Red Mosquito

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?

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.

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.

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.

WANT.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

This - a thousand times this!

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote: The new Big Star remasters are great - finally not as bright and harsh as the past releases.

Agreed on these. I adore Big Star.

I'm kind of eager to hear the new Springsteen remasters.

New Springsteen remasters? Any bonus material?

Kevin Davis wrote:New Springsteen remasters? Any bonus material?

No bonus material. Here is a good write-up on them though...

http://www.backstreets.com/remasters.html

Nice to hear that about the Big Star reissues! Will have to check those out

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.

Weren't the 1995-6 Who remasters complete remixes too? The remastered Quadrophenia sounds radically different.

Kevin Davis wrote:Weren't the 1995-6 Who remasters complete remixes too? The remastered Quadrophenia sounds radically different.

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.

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.

So are the original vinyls still considered the definitive editions?

Albini and Weston did the Jesus Lizard remasters too a few years back. Those puppys sound lovely.

Apparently Steven Wilson's King Crimson remasters are well-worth a listen