Question about remastering cd's

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by John Torrez, Sep 13, 2002.

  1. John Torrez

    John Torrez Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2000
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you think that remastering cd's that were released around ten year's ago would sound significantly better than before?
     
  2. Andrew Chong

    Andrew Chong Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In some cases, I believe they do.

    For instance, being a newly converted Electric Light Orchestra fan, I have been snatching up all of their digitally remastered albums of the 70s as well as anything else of theirs I can reasonably get my hands on. In addition to these digital remastered versions I have received as a gift a two-disc best of set that doesn't have any indication that it was remastered (which is not to say that it wasn't I suppose).

    At any rate, to my ears, the tracks on the digitally remastered albums sound more scintillating and dynamic than the tracks on the album that doesn't appear to be remastered. A more satisfying listening experience.
     
  3. Anthony Hom

    Anthony Hom Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 1999
    Messages:
    890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is usually a 2 part situation.
    1. The technology to do the analog to digital conversion

    2. The source master tape. This is usually the bigger factor because many CDs done in the 80's just took the stereo master tape created for vinyl, while newer releases, some of them found the original mutli-tracks.
    I think the best example of continuing to find better masters was Tommy by the Who.
     
  4. Joel Fontenot

    Joel Fontenot Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 1999
    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    610
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Real Name:
    Joel Fontenot
    It depends.
    There are as wildly differing views on this as there are releases of CD's these days.
    It also depends on the particular re-mastering job.
    It seems that a lot of material is getting re-issued as "re-masters" when all that is done is an overly-loud, dynamically-compressed, brick-wall-limited (the sound wave flattens out at 0-db for way too many samples) mush-job to compete with the majority of contemporary pop-music releases these days.
    I started a thread over a month ago asking if "loud" CD's were really better. I said "no" because it was limiting the original dynamics of the original recording. I was also steered over to Steve Hoffman's site (the guy who did all the DCC Gold CD re-masters and others over the years), where there is a forum of members who discuss this issue all the time - which re-masters are really any good, which original release CD's to keep (or look for), among other CD, LP, re-mastering and re-equalizing things. That forum challenges many assumptions about how good recent re-masters really are, such as anything from The Who re-mastered by Jon Astley and the entire Led Zeppelin re-mastered catalog.
    Joel
     
  5. John Torrez

    John Torrez Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2000
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Guys, I don't think you understand me. Two artists I like (The Cranberries and Selena) just got their albums remastered and re-released. The cds originally came out in the early nineties. I got The Cranberries set because there was two in there that I didn't own. I also own a few Selena cd's that have been "remastered" and I was just wondering if I should replace them.
     
  6. Justin Doring

    Justin Doring Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 1999
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've heard some remastered CDs that sound much, much better than the originals, and some that sound much, much worth.
     
  7. Joel Fontenot

    Joel Fontenot Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 1999
    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    610
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Real Name:
    Joel Fontenot
    I think my answer still applies. Even recent remasters of CD's from just a few years ago get caught up in the "louder is better" falsehood. But you just have to check it out yourself to be sure.

    Joel
     
  8. Jeff Ulmer

    Jeff Ulmer Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 1998
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with Joel - it depends on the particular case. Just because it's remastered doesn't mean it is necessarily better, or truer to the original recordings. It also depends on who remasters them. If I see Bob Ludwig credited with the remaster, chances are it will be very good (even if it is limited into oblivion like every modern release). Ludwig has a great sense of frequency coverage, and generally produces very full sounding masters.

    I have some remastered work that is pure and utter crap, the engineers didn't know what the hell they were doing, and I can hear all kinds of digital noise reduction artifacts that are blatently obvious, not to mention the "enhancing" of the recording with new overdubs.

    If the mastering engineer knows what they're doing, and has good source material to work with, the remasters can be better. It's all in the hands of the person doing the work.
     
  9. John Watson

    John Watson Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,937
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re-mastered?

    As credible as "new and improved"?
     

Share This Page