Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Remasters vs. original issues (Read 44016 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Remasters vs. original issues

I am an Olivia Newton-John fan (I know, guilty pleasure) and am planning to upgrade my iPod library with the highest quality versions of her recordings.

Her CDs are available in the form of remasters and original issues. Most of her remasters were released in Australia by Festival Records in 1998 and sound questionable to me. Most of her original CD issues were released in the U.S. by MCA Records circa 1990.

My question is this: does anyone know anything about the general quality of CDs released by MCA in the early 90s? Would I be better off sticking with remasters from later on in the decade? Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #1 –
The problem with remasters is that often times they're louder than the original release. A casual listener may think that louder means better sound quality. But that is not always the case.

Watch this video to see what I mean
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Reid Taylor on
I am an Olivia Newton-John fan (I know, guilty pleasure) and am planning to upgrade my iPod library with the highest quality versions of her recordings.

Her CDs are available in the form of remasters and original issues. Most of her remasters were released in Australia by Festival Records in 1998 and sound questionable to me. Most of her original CD issues were released in the U.S. by MCA Records circa 1990.

My question is this: does anyone know anything about the general quality of CDs released by MCA in the early 90s? Would I be better off sticking with remasters from later on in the decade? Any information would be greatly appreciated.


IME, CD mastering quality for non-audiophile popular recordings peaked somewhere between the mid-80s and the early 90s. By the middle 90s, I started seeing reissues with lots of compression.

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #3 –
Her remastered CDs from 1998 are definitely louder. I'd say that is their main distinguishing feature.

So if I were to buy one of her unremastered CDs from around 1990, that would probably be better sound quality? I'm just wondering if MCA was ever known for putting out crappy quality CDs even before the remastering craze began. I've heard of unremastered CDs being poor quality in their own right due to the flatness of a direct tape-to-digital-source transfer with no enhancement.

On the back of some of her old MCA CD releases it says something about the possible presence of tape hiss. Would that be an example of a poor quality unremastered CD?

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
IME, CD mastering quality for non-audiophile popular recordings peaked somewhere between the mid-80s and the early 90s. By the middle 90s, I started seeing reissues with lots of compression.

Oh, yeah, I have some stuff from the early to mid 90s that's just sublime. Even in the late 90s it wasn't too bad. After 2000,

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #5 –
Quote
On the back of some of her old MCA CD releases it says something about the possible presence of tape hiss. Would that be an example of a poor quality unremastered CD?
That was a standard disclaimer on CDs made from analog recordings.  It doesn't mean that you will hear tape hiss or other defects.  It means that the noise floor on a CD is below the noise floor of the tape & analog equipment, and you might be able to detect the tape hiss.

Analog recording technology was getting quite good by the end of the analog/vinyl era.    And, we're not talking about cassette tape (at 1 7/8 inches per second)...  We're talking about pro equipment and high-quality open-reel tape (running at  15 or 30 IPS)...  The tape hiss is generally at very low levels.

With older recordings, say from the 1950s and earlier, you'll probably notice the loss of frequency response and the absence of stereo before you notice tape hiss.

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #6 –
Given the choice, how many people generally prefer unremastered CDs to remastered (and vice versa)?

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Reid Taylor on
Given the choice, how many people generally prefer unremastered CDs to remastered (and vice versa)?

That's a difficult choice. In most cases, the remasters are crap and the original 80s/90s issues are superior. But there are some situations, such as the Beatles CDs. The mastering technology for CDs was primitive and the announced remasters might sound superior, even with compression.

I generally prefer the originals, unless the remastered is remixed or something (such as Killing is my Business)

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Reid Taylor on
Given the choice, how many people generally prefer unremastered CDs to remastered (and vice versa)?


that's a pretty open-ended question.  It all depends.  Most of the time, I personally take the original recording, but there are always exceptions.  I think the best remasters are the ones from the early to mid 90s - I like the Led Zeppelin remasters from 94(?) (at least the one's I've heard).  Some don't.

Recent remasters make me cringe.  See any REM remasters (with the possible exception of the Murmurs remaster that was just released - it's not that bad, but the ...And I Feel Fine and In Time remasters are horrid).

Personally, I'd stick with the originally issued CDs most of the time.  I've actually avoided buying CDs that say remastered on them.


Quote from: Chjmu on
Quote from: Reid Taylor on

Given the choice, how many people generally prefer unremastered CDs to remastered (and vice versa)?

That's a difficult choice. In most cases, the remasters are crap and the original 80s/90s issues are superior. But there are some situations, such as the Beatles CDs. The mastering technology for CDs was primitive and the announced remasters might sound superior, even with compression.

I generally prefer the originals, unless the remastered is remixed or something (such as Killing is my Business)


Exactly - I look forward to the PJ "Ten" remasters coming out in a few months, because the whole album is being remixed as well.  I know it's going to be compressed to hell, though    Although to be honest, the few tracks that BOB remixed for the Rearviewmirror comp. didn't sound bad....

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Reid Taylor on
Given the choice, how many people generally prefer unremastered CDs to remastered (and vice versa)?


I think you should let your own ears decide what you prefer, after careful listening.

Myself, I have both good and bad things to report.  The recent Rush (Mercury) remasters were done very well; though louder, Ludwig didn't compress them to death.  Although the Triumph remasters are much louder and compressed to a degree, I like them - they have a lot more punch, much greater clarity, and the music sounds great.  When you listen to "Never Surrender" on the 80's CD versus the 2004 remaster, there's just no comparison - 2004 is stunningly better. 

On the other hand, the more I listen to some recent reissues such as R.E.M. mentioned earlier, the less I like them.  Led Zeppelin's Mothership is very loud and sounded good on first few hearings, less so as time goes by. 

I think you have to listen for yourself and not get locked into someone else's mindset.

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Reid Taylor on
Given the choice, how many people generally prefer unremastered CDs to remastered (and vice versa)?

Obviously there is no general answer to that; it will always depend on the quality of the remastering . It would be very useful if there were a website that collated information about remaster quality/compression levels; does anyone know of one?

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #11 –
Quote from: oneiros on
Quote from: Reid Taylor on

Given the choice, how many people generally prefer unremastered CDs to remastered (and vice versa)?

Obviously there is no general answer to that; it will always depend on the quality of the remastering . It would be very useful if there were a website that collated information about remaster quality/compression levels; does anyone know of one?


I think that would be a fantastic site for music in general.  I'd love to be able to analyze any album before I bought it.

Kind of related....I almost spent $15 on a CD for one three minute track of an indie band I like (the band is called As Tall As Lions, I'll try and plug them, because they're great).  The compression wasn't the problem, but I instead found out from reading some fan forums that the track on the CD got manufactured incorrectly and was "slowed down" on the CD.  Sure enough, I found a 30 second clip of the album on a 3rd party site and the track is completely messed up.  Now I have to figure out how to capture the stream of the actual song on the site where the CD is advertised, because that's the only "proper" version of the song.  Mods, don't hate me for saying that....

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Reid Taylor on
Given the choice, how many people generally prefer unremastered CDs to remastered (and vice versa)?


Here's an example of why a remastered version might be worse than the original. Below are zoomed in parts of the waveform for Tom Petty's "Learning to Fly". The first image is from a loud section of the song as per the original release on the 1991 Album "Into the Great Wide Open". The second image is the zoomed in waveform of the same song from the 2007 "greatest hits" CD. The flat top clipping shown here is repeated in many places on this version whereas the original didn't clip at all. Personally I don't understand why they want to clip the music just for the sake of adding an extra 3 dB, it really makes me mad. grrrrr. 

Original Album 1991


Greatest Hits 2007


BTW. These images are not from the exact same part of the song but they do both represent the typical waveform for loud sections of each track.

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #13 –
Remasters may also mean different mixes of the songs, depending on who does the "remastering" and if they want a different sound.  Case in point: I was not impressed with the increase in bass frequencies in the Carpenters Gold album, plus the fact Richard remixed some of the songs.  I'm so used to the way the songs sound from the 1985 Yesterday Once More album, these changes made a big enough difference that I wouldn't get the new recordings, even though the older ones definitely are flatter with less punch.  They're just familiar like an old friend.
foobar 0.9.6.8
FLAC -5
LAME 3.98 -V3

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #14 –
Quote
IME, CD mastering quality for non-audiophile popular recordings peaked somewhere between the mid-80s and the early 90s. By the middle 90s, I started seeing reissues with lots of compression


That's exactly right! that's the basic trend that I have discovered as well. I have quite a few 80's recordings and they are all mastered extremely well. I have recording from 95 that's mastered very well just for comparison. I just recently got two new CD's that were mastered between 1995-2008 and they are compressed "punchier" and extremely loud. 
budding I.T professional

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #15 –
Being loud is not the aggravating spot to me... but the distance between the loud and the quiet. Let me draw an example: "Joe Satriani's Strange Beautiful Music" vs. "Oasis' Don't Believe the Truth", while Satriani's work is clearly very loud it still preserves the dynamic range, while Oasis mentioned work is beyond hells of distortion, almost unlistenable.

There might be very quiet albums without much dynamic range (Cranberries) and oh they sound so boring. So in a word, dynamic range is everything.

The situation where I've seen remasters to be superior is when the original issue was around 1983 and somehow the new mixing improved the old CD mastering technique (Depeche Modes latest album remasters for example).

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #16 –
Quote
Being loud is not the aggravating spot to me... but the distance between the loud and the quiet.
  That's exactly the problem with the "loudness wars"...  If the recordings were simply louder, you could just turn-down the volume control.  But, most digital recordings are already maximized/normalized.  So the only way to make them louder, or to make them really loud, is to compress (which of course, you can't un-do with the volume control).

You know...  when CDs were first introduced, I predicted that popular music styles would become more dynamic to take advantage of the improved technology....  I was wrong...  We got rap & compressed pop!

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Reid Taylor on
Given the choice, how many people generally prefer unremastered CDs to remastered (and vice versa)?


Generally I prefer unmastered CDS, but it really depends on the label and artist.

Good labels:
- Digital Compact Classics
- Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs
- Classic Records
- Sony Super Bit

Below are some of my experiences.

Remasters I like:
- Alice Cooper DVD-A
- Barbra Streisand
- Black Sabbath
- Carly Simon
- Dionne Warwick
- Dolly Parton
- Julie Covington
- Linda Ronstadt
- Pat Benatar

Remasters I hate
- ABBA
- AC/DC
- Belinda Carlisle
- Bon Jovi
- Doors (1999 remasters)
- Eagles (non-DCC)
- Fleetwood Mac (2004 remasters)
- Heart (2004 remasters)
- HIM
- Iron Maiden
- Kiss
- Meat Loaf
- Ozzy Osbourne
- Sarah Brightman (SACD)
- T-Rex (DVD-A)

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #18 –
In the late 80s/early 90s you had a tidal wave of remasters where in many cases, the original master tapes were sourced for the first time.  Digital compressors/limiters were still being used sparingly, (though noise reduction was occasionally heavy handed).  Then the loudness wars began to kick in in earnest.  So the late80s/early 90s are now considered a 'golden age' of CD versions.

The sad irony is that nowadays we are often getting CDs from better source tapes, but with worse mastering, than before.

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #19 –
Agreed. There are some really good remasters from the early 90s, such as the Genesis Definitive Edition remasters from 1994. That's no wonder: the loudness war hadn't really begun, but 20-bit A/D converters (much better than the ones from the early-to-mid-80s), high-wordlength mixing/processing/mastering equipment, and dithering/noise shaping for conversion to 16-bit had become available. These are all the technological ingredients you need for perfect CD mastering.

After listening to some recent overcompressed-plus-waveform-clipped remasters, I decided for myself not to buy any more remasters released after 1999. Genesis' best-of "Turn it on again" from 1999 is still acceptable, but Genesis' "Archive Vol. 2" and the Sade remasters, both from 2000, are already too loud. Hence, I would not buy, for example, the 2007 Genesis CD remasters, unless someone here convinces me that they are not or only moderately compressed

So whenever you think of buying a remaster released after the, say, mid-90s, I suggest you listen to it first.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #20 –
Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on
Agreed. There are some really good remasters from the early 90s, such as the Genesis Definitive Edition remasters from 1994.


Yet they too come in for criticism routinely on self-proclaimed audiophile forums...typically for their use of noise reduction.

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #21 –
Hmmm, I just read up on this. It seems I took a bad example.  I only have the Collins-era remasters, i.e. Trick of the Tail and followers, haven't noticed noise reduction artifacts on those so far. Sigh, it's sad, it seems the only labels you can expect quality CD masters from are audiophile ones.
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #22 –
Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on
Hmmm, I just read up on this. It seems I took a bad example.  I only have the Collins-era remasters, i.e. Trick of the Tail and followers, haven't noticed noise reduction artifacts on those so far. Sigh, it's sad, it seems the only labels you can expect quality CD masters from are audiophile ones.


I wouldn't worry about it.  If it sounds good to you it already *is* a 'quality' CD.  The only proviso is whether you are able to compare it to another one by listening.  If so you might find another that has more 'quality'. But ;'quality' can have many determining factors.

Case in point for the Genesis DEs (I think the Trick DE and the ones after sound great, btw)  is the 'Trespass' album, where even the mastering guy (Nick Davis) now says he probably went overboard with the noise reduction.  When I was able to compare it to a previous issue, I preferred the one where I could hear the hiss.  But the previous had *other* sonic issues...so it's really a bit of a crapshoot.

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #23 –
Fascinating thread.

Has anyone looked at the remastered Steely Dan CDs?  I have the originals, and Donald Fagen is on record as saying that the remasters are far better than the originals.  The Dan is, of course, known for very high quality recordings with plenty of dynamic range...  Supposedly the original box set was made with remastered tracks, and I couldn't hear any substantive difference vs. the individual CDs on casual listening.

I'm also curious about the Carly Simon discs; when I got the CDs of her first 3 albums, I thought the bass response was rolled off compared to my LPs.  Ex: the amazing percussion on the track "Thats The Way I've Always Heard It Should Be" sounds rather thin and compressed.  I'd need to drag out the LP and spend a few hours making comparison copies to quantify it further, but it seemed rather dramatic at the time I first did the comparison.

I'm also leery of the new Chicago remasters (first 4 albums only).  I fear that they've just slammed the levels and not worried about cleaning up the transfers.  The master of the second album really needed some work IMHO, but I don't want to invest in a louder but still poor-sounding copy of the same.

Remasters vs. original issues

Reply #24 –
Quote from: GregDunn on
I'm also leery of the new Chicago remasters (first 4 albums only).  I fear that they've just slammed the levels and not worried about cleaning up the transfers.  The master of the second album really needed some work IMHO, but I don't want to invest in a louder but still poor-sounding copy of the same.


What ticked me off was that the remasters for "Chicago 16" and "Chicago 17" replaced album cuts with radio edits. Fortunately, I still had the original issues. However, as with most reissues, bonus tracks were included on both re-releases. Since the remastered versions were noticeably louder than the original release, I ultimately burned myself a ReplayGain adjusted disc, inserting each bonus track at the end of its respective album.