The Curse of the Remaster

Dunno if it is up to your system. Some remasters just suck and that's it. Megadeth is a sad example. Mustaine went and actually replayed those classic albums again (or so it really sounds) and neither mrs. Phage or myself like the end result. Rest In Peace shouldn't be changed, it was perfect so why fix it. 

From the Oxford Dictionary:

REMASTER

verb [with  object]

• make a new master of (a recording), typically in order to improve the sound quality: all the tracks have been remastered from the original tapes
• 

You can't polish a turd.

Actually a lot of the current issues seem to be not the original turd (usually quite fragrant and full of goodness) but some of the ones operating the Pro-Tools mastering suite. You take a perfect analogue tape from one of the great names in music, give it to one of today's engineers, and they just have to play with it.

It's a lottery, some remasters sound great (better than original) and some sound worse. No point generalising.

Indeed. Same as it ever was.

Remastering in studio terms doesnt mean re-recording the music. Mastering is the final process of boosting, processing, cleaning and equalizing the recordings before they are pressed/transferred...

Shame really that WOTW sounds so appalling..its totally unlistenable. the early version doesnt sound too brilliant either.

*Controversy alert*

Some of the vocal tracks on Dark Side of the Moon sound very disappointing..in particular 'On the Run'..the general mix is very boosted in the upper mid range making everything sound quite harsh in contrast to the warm tones of the rest of the album and the result is a very sibilant vocal, which (for me) spoils the track.

ive noticed this too on most of Ian Dury's albums..Some great recordings, but usually the vocals are terribly sibilant..not helped by his lisp, but none the less, does spoil the music on ocassion.

Thanks for reminding me that I still haven't got round to buying a CD copy of WotW. Has anyone got any recommendations for which CD version sounds the best (or, failing that, which one sounds least dreadful)? Which versions should I particularly avoid?

The good old DR database lists the 1998 Columbia CDZ96000 as DR11, whereas the 2005 remaster is rather brickwalled at DR6 or thereabouts.

Ebor, thanks for the reference of the DR database. I wasn't aware of this and it's quite a find, and also has some interesting links to master quality web forums.

Simon

I have found the DR database invaluable in helping me get the 'best' copy of a recording. Amazon Market Place is very good for acquiring  'used' copies of original releases of CDs at very good prices. 

Neil

Always a pleasure, Simon: I find it equally fascinating and useful. I've seen the DR database referenced a few times around these parts so assumed it was fairly common knowledge, otherwise I would have posted a URL as well.

+1 to what Neil says about working out what might be the best version and then marketplacing it. I also recently found the Discogs marketplace (http://www.discogs.com/sell/list), which looks good, but I haven't taken the plunge and ordered anything from it yet. Anyone got any experience of it, good or bad?

Mark

and of course sometimes it's not brick-walling or compression just crappy re-mastering.

Bowie's 1999 remasters are horribly bright but not apparently overly brick-walled.

SJB

There are quite some remaster out there which are a disgrace - unfortunately the common fashion is to reduce dynamics and align it with the common radio interests.....

I hope we will see more remasters which are a real revelation - like the ones of analogue productions..