good, and not so good REMASTERS

Dear urs,

I agree with your observations on the quality of remasters, which I tend to think of in the classical reperoire shows that the remastering engineers themselves have different aims, and also I suspect the variable quality is often a reflection of the condition of the source recordings. Tape does not always survive in perfect condition, in any case, and there are times when the original recording was flawed from the start. CD sometimes has a way of undermining the recording still further than the contemporary medium it was issued in.

Fortunately for me I have few outright bad transfers, though some are a bit noisy from 78s, where no master parts can be found. Some transfers are of course heavily processed to sound more or less modern, and these can actually be less acceptable if the greatest care and skill has not been applied!

As things get easier with much good material now going out of copyright, then good transfers from independant labels appear. The best are really fine and the worst are indeed sometimes a bit off.

Here is a link to a thread where I wrote something about the quality of remasters in some detail if you are interested. It is not about specifically the rock and pop repertoire but is still relevant and may give you a feel for the problems.

All the best from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by urs:
Hello
I like all sorts of music, from jazz to rock, folck and so on.
Slowly I have the CD's of my favorite bands replaced with the newer remastered versions. I experience sometimes that I really dislike some of the remastered CD's, like eg the Jethro Tull stuff, for me the sound is very metallic and the drums sound like hitting a cardboard box.
On the other hand the remastered CD's of Bands like Fairport Convention, Colosseum, Tempest, Traffic sound very nice.
I am also a little bit disappointed by the Van Morrison remasters, which sound a little thin.
It's always a matter of taste what kind of sound you like. This is just my opinion.
regards
urs

I think you are absolutely right - the original remastered version of Aqualung on CD was horrible, The more recent 25th anniversary one was better, but if possible play the original version on vinyl. Record companies have no excuse for this - although in the case of Aqualung they claim the original master tape had gone missing and so they had to work with the master plates for the vinyl - even so they should have made a better job with what after all is a classic album.

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:

I think you are absolutely right - the original remastered version of Aqualung on CD was horrible, The more recent 25th anniversary one was better, but if possible play the original version on vinyl. Record companies have no excuse for this - although in the case of Aqualung they claim the original master tape had gone missing and so they had to work with the master plates for the vinyl - even so they should have made a better job with what after all is a classic album.

That is bad news for me since I always felt the vinyl original of Aqualung was a bl**dy awful recording of fantastic music. I was often wondering if a remastered CD had been released which was better - seems not.

Remastered does not always mean better, although I have found that a pretty high majority of remasters I have purchased do in fact sound better. Whether the improvements are worth buying a new CD when you already own the original is another issue. If I do not already own the title, I usually will opt for the remastered version unless I have heard something bad about it. If I already have the title, I only will buy the remastered version if it is one of my favorite albums and/or if I think the original is really poor sound quality (meaning the odds are very high that the remastered will be appreciably better). Word of mouth helps, and I have gotten good feedback on this forum as to whether or not to opt for a particular remastering.

Mike

I have bought quite a few CD's recently, some of which seem to have varying quality, whilst some tracks are great, others are honistly sound like they were matsred from a cheapo C90 basic cassete, in stead of being remastered.

Of all the music I own, I must say that the original first press vinyl is by far the best sound, I run a CDX and a rega 3, the rega is a poor deck in comparison to others, but still makes the viynl sing.

Why can't all remastered CD's be as open, clear warm and inviting as the origonal vinyl pressings. How hard can it be ?.

It would seem we have the technology, but not the inclination to remaster every track on CD's.
to the sound quality expected.

Thoughts anyone.

G

quote:

Originally posted by gjw111s:

Why can't all remastered CD's be as open, clear warm and inviting as the origonal vinyl pressings. How hard can it be ?.


Thoughts anyone.

G

It's quite simple Vinyl is ANALOG and CD's are DIGITAL. Therefore vinyl will always sound better.

Kind Regards,

Larry