versions). Warmer, less fatiguing, etc. Beware, though - LZ IV from that era sounds woolly & dull, as if sourced from 3rd gen. tapes or something. The remaster is the way to go with that one.

You can still hear the tape distortion on LZ II, but it doesn't attack the ear the same way it does on the remastered versions.

Oops, gotta go - the coffee I just drank is having its other main effect.

Cheers,
Bruce
Posted on: 06 November 2007 by Harry
Yeah, I think it's a valid debate Bruce. The recent remasters weren't a huge leap forward (probably not surprising considering the vintage) but my ears give them the gong. I suppose I really shound do an A:B. I am a sucker for those mini LPs though.

Speaking of LZ, I see "Mothership" is looming. Do I really want yet another remastered compilation....?

Any views anyone? I'm going to wait and see.

Cheers
Posted on: 06 November 2007 by Steve S1
quote:
Do I really want yet another remastered compilation....?



Let you know when I've heard it. Winker

On the face of it - they could, and should have done better originally. Mind you, when you hear some recent releases.... Red Face

It's enough to make you buy an iPod and be done with it.


Steve
Posted on: 06 November 2007 by Harry
quote:
Originally posted by Steve S1:

Let you know when I've heard it. Winker

On the face of it - they could, and should have done better originally. Mind you, when you hear some recent releases.... Red Face

It's enough to make you buy an iPod and be done with it.

Steve


I hear you!

My mouse finger is itchy but I think I'll wait for the feedback.

TIA