I say often not. It's one of my worries about streaming, where they often replace the albums I love with the so-called remastered version.What is your take, when we see a note on CD stating "digitally remastered" do we generally get a better a sound or not?
I say often not. It's one of my worries about streaming, where they often replace the albums I love with the so-called remastered version.
What is meant by 'digital' remastering anyway? If they take the analogue tape and re-digitise it, presumably it may have been degrading for a further 20 years since the first digitisation. And then if they decide to mess with it further (EQ, compression etc.), they may simply be making it sound fashionable by today's standards i.e. crap.
If they simply take the old CD without analogue re-digitisation and process it in some glorified Audacity application to add EQ, compression, noise removal etc., then that's no better.
I avoid it like the plague.What is your take, when we see a note on CD stating "digitally remastered" do we generally get a better a sound or not?
I avoid it like the plague.
Sadly, many analogue masters degraded and had to be baked in an oven, which allowed a one-off only playback and digitisation. However good the digitisation was then is as good as it'll ever be for that master.
Any subsequent releases, whether on CD or other media will all have originated with that one-off playback, or an earlier digitisation.
In answer to the original question, I try and avoid anything that says 'Remastered', but I accept that some of the very latest remasters may be better than earlier remasters or indeed the original CD. I have all the Dire Straits CDs, bought when first issued, and they are amongst the finest pop/rock recordings I have. Touchingly, they leave about 6dB headroom above peaks, and no flat-topping anywhere.
S.
Because they tend to be cynical re-releases that have just been messed about with compressed suffering funky EQ etc often to me at least they've just sounded completely wrong. I tend to find pre-2000 releases to be far superior maybe because they've been designed to sound decent on a CD player with speakers rather than on an iPod etc.Why? You think it cannot possibly be done right for technical reasons or ..?
Good example I also bought those box sets and yes although I was a bit worried they do sound decent.Remastered - just another term that gets used and abused at the marketing execs. whim. You can never tell what you're getting. Sometimes it's nothing more than an excuse to attempt to make more money from old catalogue... occasionally you get a real gem like the recent Kate Bush remasters that sound truly superb.
Do you not feel that they are a real step up from the earlier issues?they do sound decent
Well the originals were kinda crappy , I think (read someplace ) some of the sound effects in her records are crude 8 bit samples etc so I’m not sure we are ever going to get brilliant versions but from the 2 albums I have played these do seem decent.Do you not feel that they are a real step up from the earlier issues?
Perhaps your system isn't sufficiently high resolving?
isn't that what I'm supposed to say at times like this, prior to descending into a tantrum?
Iv been told it's often the bands wanting it to sound ‘killer’ that means we end up with shite.Exactly. And in my eyes that leaves a possiblity for a new technology to jump in and enhance what can be enhanced from these recordings.
I have some remasters of the Pink Floyd albums that were approved by the band and they really sound good. But to me the original albums, which I also have, also sound good.
The first two albums (Kick Inside and Lionheart, both originating in 1978) would have been entirely analogue with the possible exception of some effects boxes which were digital internally with analogue I/O. Abbey Road probably had access to the EMT250 digital reverb by that time (the unit that looks a bit like the monolith in 2001).they seem to of done their best with what were original digital masters ( don’t think any tape was used back then,all digital)
I don't see the fear around this, streaming services seem to have most versions, and they have an incentive to keep them so they can boast of more tracks on the service, streaming is great for listening to each and making you mind up without having to commit to spend money, and to get the 3 extra CDs of maily filler they come packaged with, for the odd good song.I say often not. It's one of my worries about streaming, where they often replace the albums I love with the so-called remastered version.
Exactly. And in my eyes that leaves a possiblity for a new technology to jump in and enhance what can be enhanced from these recordings.
I have some remasters of the Pink Floyd albums that were approved by the band and they really sound good. But to me the original albums, which I also have, also sound good.
Maybe we can look at them , iv not got the means to analyze them though. Be interesting to see direct comparisons between the original masters and these new expensive box sets.The first two albums (Kick Inside and Lionheart, both originating in 1978) would have been entirely analogue with the possible exception of some effects boxes which were digital internally with analogue I/O. Abbey Road probably had access to the EMT250 digital reverb by that time (the unit that looks a bit like the monolith in 2001).
The recording would've been entirely analogue, most likely Dolby A encoded at every stage.