Are There Any Good Remasters?

[Pluto]

Mapping back the encoding would be a pain, but not technically challenging

It Ain't Necessarily So.

In the early days of computer assisted mixing there was a huge variety of kit, most of it custom made mini computers. Some of it has survived, working but most of it has not. The desktop PCs of the day were nowhere near powerful enough to handle the near-real time requirements of mixing. While many vintage consoles of that era have survived and remain in service, the mixing computer (and the faders) have almost invariably been replaced. So the practical reality of running a mix recorded on early hardware is so close to zero that I don't believe its ever actually been done. The commercial incentive would have to be alarmingly large to warrant the necessary work.

And there's another issue: if the faders have been replaced (which, almost certainly, they would have), it would be necessary to know the exact law of the originals otherwise the mix data would be worthless. Mixing systems tend to record the physical position of the faders as a value from 0-255 in a linear manner. The audio law relating to that positioning is anything but linear so unless you know how to match the physical position to a particular amount of attenuation, knowledge of the physical fader positions is only half the battle.

 

[bluefuzz]

Unfortunately these are the exceptions, usually remasters are worse.

I know it's an unfashionable opinion in audiophile circles, but I find most remasters from the last decade or two sound fine and generally a good bit better than earlier releases.

 

[Sal1950]

I know it's an unfashionable opinion in audiophile circles, but I find most remasters from the last decade or two sound fine and generally a good bit better than earlier releases.

I agree.

 

[sergeauckland]

I tend not to buy reissues or remasters, as I prefer to buy used CDs as originally released.

However, there is one (local to me) label BGO records (Beat Goes On), who are a reissues only label and do a very good job of remastering old recordings. They license the tapes from the original record companies, then remaster and reissue. They have a wide selection of rock/folk/blues/Jazz and I've bought a fair few over the years. Very decent pricing too.

S.

 

[q3cpma]

Comus' First Utterance had a stunning and needed remaster.

 

[escape2]

Peter Gabriel - So (25th Anniversary Deluxe Edition) 2012 Remaster is pretty good.
https://www.amazon.com/25th-Anniversary-Deluxe-Peter-Gabriel/dp/B008V59AFW


Also Roger Waters - Amused to Death (2015 Remaster):
https://www.amazon.com/Amused-Death-Roger-Waters/dp/B00UA1NG4G

 

[Snarfie]

Some insights from Roger Nichols who recorded most of Steely Dan records about transients that already disapear from analog mastertapes with in a few houres. So what about the original quality of re-masters made of analog masters (guess the majority) that are already loosing transients with in a few hours. I would say enjoy the music despite lose of transients still enjoyable enough i guess but don't expect or claim it is the original sound the engineers heard when it was made. I have the impression that MQA claims or suggest that.

Roger Nichols: Yes, and it’s mostly because when I record something on a digital machine..um, you know, and I play it back ten years from now it will sound exatly the same. So if there is some little artifact because it’s digital, it’s a majorable (sic) artifact, and it’s going to be the same artifact ten years from now. If I record something on Analog tape and it doesn’t matter whether I’m do using Dolby SR, Dolby A or DBX or no noise reduction or whatever it is, if you record something on a piece of analog tape and play it back later the same day, the same program is not on the tape. And there’s nothing so far that anybody’d been able to do about that, you know, like those little magnetic particles are made to be able to wander around and they do so by themselves while the tape is just sitting there. I’ve made DAT copies when I’m cutting tracks, and then have an automation snap shot of the mix and then later that evening put the tape back on, play it back, compare it with the Dat, and there’s already starting to be a difference. And by the time a week or two weeks go by and it’s time to mix, a lot of the transients have started to disappear. If you use this as a tool, some people like what this does, and it sort of helps to mix all their music together, that’s fine, but, you know, you can’t say that Analog tape with Dolby SR is as good as Digital. It might be as quiet, and but it’s not going to retain the signal, you know, as long as Digital tape. So that’s my biggest worry about Analog tape.

http://pieralessandri.com/ROGER-NICHOLS-interview

 

[Francis Vaughan]

And there's another issue: if the faders have been replaced (which, almost certainly, they would have), it would be necessary to know the exact law of the originals otherwise the mix data would be worthless.

Yuk. Yeah, good point. I wasn't assuming that the mix would ever be re-run, but rather that useful guidance could be had from the automation. Maybe it isn't as useful as I might have hoped.

 

[tmtomh]

There are plenty of great remasters out there - but also plenty of mediocre and bad ones. So it takes some looking, reading, and trial and error.

The Depeche Mode catalogue was remastered in 2006/2007 with a series of CD/DVD (and in Europe SACD/DVD) remaster sets. Some sound great, some not so much. But I'm surprised to see the OP say they don't like the Violator remaster since it sounds so similar to the original CD. The original CD, for its part, has two slightly different masterings: the US Sire mastering, and the UK/EU Mute mastering. The former is slightly warmer and is probably what the OP is used to. I happen to prefer it as well. The remaster sounds more like the Mute mastering, but it's extraordinarily clean and a very nice alternative.

From Ultra onward, the DM remasters all sound nearly identical to the originals since they were digitally recorded and the remastering engineer himself has said he made only tiny tweaks to the originals.

For the earlier ones, Black Celebration is IMHO the best-sounding, although it's so different from the original that I also recommend the original (specifically the German Mute original, since it sounds better than the US Sire and doesn't have the production error of a false/double-start of "Stripped").

Some other remasters off the top of my head that I think are quite decent:

The Clash, London Calling, 2013 remaster. There's a cult around the 1988 Japan CD, which has a unique - and very nice - mastering. But the 2013 is excellent and easily the 2nd-best mastering out there, and possibly even better than the 1988 Japan depending on your taste. I have both and like them equally - they're just different.

Peter Gabriel, So, 2012 digital download version. Best-sounding version, period. You can ID it online for its 24-bit, 48kHz format (different than the 24/96k format of the more recent digital version).

David Bowie, Aladdin Sane, 40th anniversary remaster. Similar to the Clash, there's a mythos around the original 1980s RCA CD pressings of this album, particular the CSR Japan-for-US version - and that version is indeed great. But the 40th anniversary remaster is cleaner, and while not quite as good (IMHO) in some respects, overall pretty much the equal of the CSR Japan version in my book.

The Cult, Love, 2009 remaster. Clearly better than the original Sire and Beggars Banquet CD masterings, both of which are lacking in bass and overall slam/impact.

Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon, 20th anniversary remaster and 2003 SACD mastering. Both of these are better than the legendary but overrated "Japan non-TO" mastering from the 1980s.

Pink Floyd, Wish You Were Here, Analogue Productions SACD mastering. IMHO also better than the legendary Japanese 2-track CD from the 1980s.

George Harrison, All Things Must Pass, HDTracks mastering. I don't know if this mastering exists on CD but I'm betting it does. Much better than the original CD.

Led Zeppelin catalogue, 2014/15 remasters. Opinions vary on this, and IMHO it's also an album by album thing, but take for example Led Zeppelin III and Presence, which have never sounded better than on the 2014/15 CD remasters and clearly surpass both the 1980s CDs and the 1990s remasters.

Siouxsie and the Banshees, Through the Looking Glass. The remaster is much better than the thin, tinny original CD.

Nick Drake catalogue. They're not cheap, but there's a line of Japanese paper-sleeve CDs from about 2013 or so that uses the excellent mastering from the digital downloads that came with the 2012 vinyl reissues. That mastering is IMHO the best-ever for Drake's music.

Pretenders, first three albums. The Mobile Fidelity hybrid SACDs are fantastic and last I checked were still in print and gettable for less than $25 each.

Rain Tree Crow, Rain Tree Crow, 2003 remaster. This 1991 release was basically a one-off reunion album for Japan, David Sylvian's band before he went solo. It was remastered and reissued in '03 along with the rest of Sylvian's catalogue and the remaster is 10x better than the original - much more bass, still very dynamic, just a whole different animal.

David Sylvian, Brilliant Trees and Gone to Earth, 2003 remasters. The Brilliant Trees remaster kicks the crap out of all the original/early CD versions. They went back to the original 2-track masters and it shows. The Gone to Earth remaster has tighter bass than the original and the overall sound of is equal or or better than the best of the 1980s masterings.

Robert Plant, Dreamland, 2007 remaster. Plant's mid-2000s remasters are generally dynamically squashed and not great as a result. But the original 2002 release of this album was already smooshed dynamically, and the remaster is actually slightly more dynamic - and more importantly, it just sounds better, with better soundstage depth and less "flatness."

Talk Talk. The Colour of Spring and Spirit of Eden. The 1997 CD remasters are, alas, not necessarily better than the original 1980s CDs - but there are 2012 LP/DVD remasters where the DVDs are excellent. And there are 2003 SACD remasters where the SACD layers have a unique mastering that is sublime. These discs are unfortunately unobtanium, going for $100-$300(!) on the used market. But the DVDs (playable in any DVD player or universal disc player - they are DVD-Vs not DVD-As) can be had on the used market for $30 or less.

This Mortal Coil catalogue. Granted the improvements are modest, but the 2011 remasters are better than the originals.

Big Star, #1 Record, Radio City, and Third/Sister Lovers. The first two of these albums were remastered in 2004 by George Horn and are available in a variety of pressings: a 2004 hybrid SACD 2fer, individual 2014 CDs, and a CD/DVD 2fer that came out sometime in the last 10 years or so. This mastering is the best these albums have ever sounded on digital disc. For the third album, the Complete Third compilation released a couple of years ago is the best these tracks have ever sounded, although it's a 3-CD set and I'm not aware of this mastering being available on a single CD edition (though it might at some point be).

The Allman Brothers Band. Their stuff has been reissued to death and there are multiple reissues of their various albums that sound better than the original CD issues. I'm most familiar with the Mobile fidelity hybrid SACDs, but there are others as well.

The Beatles. Lots of controversy here, but at least some of the 2009 stereo CDs are better than the original 1987 issues - and the 2009 mono set is fantastic sounding on the whole.

Sisters of Mercy, Floodland. Remaster clearly is better than the original 1980s CD IMHO.

 

[Chrispy]

Someone mentioned Steven Wilson, here's a site dedicated to his remixes (all of which I've bought I've liked a lot, but I'm particularly aiming at the 5.1 mixes, altho the two ch versions have also been excellent). https://www.facebook.com/swremixes

 

[tmtomh]

Someone mentioned Steven Wilson, here's a site dedicated to his remixes (all of which I've bought I've liked a lot, but I'm particularly aiming at the 5.1 mixes, altho the two ch versions have also been excellent). https://www.facebook.com/swremixes

His stereo remix of XTC's Skylarking is my go-to version of that album now. His stereo remix of Tears for Fears' Songs from the Big Chair is also excellent IMHO. And his Yes stereo remixes are fantastic.

 

[Wes]

There are plenty of great remasters out there - but also plenty of mediocre and bad ones. So it takes some looking, reading, and trial and error.

The Depeche Mode catalogue was remastered in 2006/2007 with a series of CD/DVD (and in Europe SACD/DVD) remaster sets. Some sound great, some not so much. But I'm surprised to see the OP say they don't like the Violator remaster since it sounds so similar to the original CD. The original CD, for its part, has two slightly different masterings: the US Sire mastering, and the UK/EU Mute mastering. The former is slightly warmer and is probably what the OP is used to. I happen to prefer it as well. The remaster sounds more like the Mute mastering, but it's extraordinarily clean and a very nice alternative.

From Ultra onward, the DM remasters all sound nearly identical to the originals since they were digitally recorded and the remastering engineer himself has said he made only tiny tweaks to the originals.

For the earlier ones, Black Celebration is IMHO the best-sounding, although it's so different from the original that I also recommend the original (specifically the German Mute original, since it sounds better than the US Sire and doesn't have the production error of a false/double-start of "Stripped").

Some other remasters off the top of my head that I think are quite decent:

The Clash, London Calling, 2013 remaster. There's a cult around the 1988 Japan CD, which has a unique - and very nice - mastering. But the 2013 is excellent and easily the 2nd-best mastering out there, and possibly even better than the 1988 Japan depending on your taste. I have both and like them equally - they're just different.

Peter Gabriel, So, 2012 digital download version. Best-sounding version, period. You can ID it online for its 24-bit, 48kHz format (different than the 24/96k format of the more recent digital version).

David Bowie, Aladdin Sane, 40th anniversary remaster. Similar to the Clash, there's a mythos around the original 1980s RCA CD pressings of this album, particular the CSR Japan-for-US version - and that version is indeed great. But the 40th anniversary remaster is cleaner, and while not quite as good (IMHO) in some respects, overall pretty much the equal of the CSR Japan version in my book.

The Cult, Love, 2009 remaster. Clearly better than the original Sire and Beggars Banquet CD masterings, both of which are lacking in bass and overall slam/impact.

Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon, 20th anniversary remaster and 2003 SACD mastering. Both of these are better than the legendary but overrated "Japan non-TO" mastering from the 1980s.

Pink Floyd, Wish You Were Here, Analogue Productions SACD mastering. IMHO also better than the legendary Japanese 2-track CD from the 1980s.

George Harrison, All Things Must Pass, HDTracks mastering. I don't know if this mastering exists on CD but I'm betting it does. Much better than the original CD.

Led Zeppelin catalogue, 2014/15 remasters. Opinions vary on this, and IMHO it's also an album by album thing, but take for example Led Zeppelin III and Presence, which have never sounded better than on the 2014/15 CD remasters and clearly surpass both the 1980s CDs and the 1990s remasters.

Siouxsie and the Banshees, Through the Looking Glass. The remaster is much better than the thin, tinny original CD.

Nick Drake catalogue. They're not cheap, but there's a line of Japanese paper-sleeve CDs from about 2013 or so that uses the excellent mastering from the digital downloads that came with the 2012 vinyl reissues. That mastering is IMHO the best-ever for Drake's music.

Pretenders, first three albums. The Mobile Fidelity hybrid SACDs are fantastic and last I checked were still in print and gettable for less than $25 each.

Rain Tree Crow, Rain Tree Crow, 2003 remaster. This 1991 release was basically a one-off reunion album for Japan, David Sylvian's band before he went solo. It was remastered and reissued in '03 along with the rest of Sylvian's catalogue and the remaster is 10x better than the original - much more bass, still very dynamic, just a whole different animal.

David Sylvian, Brilliant Trees and Gone to Earth, 2003 remasters. The Brilliant Trees remaster kicks the crap out of all the original/early CD versions. They went back to the original 2-track masters and it shows. The Gone to Earth remaster has tighter bass than the original and the overall sound of is equal or or better than the best of the 1980s masterings.

Robert Plant, Dreamland, 2007 remaster. Plant's mid-2000s remasters are generally dynamically squashed and not great as a result. But the original 2002 release of this album was already smooshed dynamically, and the remaster is actually slightly more dynamic - and more importantly, it just sounds better, with better soundstage depth and less "flatness."

Talk Talk. The Colour of Spring and Spirit of Eden. The 1997 CD remasters are, alas, not necessarily better than the original 1980s CDs - but there are 2012 LP/DVD remasters where the DVDs are excellent. And there are 2003 SACD remasters where the SACD layers have a unique mastering that is sublime. These discs are unfortunately unobtanium, going for $100-$300(!) on the used market. But the DVDs (playable in any DVD player or universal disc player - they are DVD-Vs not DVD-As) can be had on the used market for $30 or less.

This Mortal Coil catalogue. Granted the improvements are modest, but the 2011 remasters are better than the originals.

Big Star, #1 Record, Radio City, and Third/Sister Lovers. The first two of these albums were remastered in 2004 by George Horn and are available in a variety of pressings: a 2004 hybrid SACD 2fer, individual 2014 CDs, and a CD/DVD 2fer that came out sometime in the last 10 years or so. This mastering is the best these albums have ever sounded on digital disc. For the third album, the Complete Third compilation released a couple of years ago is the best these tracks have ever sounded, although it's a 3-CD set and I'm not aware of this mastering being available on a single CD edition (though it might at some point be).

The Allman Brothers Band. Their stuff has been reissued to death and there are multiple reissues of their various albums that sound better than the original CD issues. I'm most familiar with the Mobile fidelity hybrid SACDs, but there are others as well.

The Beatles. Lots of controversy here, but at least some of the 2009 stereo CDs are better than the original 1987 issues - and the 2009 mono set is fantastic sounding on the whole.

Sisters of Mercy, Floodland. Remaster clearly is better than the original 1980s CD IMHO.

Is there any way to look at the song timings or other info on the ripped version to determine what you have, without trying to figure out what box in storage to spend hours looking in?

say for London Calling, and Pink Floyd albums?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Some insights from Roger Nichols who recorded most of Steely Dan records about transients that already disapear from analog mastertapes with in a few houres.

What's the mechanism by which this happens according to Nichols? And has it been measured?

Honest questions btw - I don't know much about tape.

 

[andreasmaaan]

There are plenty of great remasters out there - but also plenty of mediocre and bad ones. So it takes some looking, reading, and trial and error.

The Depeche Mode catalogue was remastered in 2006/2007 with a series of CD/DVD (and in Europe SACD/DVD) remaster sets. Some sound great, some not so much. But I'm surprised to see the OP say they don't like the Violator remaster since it sounds so similar to the original CD. The original CD, for its part, has two slightly different masterings: the US Sire mastering, and the UK/EU Mute mastering. The former is slightly warmer and is probably what the OP is used to. I happen to prefer it as well. The remaster sounds more like the Mute mastering, but it's extraordinarily clean and a very nice alternative.

From Ultra onward, the DM remasters all sound nearly identical to the originals since they were digitally recorded and the remastering engineer himself has said he made only tiny tweaks to the originals.

For the earlier ones, Black Celebration is IMHO the best-sounding, although it's so different from the original that I also recommend the original (specifically the German Mute original, since it sounds better than the US Sire and doesn't have the production error of a false/double-start of "Stripped").

Some other remasters off the top of my head that I think are quite decent:

The Clash, London Calling, 2013 remaster. There's a cult around the 1988 Japan CD, which has a unique - and very nice - mastering. But the 2013 is excellent and easily the 2nd-best mastering out there, and possibly even better than the 1988 Japan depending on your taste. I have both and like them equally - they're just different.

Peter Gabriel, So, 2012 digital download version. Best-sounding version, period. You can ID it online for its 24-bit, 48kHz format (different than the 24/96k format of the more recent digital version).

David Bowie, Aladdin Sane, 40th anniversary remaster. Similar to the Clash, there's a mythos around the original 1980s RCA CD pressings of this album, particular the CSR Japan-for-US version - and that version is indeed great. But the 40th anniversary remaster is cleaner, and while not quite as good (IMHO) in some respects, overall pretty much the equal of the CSR Japan version in my book.

The Cult, Love, 2009 remaster. Clearly better than the original Sire and Beggars Banquet CD masterings, both of which are lacking in bass and overall slam/impact.

Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon, 20th anniversary remaster and 2003 SACD mastering. Both of these are better than the legendary but overrated "Japan non-TO" mastering from the 1980s.

Pink Floyd, Wish You Were Here, Analogue Productions SACD mastering. IMHO also better than the legendary Japanese 2-track CD from the 1980s.

George Harrison, All Things Must Pass, HDTracks mastering. I don't know if this mastering exists on CD but I'm betting it does. Much better than the original CD.

Led Zeppelin catalogue, 2014/15 remasters. Opinions vary on this, and IMHO it's also an album by album thing, but take for example Led Zeppelin III and Presence, which have never sounded better than on the 2014/15 CD remasters and clearly surpass both the 1980s CDs and the 1990s remasters.

Siouxsie and the Banshees, Through the Looking Glass. The remaster is much better than the thin, tinny original CD.

Nick Drake catalogue. They're not cheap, but there's a line of Japanese paper-sleeve CDs from about 2013 or so that uses the excellent mastering from the digital downloads that came with the 2012 vinyl reissues. That mastering is IMHO the best-ever for Drake's music.

Pretenders, first three albums. The Mobile Fidelity hybrid SACDs are fantastic and last I checked were still in print and gettable for less than $25 each.

Rain Tree Crow, Rain Tree Crow, 2003 remaster. This 1991 release was basically a one-off reunion album for Japan, David Sylvian's band before he went solo. It was remastered and reissued in '03 along with the rest of Sylvian's catalogue and the remaster is 10x better than the original - much more bass, still very dynamic, just a whole different animal.

David Sylvian, Brilliant Trees and Gone to Earth, 2003 remasters. The Brilliant Trees remaster kicks the crap out of all the original/early CD versions. They went back to the original 2-track masters and it shows. The Gone to Earth remaster has tighter bass than the original and the overall sound of is equal or or better than the best of the 1980s masterings.

Robert Plant, Dreamland, 2007 remaster. Plant's mid-2000s remasters are generally dynamically squashed and not great as a result. But the original 2002 release of this album was already smooshed dynamically, and the remaster is actually slightly more dynamic - and more importantly, it just sounds better, with better soundstage depth and less "flatness."

Talk Talk. The Colour of Spring and Spirit of Eden. The 1997 CD remasters are, alas, not necessarily better than the original 1980s CDs - but there are 2012 LP/DVD remasters where the DVDs are excellent. And there are 2003 SACD remasters where the SACD layers have a unique mastering that is sublime. These discs are unfortunately unobtanium, going for $100-$300(!) on the used market. But the DVDs (playable in any DVD player or universal disc player - they are DVD-Vs not DVD-As) can be had on the used market for $30 or less.

This Mortal Coil catalogue. Granted the improvements are modest, but the 2011 remasters are better than the originals.

Big Star, #1 Record, Radio City, and Third/Sister Lovers. The first two of these albums were remastered in 2004 by George Horn and are available in a variety of pressings: a 2004 hybrid SACD 2fer, individual 2014 CDs, and a CD/DVD 2fer that came out sometime in the last 10 years or so. This mastering is the best these albums have ever sounded on digital disc. For the third album, the Complete Third compilation released a couple of years ago is the best these tracks have ever sounded, although it's a 3-CD set and I'm not aware of this mastering being available on a single CD edition (though it might at some point be).

The Allman Brothers Band. Their stuff has been reissued to death and there are multiple reissues of their various albums that sound better than the original CD issues. I'm most familiar with the Mobile fidelity hybrid SACDs, but there are others as well.

The Beatles. Lots of controversy here, but at least some of the 2009 stereo CDs are better than the original 1987 issues - and the 2009 mono set is fantastic sounding on the whole.

Sisters of Mercy, Floodland. Remaster clearly is better than the original 1980s CD IMHO.

Many thanks for this. Looking forward to checking out some of these

 

[Robin L]

"Tell My Sister": The first two McGarrigle Sisters albums for Warner Brothers, puts demos and outtakes on a third CD. Better mix job, better sound for an already good sounding recording:

 

[tmtomh]

Is there any way to look at the song timings or other info on the ripped version to determine what you have, without trying to figure out what box in storage to spend hours looking in?

say for London Calling, and Pink Floyd albums?

You have identified the issue - very annoying unless one enjoys hanging out on the Hoffman forums and similar venues finding out about this stuff!

Specifically on the Clash London Calling and Floyd albums, though, it's pretty easy.

For London Calling, the 2013 mastering is available on only one standalone CD mastering. Unfortunately it's a 2-CD version - the trend towards vinyl is also driving the aesthetics of some CD releases, so the 2013 Clash reissue is 2 CDs to replicate the original division of the vinyl version. So if your version is not a 2 CD release with a 2013 copyright date on the back and a paper/LP-replica sleeve, it's not the 2013 remaster. Similarly, if it's not a Japan-for-Japan CD with Japanese text somewhere on the inserts (Japanese lyric booklet and/or Japanese text on the spine) and a 25 8P in the catalogue number, it's not the 1988 Japanese mastering.

For Floyd Dark Side, the 20th anniversary mastering is not well-regarded at the Hoffman forums compared to the original 1983 Sony Japan mastering - but the 20th anniversary mastering did beat out the Sony Japan and everything else when folks at the Hoffman forums ran a blind test. The 20th Anniversary mastering was done by Doug Sax and is available dirt cheap on the used market - like $4. The actual 20th Anniversary CD ie easily distinguished because the front cover has a milky, semi-opaque version of the famous prism rather than the traditional transparent version. Also, the 20th Anniversary mastering should be on any regular CD with a 1993 and I believe 1994 copyright date on it, as that mastering was re-used on regular-cover CD issues after the original 20th Anniversary CD came out.

For Wish You Were Here, the mastering I prefer is just on the Analogue Productions hybrid SACD. The original pressing goes for semi-stupid money now, but they recently issued a repress and it's available for the semi-reasonable price of $35 or so. I believe the same mastering - or if not the same then pretty darned close - is also available eon the 2011 Blu-Ray audio release. I'm not aware of a regular CD version of that mastering - to get a redbook version you have to go with the redbook layer of the SACD. The early, 1980s 2-track Japan mastering is insane on the used market - $150 to $400. Not worth it - it's almost certainly made from a copy tape and like the original Japan Dark Side, probably a vinyl cutting master. So like the old Dark Side, folks like this 2-track WYWH CD because it sounds "warm," "analogue," and "crackable" - in other words it's basically an LP on CD, and therefore probably not what most folks here would value in a mastering. (BTW it's called the 2-track because each "side" of the original LP is indexed as a single track, so it has 2 tracks rather than the proper 5).

For the others, Discogs is a fantastic resource. Armed with the date info and other descriptors I noted above, it should be somewhat easy to find them on Discogs and then if desired compare the images to your own copies.

Hope this helps!

 

[levimax]

Some insights from Roger Nichols who recorded most of Steely Dan records about transients that already disapear from analog mastertapes with in a few houres. So what about the original quality of re-masters made of analog masters (guess the majority) that are already loosing transients with in a few hours. I would say enjoy the music despite lose of transients still enjoyable enough i guess but don't expect or claim it is the original sound the engineers heard when it was made. I have the impression that MQA claims or suggest that.

Roger Nichols: Yes, and it’s mostly because when I record something on a digital machine..um, you know, and I play it back ten years from now it will sound exatly the same. So if there is some little artifact because it’s digital, it’s a majorable (sic) artifact, and it’s going to be the same artifact ten years from now. If I record something on Analog tape and it doesn’t matter whether I’m do using Dolby SR, Dolby A or DBX or no noise reduction or whatever it is, if you record something on a piece of analog tape and play it back later the same day, the same program is not on the tape. And there’s nothing so far that anybody’d been able to do about that, you know, like those little magnetic particles are made to be able to wander around and they do so by themselves while the tape is just sitting there. I’ve made DAT copies when I’m cutting tracks, and then have an automation snap shot of the mix and then later that evening put the tape back on, play it back, compare it with the Dat, and there’s already starting to be a difference. And by the time a week or two weeks go by and it’s time to mix, a lot of the transients have started to disappear. If you use this as a tool, some people like what this does, and it sort of helps to mix all their music together, that’s fine, but, you know, you can’t say that Analog tape with Dolby SR is as good as Digital. It might be as quiet, and but it’s not going to retain the signal, you know, as long as Digital tape. So that’s my biggest worry about Analog tape.

http://pieralessandri.com/ROGER-NICHOLS-interview

Time is not kind to master tapes.... and either is fire or any other of the many things that can happen over time. The original CD's were made with 25 to 35 year newer master tapes than the remasters. Fresher master tapes and more importantly lack of "look ahead compressors" is why many seek out original CD's.... that and the fact that they only cost a few dollars. As far as remasters goes the ABCKO SACD's of the rolling stones are better than either my original LP's or original CD's for Beggars Banquet and Let it Bleed.

 

[tmtomh]

Time is not kind to master tapes.... and either is fire or any other of the many things that can happen over time. The original CD's were made with 25 to 35 year newer master tapes than the remasters. Fresher master tapes and more importantly lack of "look ahead compressors" is why many seek out original CD's.... that and the fact that they only cost a few dollars. As far as remasters goes the ABCKO SACD's of the rolling stones are better than either my original LP's or original CD's for Beggars Banquet and Let it Bleed.

Good points - and yes, the 2002 Stones remasters are generally excellent and better than the original CDs.

The only interesting tidbit about the original Stones CDs is that many were made from unauthorized copies of the masters Mobile Fidelity made for their Stones vinyl box. Apparently the master sources were smuggled out of MoFi's HQ and given to London Records - crazy story. The original Hot Rocks I in particular is cool because it has some rare wide-stereo versions of tracks.

http://www.lukpac.org/stereostones/stones-cd-faq.txt

 

[levimax]

Good points - and yes, the 2002 Stones remasters are generally excellent and better than the original CDs.

The only interesting tidbit about the original Stones CDs is that many were made from unauthorized copies of the masters Mobile Fidelity made for their Stones vinyl box. Apparently the master sources were smuggled out of MoFi's HQ and given to London Records - crazy story. The original Hot Rocks I in particular is cool because it has some rare wide-stereo versions of tracks.

http://www.lukpac.org/stereostones/stones-cd-faq.txt

I think I have the original Hot Rocks... will have to check it out. If you believe the Hoffman forums they say for Sticky Fingers the original Virgin CD is the best. I picked up a copy the other day and it sounds very good ... I don't have other versions to compare it to except original UK vinyl and what ever is streaming. I would say the Virgin CD holds it's own and for the price can't be beat.

 

[Guermantes]

It Ain't Necessarily So.

In the early days of computer assisted mixing there was a huge variety of kit, most of it custom made mini computers. Some of it has survived, working but most of it has not. The desktop PCs of the day were nowhere near powerful enough to handle the near-real time requirements of mixing. While many vintage consoles of that era have survived and remain in service, the mixing computer (and the faders) have almost invariably been replaced. So the practical reality of running a mix recorded on early hardware is so close to zero that I don't believe its ever actually been done. The commercial incentive would have to be alarmingly large to warrant the necessary work.

And there's another issue: if the faders have been replaced (which, almost certainly, they would have), it would be necessary to know the exact law of the originals otherwise the mix data would be worthless. Mixing systems tend to record the physical position of the faders as a value from 0-255 in a linear manner. The audio law relating to that positioning is anything but linear so unless you know how to match the physical position to a particular amount of attenuation, knowledge of the physical fader positions is only half the battle.

There is also the issue that the dynamics and EQ settings were not automated on those consoles. They still relied on engineers marking their settings by hand on template sheets for each track. I wonder how many of those were archived with the multi-tracks?

I'd really love to get some insight into how Steven Wilson makes his decisions. Is it all by ear? If so, then much respect!