Why I don't buy re-masters..

[MDAguy]

Lately I've been on a kick to get rid of any re-master music I have and get original masters... it occurred to me a while ago, that the reason I hated so much of the music released in the 90's and 2000's is that it's just too darn loud... I remember thinking that I liked certain songs (Green Day is a prime example)... but would get tired after listening to the songs for a few minutes... fatigued actually.

Suffice it to say, while searching for original masters, I came across a few CD's labeled 24k Gold .. supposedly they're taken from the original tapes, with no transfers between... some of these are selling for $100-$500 on ebay..

 

[killdozzer]

Even here, I just wait and see what I'm getting. A lot of the re-masters (but I'm quite picky) that I collected are improvement and not just louder. But I agree that whenever it's just louder I skip. There are some funny ones that are simply not justified at all, like equally good and loud (and dynamic and the rest) like anniversary Metallica (??), I don't see anything but the extra material. It should be called re-issue. OTOH, what Wilson did with Jethro Tull, Yes and some other names, I truly appreciate. It's simply saved from lost and much better sounding. I think one second of Velvet Green from Songs From The Woods would convince anyone.

 

[tmtomh]

Lately I've been on a kick to get rid of any re-master music I have and get original masters... it occurred to me a while ago, that the reason I hated so much of the music released in the 90's and 2000's is that it's just too darn loud... I remember thinking that I liked certain songs (Green Day is a prime example)... but would get tired after listening to the songs for a few minutes... fatigued actually.

Suffice it to say, while searching for original masters, I came across a few CD's labeled 24k Gold .. supposedly they're taken from the original tapes, with no transfers between... some of these are selling for $100-$500 on ebay..

View attachment 102237View attachment 102238

If what you're seeking is the best sonic experience, then it's a mistake to rule out all remasters (or to rule out all original masterings) - it's a mixed bag.

Yes, dynamically compressed, overly loud mastering is a major and frequent problem - though thankfully the Loudness Wars have overall receded a bit from their roughly 2000-2010 peak. And I myself have not only skipped many remasters for this reason, but I've also simply not bought some modern albums because I liked the music but could not stand the squashed mastering. It's a shame.

But with all that said, there are plenty of remasters out there that are much better-sounding than the originals. And for really big bands and other acts that have multiple remasterings out there, there can be great mastering from any period (original 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. or now) - it's hard to predict.

Finally, as for those gold CDs, those are 1990s Columbia Mastersound CDs. They were marketed as audiophile remasters, and they are generally not overly compressed (most of them came out in the late 1980s/early 1990s, just before the widespread use of the digital limiting tools that enabled the Loudness War). But they are highly overrated and I can't think of a single title that is currently considered to be the best mastering by the folks who really care about this stuff and discuss it at places like the Hoffman forums. Pretty much every Mastersound mastering is bettered by a subsequent remaster or by the original 1980s CD version. Personally I have found the Mastersound releases I've heard to be okay but a bit grainy-sounding and not terribly clean sounding. I hesitate to use such subjective language but that's the only way I can think of to characterize them.

 

[nj75f]

Always checking with Spek - Acoustic Spectrum Analyser.

 

[paulraphael]

... But with all that said, there are plenty of remasters out there that are much better-sounding than the originals. And for really big bands and other acts that have multiple remasterings out there, there can be great mastering from any period (original 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. or now) - it's hard to predict.

Agree 100%. I've been comparing multiple releases of the same albums over the last few months and find it to be a total mixed bag. Some remasters are better than the original, some worse. Sometimes the difference is subtle, sometimes not.

To avoid disappointment, I often check out what people are saying over on the forums at Steve Hoffman's site. Sometimes there are more opinions in the room than ears, but you can usually tease out if a particular release will be a revelation or a dog.

I recently got my hands of a 24/96khz remaster of a Blondie album that I like for mostly nostalgic reasons. I was excited, because the original master is so harsh and bright that I've used it to audition stereo equipment. Nothing out there has ever made it sound good, but some systems make it tolerable. Anyway, the remaster sounded significantly harsher and brighter (and not surprisingly, louder) than my MP3 of the original release. Epic fail!

But I love the 2002 ABKCO Stones remasters.

 

[pwjazz]

Yeah, it's a mixed bag, but sticking to CDs from the 80s is a good for of thumb, and there are so many available so cheaply.

 

[Wombat]

If I like the version I have, I don't look further.

Mostly.

 

[M00ndancer]

Yeah, it's a mixed bag, but sticking to CDs from the 80s is a good for of thumb, and there are so many available so cheaply.

My Saga and Toto CDs and LPs are sacred....
Just kidding!
Actually one of the Saga records on vinyl is from the first pressing with the drummer playing wrong on the start of side B. Haven't found a CD that still has the error.

 

[Phorize]

If what you're seeking is the best sonic experience, then it's a mistake to rule out all remasters (or to rule out all original masterings) - it's a mixed bag.

Yes, dynamically compressed, overly loud mastering is a major and frequent problem - though thankfully the Loudness Wars have overall receded a bit from their roughly 2000-2010 peak. And I myself have not only skipped many remasters for this reason, but I've also simply not bought some modern albums because I liked the music but could not stand the squashed mastering. It's a shame.

But with all that said, there are plenty of remasters out there that are much better-sounding than the originals. And for really big bands and other acts that have multiple remasterings out there, there can be great mastering from any period (original 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. or now) - it's hard to predict.

Finally, as for those gold CDs, those are 1990s Columbia Mastersound CDs. They were marketed as audiophile remasters, and they are generally not overly compressed (most of them came out in the late 1980s/early 1990s, just before the widespread use of the digital limiting tools that enabled the Loudness War). But they are highly overrated and I can't think of a single title that is currently considered to be the best mastering by the folks who really care about this stuff and discuss it at places like the Hoffman forums. Pretty much every Mastersound mastering is bettered by a subsequent remaster or by the original 1980s CD version. Personally I have found the Mastersound releases I've heard to be okay but a bit grainy-sounding and not terribly clean sounding. I hesitate to use such subjective language but that's the only way I can think of to characterize them.

On the Columbia gold masters, Steve Hoffman is on the record as saying that the Santana 1 version is the best there is, given how bad it is to begin with. I don’t normally buy multiple versions of one album but I do own an unopened original us pressing which I can’t bring myself to open, the ‘standard’ uk cd released in the 90s, the recent mofi 45 and the uk first pressing. Don’t ask why I own all of these, I have no idea.

Needless to say comparisons are between apples, oranges, plums and pineapples. I do feel that the Columbia master is the most flattering, it’s tonally very nice and much less ‘muddy’ than the standard cd. I’m am sure that Steve Hoffman’s view that this is the case was of no influence at all to my perception...not.

 

[Vini darko]

This has been one of the issues ive encountered with streaming. Alot of the content is remasters.

 

[tmtomh]

This has been one of the issues ive encountered with streaming. Alot of the content is remasters.

Yes - and in any event there's no ability to choose which mastering you get served up.

 

[M00ndancer]

This has been one of the issues ive encountered with streaming. Alot of the content is remasters.

Some of the remasters are good, but not all. So I decided to dig up all my older CDs and vinyl, ripping/recording them as FLAC 44.1 Khz 16 bit. I did rip them a long time ago but with MP3 VBR 192 kbps due to compatibility with older gear and storage space. But now I have space and newer gear.