|   What are your thoughts on re-mastering | Mr Peabody
Nov 8, 2003 7:21 AM | | This is a topic I have mixed feelings about and wonder what it is they do. I think most would agree in a direct comparison that in most instances the re-master does sound better. But I notice in some re-masters an artificial quality or feel to them. Ever notice how a song sounds different on a movie soundtrack opposed to the album? Kind of like that. It seems something is taken out that should have been left there. Re-masters are missing more than noise. It's like when a human gets kidnapped in the old movies and replaced by an alien or robot, you can tell something just isn't quite right which tips you off.
I don't have many, I don't replace CD's just to get a re-master. I was disappointed in the Pink Floyd Animals re-master. It seems to me like they pumped up the bass too much and ruined the tonal balance of the album. I recently bought AC/DC Highway to Hell that had been re-mastered and that was probably one of the best I've experienced. They were able to bring out the detail more and still leave the original feel intact. In my opinion one of the worst re-mix or re-master, or both, is the way they done the old ZZ Top songs on the 2nd greatest hits album. The new drum tracks stick out like a sore thumb. I have to skip those tracks, I can't stand them. But that's different than what I am talking about with general re-masters.
I just wondered if anyone else notices anything different about re-masters in comparison to the original release, I'm talking cd to cd. |
| Worst remix/remaster ever, IMO: | mad rhetorik
Nov 8, 2003 9:39 AM | | Me and J were talking about this earlier in the week: The Stooges' Raw Power. The Iggy-released remix and remaster (1996) of that album is way over-distorted, has no bass, and the new additions (original endings instead of fade-outs, "yeahs" in "Shake Appeal" and "Search And Destroy") did not justify the effed-up remixing at all. Basically, if there is a tutorial on how to f--k up a classic album, I'd say Raw Power fits that bill.
Recently I bought two Bob Dylan albums on their original unremastered CD formats, not the new SACD format. The way I figure, those two albums sounded so good on vinyl that I can't see how remastering would improve them, so I stuck to the closest thing to the original mixes as I could find. Why screw with perfection?
I thought the Animals remaster was fine, though then again I haven't heard the original vinyl. You can tell they emphasized Waters' basslines though. Ego-stroking, perhaps?
One band's remasters I like are Led Zeppelin's, especially for their work on II and III. It sounds really good, really nice mix and overall clarity without making it sound too "smooth" which is a common complaint with remastering. I'm listening to II right now. |
| re: What are your thoughts on re-mastering | Troy
Nov 8, 2003 11:52 AM | | Yeah, I agree with the Rhetoric, the Floyd remasters that I've heard sound much clearer and brighter than the original issue CDs. Meddle and Obscured sound WAY better than they ever have in the past. Ditto the XTC, Yes and Genesis remasters as well. If anything, they are too bright.
Like you, I avoid buying albums multiple times for the most part.
I think what you're referring to is more of a remix kinda thing. Compare the original version of the Pfurs "Pretty in Pink" to the one released with that godawful movie of the same name. They took all the grit out of it and that's waht made it have character. |
| Only reason why I bought Dylan on CD: | mad rhetorik
Nov 8, 2003 12:52 PM | | I can't exactly justify dragging my dad's turntable with me to college. Not just due to space considerations, but because he won't part with the damn thing. : P
So I bought unremastered CD copies of Hwy. 61 Revisited and Blood On The Tracks on the cheap. I also bought VU & Nico and their third self-titled album, Dark Side Of The Moon, Exile On Main Street, and Led Zeppelin II through Houses Of The Holy over the past year. I miss the sound of needle dropping on vinyl, but I'll just have to deal. |
| Only reason why I bought Dylan on CD: | Mr Peabody
Nov 8, 2003 7:20 PM | | It would be interesting to hear the remaster of Led Zepplin II. There is some distinctive noise and hiss on this album. But also some interesting details like squeak from the kickdrum pedal. I love the drum solo on the 2nd to the last song. I use this to test equipment sometimes. A good fast amp really shows the slam in Bonham's drumming. |
| Some are worth buying an album over again, some aren't. | 3-LockBox
Nov 8, 2003 5:19 PM | | I wasn't real thrilled with the Yes or Genesis remasters myself, but the XTC remasters were superb. And some of Steely Dan's remasters are hit and miss (the older the release, the more noticed improvement). Kansas' and Bob Seger's remastered CDs are astonishing.
I agree that the older material on ZZ Top's second greatest hits offering was dreadful sounding. I think a lot of remasters are merely EQ'd for loudness (bass and treble) w/ the average (RMS) volume increased to sound closer to the way newer CDs are mastered, without much attention being paid to detail or dynamics. |
| Some are worth buying an album over again, some aren't. | happy ears
Nov 9, 2003 7:45 AM | | Well I would have to agree some remasters are great and others stink. What I do not understand, why when the remaster sometimes the new engineer figures he new what the band wanted. Maybe some of the young crowd like loud thumping bass that drowns out the music, but this was not what the band originally recorded. It sure seams like at hit a miss at times. |
| |
