View Full Version : Remastered/Remixed albums...a waste of time or not?
Just wondering your opinions on all these remastered/remixed albums that have appeared lately and will appear in the future. For example, the Ramones 1st 4 albums have been remastered, acdc as well and I just bought The Stooges 'Raw Power' which has supposedly been remixed by Iggy Pop (original was mixed by Bowie of course).
Do you think these are worth the time/money? Does anyone know if the sound quality actually improved with the new AC/DC/Ramones versions? From my point of view they are a money grabbing waste of time from the record companies...with 'Raw Power' a possible exception since the sound is actually different from what I've read.
Remixed is another way to suck in morons that already have bought one of Tupacs 50 albums. Nice way of milking more $$$'s of gullible morons thinking that this is new material, despite the fact the 'artist' in question was capped around 7 odd years ago.
Remastered albums I've bought, only becuase the others I have are on cassette (and **** quality anyway).
Stealth bomber
2 Sep 2003, 17:55
Good thread.
I find that if the original recording was done to analog tape, then the remaster can be worth getting. Otherwise, no. There's point if it was recorded to digital in the first place.
A lot of it depends on the quality of the original recording itself. I listen to a lot of records from the 70s, and there is quite a large gap between good and bad sounding albums, because of the technological progressions of that time.
I've recently bought a couple remasters of Rush albums I have, and A/B'd them against each other. The newer copies generally achieved a little better separation between certain instruments (can be both good and bad) and they had a little more dynamic range.
I find it greatly improves the sound of drums, which for me (a drummer) is pleasant, but it might not be that important to somebody else.
In my experiments, I found that the older the recording was, the bigger difference it made. One album was recorded in 1975 and another in 1982. The differences in the 1975 original and remaster were quite apparent, but when I listened to the 1982 record, the difference was a lot harder to notice.
I would recommend that if you must remaster you CD catalog, to start with the oldest releases first. Any difference would be most significant and noticeable on those recordings.
Any recording less than 20 years old is probably not worth remastering.
gPhonque
2 Sep 2003, 18:25
Originally posted by Stealth bomber
I find that if the original recording was done to analog tape, then the remaster can be worth getting. Otherwise, no. There's point if it was recorded to digital in the first place.
Are you saying digital sounds better than analogue?
:confused:
Desredandwhite
2 Sep 2003, 19:58
I haven't really taken the time to A/B any original albums with the remastered versions, but I'd say that the newer versions would PROBABLY be worth getting over the older ones. This is if you don't already own it on CD of course. If that makes sense. As with anything, it's quite possible to screw up even the best of albums if the remastered or remixed version was thrown together by some hack.
Stealthy is right though - you would hear more of a difference with older material...
To recap, if you don't already own the albums, the remasters are probably worth getting. If you already own them, then I guess it depends on the individual release as to whether it's worth the trouble "upgrading" them.
Stealth bomber
2 Sep 2003, 23:40
Are you saying digital sounds better than analogue?
No, not at all - generally I prefer a combination of the two.
What I mean is, I don't think it is really necessary to remaster something that was already digital in the first place, and that I tend to notice more of a tangible difference whenever analogue albums are remastered, as opposed to digital.
gPhonque
3 Sep 2003, 12:56
Originally posted by Stealth bomber
No, not at all - generally I prefer a combination of the two.
What I mean is, I don't think it is really necessary to remaster something that was already digital in the first place, and that I tend to notice more of a tangible difference whenever analogue albums are remastered, as opposed to digital.
No offence but I don't think you really know what you're talking about.
Even today, most BIG rock albums are still recorded to analogue tape, and even mastered to analogue tape as well in some situations (although digital mastering is becoming more common - only because the final result is a) cheaper and b) doesn't sound all that different to an analogue master - especially if it's been recorded to analogue to begin with....)
But recording to digital eliminates many possibilites and techniques beneficial to the "rock" sound that you CAN NOT get with digital.
Analogue = warmth and personality and fatness.
Digital = bland, but true and clean.
What I mean is, I don't think it is really necessary to remaster something that was already digital in the first place,
Interestingly, a lot of albums that are recorded straight to digital (eg. lower budget albums) are then mastered to analogue tape anyway. (before being transferred back to digital)
For the record, I think remastered albums are a waste of time 99% of the time.
Christ - give me an old 70's album and I'll compress it a little more and add a bit of tops and bottoms - ooh a remaster! :rolleyes:
It's a big scam aimed to get people to "update" their vinyl collection by deceiving them into thinking that their "remastered cd's" are anything more than a straight analogue to digital transfer with a bit of EQ cleanup.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to who is (or was) sitting at the desk twiddling the knobs.
The best gear/equipment of 20-30 years ago is still the best gear of today.
clucas91
3 Sep 2003, 13:14
I have a remastered version of Tubular Bells, well worth it considering the record was getting really worn.
Stealth bomber
3 Sep 2003, 14:25
No offence but I don't think you really know what you're talking about.
Well, none taken, although that's not exactly a vote of confidence for a guy who was hoping to take some TAFE courses on audio production.
I feel like I know a fair bit about the recording process, but I know absolutely nothing about the mastering process, and I'll admit that.
I was under the impression that just about everything was at least converted to digital nowadays, even if it was recorded to analog.
The best gear/equipment of 20-30 years ago is still the best gear of today.
I like to read an AE's forum and those guys are always going on about how "if I had kept this and never bought that, I'd be so much happier".
Rusty Brookes
3 Sep 2003, 16:52
Originally posted by CarterS
Just wondering your opinions on all these remastered/remixed albums that have appeared lately and will appear in the future. For example, the Ramones 1st 4 albums have been remastered, acdc as well and I just bought The Stooges 'Raw Power' which has supposedly been remixed by Iggy Pop (original was mixed by Bowie of course).
Do you think these are worth the time/money? Does anyone know if the sound quality actually improved with the new AC/DC/Ramones versions? From my point of view they are a money grabbing waste of time from the record companies...with 'Raw Power' a possible exception since the sound is actually different from what I've read.
The Raw Power was a remix, rather than a remaster- there is more bass, original backing vocals put back in the mix etc. It does sound different compared to the original version of the album.
I've bought a lot of the Ramones remasters mainly because I wanted the liner notes, the extra tracks and to save my vinyl which is starting to show some wear. I've also picked up the Blue Oyster Cult remasters for the same reason.
I prefer vinyl - pops, crackles and all. Nothing like it. That might be because most of the music I like was originally released on vinyl so it's more authentic somehow.
I bought all the Beach Boys remastered CDs because for one thing, they have two albums on each, plus bonus tracks so it's good value, and for the simple reason that some of their lesser-known albums are hard to find on vinyl, and the sound hasn't been messed around with too much.
However, the Jan & Dean catalogue has been remastered and the sound is absolutely AWFUL compared to the original masters. Jan Berry himself has publicly expressed his disgust at the quality and urged fans NOT to buy them. :eek: Thing is, he's right.
I don't think they're a waste of time, but as I said, my preferred format is vinyl. The sound just doesn't compare.
Originally posted by lioness22
..., my preferred format is vinyl. The sound just doesn't compare.
Must agree. I've read that most audiophiles collect vinyl as there's more depth of sound.
I went out and got the whole Bowie back catalogue on vinyl, it just seems to have a bit more 'soul'. And I like to hear classic albums the way they were heard at the time.