Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
- LoathedVermin72
- The Master
- Posts: 33836
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 pm
Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
Okay, that title probably sounds ignorant, because of course SOME must. And people always try to tell me remasters are important. But, personally, I have yet to come across ANY remastered albums that sound superior to the original mix. Could someone give me some examples of remasters that are better?
- Wendy Carlos's Twin
- Future Drummer
- Posts: 2809
- Joined: Sat January 05, 2013 9:37 am
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
The new Frank Zappa remasters are far better than the originals on Ryko which were the worst sounding CD's ever manufactured, so it wasn't hard to improve them, but they went the full 9 years and did everything perfectly. I was finally able to get rid of all my Zappa vinyl.
The Bob Dylan remasters on MFSL are very nice.
The remaster of "In Utero" is an improvement because it was done by Albini, the way he had originally wanted to. It's actually quieter and more dynamic than the original CD, and with a wider soundstage. Pretty much the opposite of what you would expect these days.
The new Velvet Underground remasters are phenomenal, though there hasn't been any truly bad VU CD's except maybe for that 2-CD deluxe of VU & Nico from a long time ago where the mono mix sounds like it was recorded in a toilet. The mono mix sounds sweet on the new deluxe.
The new Big Star remasters are great - finally not as bright and harsh as the past releases.
The Rolling Stones released a phenomenal set of remasters in Japan. Unfortunately, the domestic versions are the total opposite...bright and completely smashed. It's probably because that's what they think people want. It's pretty depressing.
The Bob Dylan remasters on MFSL are very nice.
The remaster of "In Utero" is an improvement because it was done by Albini, the way he had originally wanted to. It's actually quieter and more dynamic than the original CD, and with a wider soundstage. Pretty much the opposite of what you would expect these days.
The new Velvet Underground remasters are phenomenal, though there hasn't been any truly bad VU CD's except maybe for that 2-CD deluxe of VU & Nico from a long time ago where the mono mix sounds like it was recorded in a toilet. The mono mix sounds sweet on the new deluxe.
The new Big Star remasters are great - finally not as bright and harsh as the past releases.
The Rolling Stones released a phenomenal set of remasters in Japan. Unfortunately, the domestic versions are the total opposite...bright and completely smashed. It's probably because that's what they think people want. It's pretty depressing.
Last edited by Wendy Carlos's Twin on Sun October 19, 2014 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- ABNorman
- The Beef
- Posts: 4475
- Joined: Thu January 03, 2013 10:16 pm
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
Hmm, I haven't listened to the In Utero remaster, but it's one of my favourite albums, and an Albini remaster sounds great. I'll have to give it a spin.Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote: The remaster of "In Utero" is an improvement because it was done by Albini, the way he had originally wanted to. It's actually quieter and more dynamic than the original CD, and with a wider soundstage. Pretty much the opposite of what you would expect these days.
- LoathedVermin72
- The Master
- Posts: 33836
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 pm
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:The remaster of "In Utero" is an improvement because it was done by Albini, the way he had originally wanted to. It's actually quieter and more dynamic than the original CD, and with a wider soundstage. Pretty much the opposite of what you would expect these days.
- Wendy Carlos's Twin
- Future Drummer
- Posts: 2809
- Joined: Sat January 05, 2013 9:37 am
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
Oh yeah, it's really good. A very satisfying listening experience. Had Albini not been involved, it surely would have been sonically destroyed like the Nevermind deluxe was.
- LoathedVermin72
- The Master
- Posts: 33836
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 pm
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
I mean, I already consider the original version of In Utero to be one of the best-produced albums ever, so I can't even imagine how good this must be.Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Oh yeah, it's really good. A very satisfying listening experience. Had Albini not been involved, it surely would have been sonically destroyed like the Nevermind deluxe was.
- Kevin Davis
- tl;dr
- Posts: 9312
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:06 pm
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Okay, that title probably sounds ignorant, because of course SOME must. And people always try to tell me remasters are important. But, personally, I have yet to come across ANY remastered albums that sound superior to the original mix. Could someone give me some examples of remasters that are better?
I thought a few of the Dylan remasters sounded great -- "New Morning" and "Street Legal" especially. A big improvement on the versions I was previously familiar with. Most of the Miles Davis and John Coltrane remasters are superior to the original CD issues too, in my experience.
Across the board I usually don't buy remasters of albums I already own though, just because I would usually rather spend the money on something new instead. I would really like to hear the Tom Waits 80's trilogy get remastered, though -- the current CD editions sound like they were recorded in a tin can...
- Rangi Guy
- Mind Your Tanners
- Posts: 9429
- Joined: Fri March 22, 2013 7:20 pm
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/MistorKitty
- Location: 41.1716° S, 174.8248° E
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
This - a thousand times this!Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote: The remaster of "In Utero" is an improvement because it was done by Albini, the way he had originally wanted to. It's actually quieter and more dynamic than the original CD, and with a wider soundstage. Pretty much the opposite of what you would expect these days.
"I really enjoy sandwiches but the other guys are so good at making sandwiches that I don't make them. Now I make sandwiches."
- BigRedLedbetter
- Rank This Poster
- Posts: 5401
- Joined: Sat June 07, 2014 5:38 pm
- Location: The town of Lincoln, Nebraska
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
Agreed on these. I adore Big Star.Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote: The new Big Star remasters are great - finally not as bright and harsh as the past releases.
"My balls feels like they're in a French press." ~ bodysnatcher
- Lament
- Commissioner
- Posts: 11792
- Joined: Wed March 13, 2013 12:48 am
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
I'm kind of eager to hear the new Springsteen remasters.
TEAM HARMLESS FOREVER...
- Kevin Davis
- tl;dr
- Posts: 9312
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:06 pm
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
New Springsteen remasters? Any bonus material?
- Lament
- Commissioner
- Posts: 11792
- Joined: Wed March 13, 2013 12:48 am
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
No bonus material. Here is a good write-up on them though...Kevin Davis wrote:New Springsteen remasters? Any bonus material?
http://www.backstreets.com/remasters.html
TEAM HARMLESS FOREVER...
- Strat
- Waiting for HVAC Repairman
- Posts: 35407
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:48 pm
- Location: Twin City Kisses
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
Nice to hear that about the Big Star reissues! Will have to check those out
- McParadigm
- NEVER STOP JAMMING!
- Posts: 22393
- Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
Probably, it depends on how far you go back. For a lot of 70s and 60s artists, the record labels rushed CD masters to capitalize on the new format and drive up sales during a time when the consumer market was lagging. But most of those have been redone over the years, and a lot of that stuff is on its second or third remastering. The Who was a great example of this… The initial CD masters were some of the worst I've ever heard, but they were remastered in the late 90s, and then two or three times since. What your impression of the remasters is depends on which version you heard first, and what came next.
A few artists lag behind. The Beatles remasters were needed. Springsteen needs his remasters, and I hope he stayed the hell out of the booth while they worked on them.
A few artists lag behind. The Beatles remasters were needed. Springsteen needs his remasters, and I hope he stayed the hell out of the booth while they worked on them.
(patriotic choking noises)
- Kevin Davis
- tl;dr
- Posts: 9312
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:06 pm
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
Weren't the 1995-6 Who remasters complete remixes too? The remastered Quadrophenia sounds radically different.
- Lament
- Commissioner
- Posts: 11792
- Joined: Wed March 13, 2013 12:48 am
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
You might be right. I remember older Who fans criticizing a lot of those, especially Who Are You. I got into the Who as they were trickling the remasters out (they spread the releases out over a few year period), so my initial collection was half and half of each. For me the original CDs always sounded terrible compared to the new ones, but I'd never heard them on vinyl or anything.Kevin Davis wrote:Weren't the 1995-6 Who remasters complete remixes too? The remastered Quadrophenia sounds radically different.
TEAM HARMLESS FOREVER...
- Wendy Carlos's Twin
- Future Drummer
- Posts: 2809
- Joined: Sat January 05, 2013 9:37 am
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
The problem with the Who is that their engineer/vaultkeeper is a complete moron. He couldn't locate the original masters for the albums (which were in the USA), so he created lousy remixes. He couldn't find the stereo tapes for the second album, and they had no tapes at all for the first album. Those reissues were a disaster. Since then, the original tapes have been found, but very very poorly remastered. Now he loves to brickwall everything and smother it with noise reduction to the max. Pure sonic garbage. He has the skill of a complete novice.
- Kevin Davis
- tl;dr
- Posts: 9312
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:06 pm
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
So are the original vinyls still considered the definitive editions?
- super nintendo chalmers
- Future Drummer
- Posts: 2368
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:47 pm
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
Albini and Weston did the Jesus Lizard remasters too a few years back. Those puppys sound lovely.
Have you considered stacking papers and getting paid?David Yow wrote:How are Pearl Jam any different from Toto?
- mastaflatch
- AnalLog
- Posts: 1183
- Joined: Fri January 04, 2013 1:05 am
Re: Do Remasters Ever Sound Better Than the Original?
Apparently Steven Wilson's King Crimson remasters are well-worth a listen 