Are remastered CDs good or bad?
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 12. 2019
- psaudio.com
Lots of CDs have been reissued as better or higher resolution than the originals. Are they actually worth the money? Have a question you want to ask Paul?
I have finished my memoir! You can go read it now: www.amazon.com/gp/product/173... It's called 99% True and it is chock full of adventures, debauchery, struggles, heartwarming stories, triumphs and failures, great belly laughs, and a peek inside the high-end audio industry you've never known before.
I plan a few surprises for early adopters, so go to www.paulmcgowan.com and add your name to the list of interested readers. There's an entire gallery of never before seen photos too. - Věda a technologie
Generally Remastering in many cases means two things at the same time:
1) Decreasing the Dynamic Range of the music (Achieved by using software).
2) Amplifying the Sound
How is Dynamic Range Decreased? The software will try to make all the frequencies come close to the same volume. So for example if the original music has loud vocals and a low volume of piano, the software will boost the volume of the Piano and decrease the volume of the vocals making the volumes much closer to each other. By decreasing the dynamic range now the software can be used to amplify the total volume generally crossing the Clipping Limits (and subsequently losing some of the audio information). This at first leaves a good impression ! Somebody might confuse a higher sounding piano (For example) for enhanced sound quality. Of course, you can do this on your own using a Software like the freely available Audacity. You don't need to pay money and buy the "Remastered" CD. However, many charlatans in the audio industry and recording industry have no problem scamming their clients. The major problem with this kind of "Remastering" is that it causes Ear Fatigue as the uniform loudness of the sound very rapidly induces a headache despite the music sounding "better". That being said it is important to mention that in some cases, as Paul mentioned, the Remaster is a new Digital Transfer of an Original Tape Recording. My Experience with such transfers has been astounding especially if the transfer was done to the DSD format. So in my experience if it is a Remaster of a digital recording (Music Recorded after 1980), it is very likely that it is the scam I mentioned above. If it's a New Digital Transfer of a Tape Master (For music recorded before 1980) then it is likely that it is worth it especially if the Transfer has been done to DSD.
It sounds you would like to say, that they put a compressor on the remaster. And thats the point where it mention in the video of the difference from remaster and remix. I also dont have taht much of expirience into it, because i have the first time a decent audio set, with a a USB Interface and a pair of active studio monitors with balanced cables, that is in set best sounding with digital stuff.
@Uncle Bob Listening is subjective and personal. On the other hand, Audacity is a free software and can help you check how modern CDs have crushed the dynamic range by equalizing and amplifying...... This is not a matter of opinion..... It can be demonstrated with any audio software..... Of course.... Not All.... But the majority of remasters have their Dynamic Range crushed to compete with other competing songs in what has been termed as the "Loudness War"
@@smarts99 If the remasters _"were mastered with accurate speakers",_ then they would sound good, and many do not
Depends on the quality of the remastering...😇
And it also depends on the artistry of the remastering engineer. Some of them get it right, many get it woefully wrong.
I'm in 8th grade and my teacher and I (physics teacher) talked about this were both audiophiles. He talked I would rather have the original file rather than a remastered tape.
Your teacher was and is talking right, tbh.
My experience is a lot of remasters simply squash the dynamics and sound louder. Louder is easily perceived as ‘better’ to the ear at the expense of dynamic range. Check out Loudness War for further reading.
It entirely depends on who does it, and how well they do it.
@@madmax2069 I totally agree
@True WingChun Interesting response - I'd like to discuss and hear more of your view on this out of sheer curiosity.
I prefer original masters to remasters, but if I have to get a remaster I tend to stay away from those made after the year 2000. Dynamic range seems to disappear on those remasters. :\
I strongly agree. I have done much comparison of the original vs remaster of the same albums and its very clear that most remasters just did not sound better in any way
The idea of Sony music remastering Camilo Sesto’s music on the new compilation CDs is ruined, most of the songs have clipping. On the Camilo forever set, some of the songs have drop outs (it’s more noticeable through headphones), and two songs on the set are transcoded mp3 files. I’d seek for the older compilation CDs from the 80s & 90s.
I would've liked to have seen a mention of older albums having the dynamics crushed out of them to make them louder and newer sounding. Those usually sound like crap.
First of all music album will sound crap when its recorded badly. Why bother about dr when music sounds like trash??
@@pioneernut7487 usually people see words like "dynamic range" and "high resolution" and go on face value when buying. Buzzwords like in any other product. Like Paul said, most of older "remastered audio" was a complete scam that sounded worse than even tapes on crap players due to "remixing" and the DR crap they pull.
The sad thing is that a number of older albums NEED dynamics added. Like, I've had to mix my own "In the Court of the Crimson King" cutting the volume a bit across the board so I can crank it in the refrain. That song sounds SO much better with punchier dynamics, which is why it's usually performed live that way.
Steve Guttenberg the audiophiliac indicated that the re-release of The Beatles Abbey Road on CD sounded so analog that he was shocked. I do therefore believe that in some cases remastering is worth doing.
Abbey Road 50th anniversary sounds great, but that's been remixed by George Martin, not merely so called remastered!
@Fat Rat G'day Rattus....I have the trilogy & reckon they are all great. Think Abbey Road perhaps the best, then again it may have been an easier album to deal with given it was an 8 track recording, so the problems associated with dubbing, splicing and reduction mixing complex music like Sgt. Peppers which really was a mono recording anyway are partly dealt with the better technology.
Hard to really compare all 3 and the originals. Crappy reissue pressings or sh!te cd reissues don't really count.
Not sure that it brings them a new audience. Think it's likely the same people (like me), that buy these remasters. Shame about that!
Like my son... He'd say... Yeah, the Beatles..they aren't too bad. I don't think they know how to listen to full albums...it's all spotify mixes!!
Good post Paul. Thanks! Happy 2020 too.
Had great luck with remaster CD, will buy any great CD if it is a new remaster. Can't understand why the Eagles do not have any superb remasters of their intricate music. On another note the Led Zeppelin remasters are very nice, especially #3.
It’s like the auto industry, every 8 years there’s a new model.
Not sure why there was a rant about the provenance of source material for hi-res files at the beginning. I think the inquisitor may have wanted your feelings on remastering as it relates to the loudness wars.
I have found remasters to vary somewhat,but more often than not they seem to try too hard to clean things up to the extend that the warmth of the originals get lost,which i've often found somewhat distracting.The aforementioned ''Loudness wars'' too is a worthwhile contributor to the perceived quality,being dynamically compressed.
I would like to hear more recent recordings remastered with little or no compression. This may take re-balancing to get things sounding right.
At one time CD's themselves have a bad rap because once it became clear CD's were the big new thing record companies started just dumping their libraries on to the new format. The problems is that the old recordings were mastered to compensate for the shortcomings of the older media (tape and vinyl) and the new CD medium didn't have those shortcomings. Indeed, the very high dynamic rage required it's own special attention. So pretty much any old recording desperately needs remastering for the digital version. In addition to adjusting for the superior format, there are new technological methods for cleaning up recordings and restoring lost analog information that can further improve the final product.
All that said, mastering is an art form and something a matter of taste. It is possible to have inferior mastering depending on who (or what) is doing the remastering. That is really where the difference is. (There are, for instance, on-line mastering services that are basically an algorithm. If someone runs a older recording through those and relabels the package as "Remastered!" then that's a scam. so, who and what is what matters.)
CDs have their own serious shortcomings especially because of low bit rate, brickwall filtering, limited bandwidth and just plain mediocre sound to this day... not transparent to source
British Naturalist great mono has intense soundstage depth
@@AnalogPlanet CD bitrate is ~1411 bps, almost double than the average FLAC, and it has room for much more dynamic. As four the "plain mediocre sound", those are the poorly mastered ones, assuming you watched the video. When done right, it can have a glorious sound. How much hi-fi classical music is done on vinyl? Do you hear complaints about "the poor sounding" of classical on CDs? Maybe we should try to record a highly compressed, highly processed song on vinyl and check how it sounds...
And by the way, the "warmth" you feel (not hear) on vinyl is many times the amplifier 'colouring' the sound, so there's also that. As in, not transparent fidelity, aka, not hi-fi. You can say you like it more, but you can't say it has the most fidelity, specially when that doesn't depend (on the amp case) on the media format, but on the equipment.
You "audiophiles" sometimes are really full of yourselves, no concrete evidences of better sound, everything more often than not is subjective, lot's of placebo, many ABX listening tests failed, and dozens of thousands of dollars spent on superfluous equipment.
Remastered is not to make the cd sound better but sound more commercial appealing for nowadays.
For what it's worth, I am a Chicago fan and a member of several band-related boards. Specifically as it relates to the latest remaster of the CTA album, some on the boards have claimed the early vinyl pressings of the latest remaster had some sort of manufacturing problem rather than an actual "bad" remastering.
I used to base my record buying on Harry Pearson's super disc list. I bought 3 copies of Casino Royal which is really about as good as HP said. On my system I can not only hear that Dusty Springfield is singing in a booth but I can hear that she is not singing straight in to the microphone. Her head is turned. I now try to just buy Analog Production or Mobile Fidelity LPs. I just got the Boz Scaggs Dig but I think they may have cut back on that low bass note. I hear something but not much of it. You should be able to see separated grooves for low bass but I don't see much. I got the James Taylor Hourglass which has a lot of bass on Gaia but the next cut has something embedded in the vinyl which sounds like a bad scratch. Neither of these are Analog Production or Mobile Fidelity which may explain the defects.
Can you tell every time she blinks, also?
Can upsampling a low res audio file make it more suitable for editing or adding an effect to it? To me it it seems it would give the file more space to work with within its resolution timeline.
The worst thing is when "remastered" albums have only been made louder, reducing the dynamics even further than the original album making it sound worse to the point of excessive clipping. What I hate most is when streaming services then go and replace those original albums with the poorer remastered copies, possibly to save on licensing fees, leaving you with trash to listen to.
It's more about the process used in terms of Remastering from the original source, in terms if it was 16 bit or 24 bit, plus allowing more human intervention than letting software do it for you.
Sometimes recording levels were maybe inadequate on instruments too.
I quite agree with Paul's citing of Steve Hoffman. For example, on the Audio Fidelity hybrid SACD AFZ 147 "Close to the Edge" by Yes [Aughhhh! A prog rock aficionado! Run away! Run for your lives and sanity!] the big pipe organ during III. "I Get Up I Get Down" of the title track finally sounds 'right'. This is one of those rare air SACDs that show a clean pair of heels to Red Book, even on a relatively modest system such as mine. To quote from Ken Kessler's review (H-FN&RR, v.59, no. 04): "You know how I feel about this musical equivalent of Tourette's [agree to disagree], and I miss the Yes of the first few albums. But, damn, the sound is spectacular!"
@Natty Fatty Powerlifting Actually, I really respect ex-pat Ken Kessler for both his kit (as they call it on the east side of The Pond) and music reviews. However, "Nobody's perfect, Saavik." [translated from Vulcan]
I liked Steve Hoffman's DCC vinyl records but he seemed to put a bit of an emphasis on the guitar sound pushing them slightly forward.
It depends on who does it. I swear by my mobile fidelity dsd remasters of classic jazz recordings. They sound amazing through my psaudio dac and are the treasures of my collection. I also have some fraudulent ones as Paul mentions.
@British Naturalist Yes definitely wider soundstage
British Naturalist Most are stereo, but some are mono still. What I notice about the remasterings are a much better separation of instruments and wonderful sonority and timbre to the sounds and bass. Maybe an analogy is like going from vhs to Blu-ray in video where a bad mastering will reveal detail badly but a good one will enhance even for old film material vs digital. I love my Lawrence of Arabia remaster for example. This can also enhance the soundstage with a good system. Here’s a list www.mofi.com/Articles.asp?ID=276.
Both the company, and the engineer are important to the remaster. Back 20+ years ago, there was one label (I think it was “Collectables”) that actually remastered from vinyl LPs played on not so good turntables. You could hear the scratches and the wow and flutter. But as you said, MoFi, and a handful of other labels, artfully produce the best product they can. I just wish all labels did.
British Naturalist my original comment mentioned they were dsd remasters ( meaning sacd ) and psaudio themselves are big dsd proponents - the directstream dac natively processes dsd. Each to his own and if you are happy with yours that’s great.
@British Naturalist Like I said - each to his own. I happen to like DSD a lot as does psaudio, but I don't make universal statements and think that what's good for me is good for the universe. For my ears and taste, these mofi DSD remasters are amazing and bring some magic out.
I solved this problem for many many recordings by streaming mostly MQA certified MASTERS from TIDAL HiFi. Bluetooth 5.0 through a good bluetooth reciever/DAC approximates or equals my high end SACD. Heaven!
Well presented. The mastering engineer and the original source material used is of vital importance to the quality of the end product. Especially with classic material that is being presented to us at higher sampling rates in digital form from analog masters. Then even the generation of the original master tapes being used as source material have an effect on the end product.
Hi Paul!
I'm moving to the UK next year for a couple years, would it be worth buying UK specific components or stick with the US type and purchase a separate power conditioner? Mainly curious about the Stellar Gaincell pre-amp.
Thanks!
Ray
That's a good question. If you're eventually moving back to the US, I might get UK products in the UK, then when you return to US, send it to us and we'll flip the voltage for you.
I just got a very bad case of outlet-strip envy.
What brand and model IS that thing???
You forgot the second "remastering sin" by compressing the sound. There are a lot of remastered CD's which have been seriously remastered but have now a dramaticly reduced dynamic range. This is a shame by audiophile standards but has also advatntages on very cheap systems and in noisy environment, like the car or at a workplace. What has been done is silent passages have been more amplified and loud ones have been silenced. This compression might be an advantage for the everyday consumption of music and even be nesseccary for broadcasting, but it is a loss for thoses who really like to listen to the music.
There is no way of knowing without hearing or even comparing, which kind of remastering was applied. I am not that optimistic but with my very limited overview of the market i hope i am wrong.
When buying CDs of old albums, look it up on Discogs. They will list it as an original, Reissue, or Remaster. Reissues are original mastering. Remasters are generally good up until the turn of the century, after that it gonna sound like shit.
@@CorvetteCoonass Thank you for the information. I remember this compression sin started in the mid 90th.
The question is a non-sequitur on the level of “do you walk to school or carry your lunch?”
Sadly, all of the excellent mastering engineers that I like of the CDs I currently own have already passed away. 😣
many thanks
A few weeks ago I bought the Mike and the Mechanics Hits remastered (2005) and it sounded horrible as compared to the original albums from the '80s. It was compressed, less dynamic range, and lifeless. I compared 30 second clips of "Silent Running" from the original album and the Hits album on the same system back to back and the original was so much smoother and more enjoyable. As others have said on here, if the remaster comes from a reputable audiophile label then it is probably better sounding. If the music is mainstream music on a mainstream label then the remaster is likely compressed and edited to sound louder, not better.
The first Chicago Transit Authority LP is as good as it gets!!!( Its only the beginning) Don't f... with a masterpiece. Sometimes they did it right back then !!!!! Happy New year Paul
Some of those Chigago Vinyl LPs were mastered by Doug Sax of Sheffield Lab. You can tell by the TML in the dead wax. TML stands for The Mastering LAB.
Madonna, borderline, the first 10 seconds lots of background noise no amount of re mixing or re mastering can seem to get rid of that on several versions I have tried , if it is a poor master you are stuck with it.
You need to distinguish between the various ways in which an original tape recording is converted into a CD. At one level, the original master tape is simply recorded digitally in 16 bit/ 41 kHz and then a CD is pressed from that, The next level involves creating a digital recording at a higher resolution and then doing remastering including EQ, and then pressing a CD from that source. But we have to keep in mind that any master tape was compressed and EQ'd for an LP, and so just making a CD from the original master tape is convoluted on many levels. The best way to created a digital CD from an old tape recording is to go back to the original tracks, if they are not lost or damaged, and make high resolution recording of all of the individual tracks. Now you have raw tracks to work with in the digital domain, and each track now must be compressed, EQ'd, etc, and these are then mixed down to a new two track master mix that then will need to be mastered via compression and EQ to create a final master recording that the CD is made from. And the final product may not sound exactly like the original since it has been remixed. And obviously that is a great deal more trouble to go to, and not many folks want to put the time and effort into such a project without some assured return on investment in the form of high sales numbers. I have bought many digital recordings of old LP's that got worn out over the years, and the EQ on most of them is terrible. They tend to be a bit bright and often there is no bass to balance out the sound. I have to EQ them when I listen to them. The best alternative is to purchase new LP's of old analogue recordings. I bought Dark Side of the Moon on vinyl, and it sounds EXACTLY like it did in the 70's, pops and all.
A well considered comment, not some Tweet Mk. 1 oversimplification, It all comes down to the talent of the person behind the console. And despite Paul's rationalizations tor the equipment that his company makes and sells, hurrah for tone controls. Not a perfect solution (outside of abstract mathematics, what is?), but if the sonic pluses outweigh the minus, I call that a win.
@@stephensmith3111 This problem of poorly remastered CD's of some favorite albums of mine has forced me to consider buying a preamp with bass and treble control, a feature I left behind many decades ago (with my old NAD preamp), but now has found new utility.
@@SpeakerBuilder I hear good things about the Schiit Audio Loki: a 4 rotary equalizer with a by-pass relay, unbalanced RCA i/o connectors only. Only $149 (plus shipping and sales tax presumably). This is second hand info, I have no personal experience, although I would consider it myself if my sweet little Arcam A65+ integrated amp lacked tone controls.
@@stephensmith3111 They make some great gear according to the reviews, and their build philosophy seems to aim at keeping design simple and clean. But I'm looking at Tubes for Hi Fi kits, these cost a lot but seem top notch.
@@SpeakerBuilder To quote the fabulous Rutles, "All you need is cash. Da-dah da-da-daahhhh." Enjoy!
p.s.: My current dream system includes the McIntosh C70 preamp, old school with 12AT7 and 12AX7As, rotary knobs (including bass and treble), and toggle buttons (including tone by-pass). I'll leave the touch screens for the smart phones. At a dream level $7k, it's very expensive, but not quite bat-sierra crazy expensive. I built a Hafler amp kit back in the day, but I'm not that handy anymore.
I never allow remastered music in my library. I'm a little bit of a perfectionist about tagging so having everything point to the original release and then use a "2023 Remaster" feels pretty wrong.
Also I can never shake the feeling like whoever did the remaster messed with equalization and the dynamic range resulting in a much different sound than the original (John Lennon's Imagine sounds much different as a remaster.) It can be like listening to music or the tv at a friends house and they messed with the equalizer settings trying to achieve a fuller sound but just ending up with audio that nearly clips out.
Given the choice between a sub-160kbps of the original release and a FLAC remaster I'll take the lower quality one any day.
The original Huey Lewis and The News, Sports CD, sounds great! The remaster is bunk!
Even though I didn't get a chance to own CD's back in the 1980s as they were first released, but until the 90s that's when I started owning CD's so I still stick to the regular CDs and not much of the remastered editions
Jon Astley's 'remastered' Who albums - Who by Numbers and Who are You particularly - ruined these albums. Various guitar, vocal, strings and brass parts were scrubbed or at least muted. I've been searching for the original CDs, to find the original masters/mixes. As someone who's known the original vinyl inside out, these 'remaster' CDs were horrifying.
the Beatles remasters are a third variety, actual back to isolated original tracks remixed ?
when i 1st heard a remaster it was not as clear as the original it sounded muffled a bit
The old Gong recordings were just re mastered by the guy who mixed the original albums, and holy moly are they excellent.
One needs to be very careful when it comes to remastered CDs (and LPs for that matter as well). Remasters are not easy to do correctly! For example: Rush (RIP Neil Peart) has I think, 3 different remastered CD discographies and at least one remastered LP discography. Sticking with CDs, the first Rush remastered CD discography was done in the 90's, around the mid 90's if I'm not mistaken. Then in 2000-2001 there was another set of remastered CDs released in special packaging and then again in 2010 I believe, yet again another remastered set. It turns out (having heard them all) that the 90's remastered CDs are the best. In fact, the 90's remasters will sonically outperform the vinyl and all later CD remasters hands down. It also turns out, that the next best is just the regular CD releases for that band. In fact, unless you have a revealing system, it is highly unlikely that you will hear the difference between the regular CD and the 90's remasters. However, no special system is required to hear the difference between the regular CD versions and the later remasters from 2000 and 2010, they are horrid.
Now as for Chicago or any group with LPs from the late 60's or early 70's, etc. For the best sonics, you'll want to stick to LP, no question about it. I bought a bunch of Jethro Tull on regular CD and Remaster and compared those to the vinyl versions and there is no contest, the vinyl outperformed the CD all the way across in dynamics, tone, etc.
So even regular CD versions of older LPs can easily sound awful or lifeless.
If you aren't into having an analog front end or source then I suggest perhaps getting a good outboard DAC, but that won't fix a poorly done recording or remaster unfortunately.
IMO, the most reliable sound is found on the medium that was most prevalent at the time the recording was made. A record that was originally made during the "vinyl era" will likely sound the best ON vinyl, compared to subsequent versions/pressings, remastered or not. An album originally made during the CD era will likely sound great on digital in its original form, because they knew that was where it ended up, and mastered it accordingly. In both cases, subsequent remastered versions are a "win-some, lose-some" crap shoot. They may or may not be better than the original.
"Check the heritage of the album"_ Ok, *how?* Is that a website where we can check the *real* quality of remasters? (and if not, does anyone knows one?)
There’s new remastered CDs of Mariya Takeuchi’s RCA albums, they’re compressed with poor dynamic range, i would personally recommend looking for the older CD releases instead.
I though this video was going to be about 're-mastered' meaning that the original music or CD was going to be re-mastered or re-mixed to a different sounding music, not re-sampling .. nevermind .. you hit the rest after I got near the end of the video.. :)
Remixed and remastered can be excellent. It all depends on who did it.
hi,being a fan of supertramp even though i had the last re master on cd ,i thought i would buy the 40 year anniversary crime of the century cd,very nice packaging,but i found the bass very heavy and the vocals to quiet,i was surprised that the older copy sounded so much better,on my amp i dont have loudness or tone controls,so there you go.ps,most of the reviews were true,thanks.
I will hang on to my Mobile Fidelity Supertramp Crime of the Century LP until I hear better. I have 2 copies and a British pressing.
@@andershammer9307 good for you, curious what the blu ray version is like, doesn't all the clicks and back ground noise spoil your enjoyment, thanks, happy new year.
@@Bernard-John Most of my records have no clicks or pops. High quality vinyl is silent like a CD. I also have a record cleaning machine.
@@andershammer9307 goed for you, enjoying music, very important in today's world, thanks.
Major fail! He did not mention compressors or compression once. Paul, where have you been the last 20 years? Not listening to the remastered crap versions of what I listened to in my youth (60s/70s). A few do it right, most do it wrong. Mr. Hoffman will be over soon to spank you for saying he remixes..
And why are the originals so hard to get AFTER a disc has been remastered?
Because they want more money
It's a crap shoot, some remasters sound good, some sound rubbish. I am turned off by 'remasters' that fail to maintain the aesthetic/vibe of the original sound mix. Music of, say, the 60s pop hits category, became pop hits on -not hifi- car radios, a device which makes a very reduced 'composite' sound out of the original, and when that stuff is remastered in such a way that that the car radio/pop hit gestalt is mixed out of prominence, rendering the song as a whole new and different beast. If that is your bag, cool, for some stuff I've come across the remastering people mixed everything I liked right out of existence, some folks et it rightr and make a swell remaster. IM(not so)HO it's a crap shoot. Seemed to me like almost everything on Tidal is a remaster, became insufferable, I felt spiritually bleak after 6 months of that service.... The previous is just some thoughts and observations long rattling around in my vacant cabeza, your mileage will vary.
Mobile Fidelity is the bomb their vinyl is second to none.Their Robart Shaw and the Altanta Orchestra record Stravinskys Firebird is astounding. Fuse your speakers though it has a 100+ decibel dynamic range you'll blow your speakers if you dont have a great system the best reference recording I've heard to date..
The Telarc vinyl LPs from the 80's were stunningly good too. Made from a 50k digital tape. I have the same recordings on CD but the vinyl is much better.
@@andershammer9307 good vinyl will never be beat. I dont think . But I also feel alot of it is the engineering. The greats like Eddy Oford ,who was almost as important as the band members ,I got to sit with Eddy when he did a live Quad mix for Floyd once it was a lesson in perfection I'll never forget .Now I think digital has taken much of the life out of recordings .There was something about hearing the room ambience that's lost now .
First answer should have been short: remaster simply means somebody had another go at presenting the recording. How it will subjectively compare depends on what they did and what you like.
Seems like you hit the nail on the head, there is no clear definition of what it means to "remaster" so you have to look at each case to know if it is worth buying the music again.
So many remasters just seem lazy from whoever mixed it. It looks like most of the time they turn the bass up and then add some limiting on it to increase the loudness and leave it at that.
Sometimes original CDs can sound better with higher fidelity and be very close to the master tape
@4:34
"Just check the heritage"
How?
There are endless remasters, and re-remasters, etc. Do we send them to ancestry.com (just kidding).
It has been my experience that remasters are, almost without exception, a gimmick or rip-off. Why?
Remasters will sound different. But they rarely sound better. And even the ones that do sound better, well... they also sound worse in some way.
It is like eating at a restaurant, and one day the chef changes the ingredients for your favorite dish. You sort of like it, except there is some new spice that you do not care for.
The folks that do these remasters do not have an ear for realism. They do not have an ear for soundstaging or imaging or transparency, etc. They tend to tinker with the sound. If there is a knob or lever on their equipment, they feel compelled to turn or slide it. They over-process, like it is a drug; like they have something to prove.
The master tapes sound glorious. Then the knuckleheads in the studio get aroused and start salivating at the thought of their next love making session with their compressors. They focus on processing, and more processing, rather than the purity of the sound. For them, too much processing is never enough.
There are countless songs that are available as an original release, remaster, re-remaster, re-re-remaster, greatest hits, best of, anthology, and endless compilations. And almost without exception, they all sound different for the exact same song from the exact same recording session.
The only explanation is that the folks doing this either have no ear for sound quality (just sound gimmickry), or they know that X% of the public will buy the new release (making it a scam).
Either way, it is pathetic. If they were a restaurant, they would go out of business. But if you want your favorite songs, you have no choice but to patronize these companies.
Note that sampling rates above CD quality (Redbook) is, almost without exception, meaningless. It is another scam.
A CD (44.1 kHz / 16 bit) done right will sound better than a 176.4 kHz / 24 bit .flac file that the studio over processed.
High sampling rates only mean that the container that is holding the Pulse Code Modulating signal is capable of holding more information. So it has more potential.
Unfortunately, the studios fill those high resolution containers with poo.
It is like using a state of the art camera, and taking a photo at the highest resolution, but not holding the camera still, and not setting the focus correctly, and not setting the shutter speed correctly, etc.
Every CD and digital download should feature the name (and a photo) of the person that created the final release. They should get credit for doing a great job, and get criticized and held accountable for doing a lousy job. These folks, when interviewed, talk like they are god's gift to the music industry. So you would think that they would want their names and photos associated with their work (not where you have to dig for it -- but right there in the credits).
The names and photos of the members of the band are front and center. The names and photos of the engineers should be right next to them. They should own their work, and not hide behind a curtain of anonymity. If they are so good at their work, then let them have some of the spotlight.
We know the names when it involves producing movies. Music production should be the same.
Cheers!
Enter Steve Wilson... :)
Of the artist is not involved it is not a quality remaster in my opinion because they should have a say in it not just suits. I love music just not the music industry or business.
If you have a 20-year-old CD, and a new, remastered CD, the new one might sound better, worse, or the same. I've had it go all 3 ways.
Just play both at the same time
Some remasters have been mildly autotuned. If not many.
How can any CD be “upsampled” with a higher sample rate if it’s still a 44.1kHz Red Book CD? Or he means “upsampling” from 44.1kHz PCM to SACD? Main issue I see is when tracks get compressed not allowing the original dynamic range.
He means upsampled and then released on a different format, including but not limited to SACD, but also high-res FLAC files for download from websites such as HDTracks.com.
People equate remastered with improved. Remastered simply means changed form the original master. Imagine a room full of furniture that you are used to using, someone comes and rearranges the furniture; some people like the change some don't Simplzz.
Some remastered CD's sound great, most - in my experience - do not. The Beatles remastered have lost all the bottom end, a lot of punk sounds grimly 'sanitised' and that goes for some metal, too. Other 'remastered' recordings sound the same! I have made the mistake of buying some, but with the hi-res Tidal, I can check out which ones are any good. I am mostly disappointed and stick to originals.
It varies.
The first release of Bitches Brew on Columbia sounded god awful.
Recent remastering sounds better, more detail, some bass compromised but they began WAY TOO MUDDY.
Remasters of Hendrix material by Kramer ...mmmm. ..not sure...
Beatles remaster and remixing...fun and interesting Better than the first generation...more details. But from second to third, different not sure if better per se.
I wish Giles Martin woild remix or remaster the Hendrix catalog for fun. Not so sure that I am in love with Kramer. Say the same thing about Page's remastering of Zeppelin. Doesn't sound that much better imho.
I think the remastering process has much say to it....... the end can only justify the mean.
Great information Thank you
Remastering original 60s and 70s music is bad news generally for me. Tweaking frequencies with a modern ear brings the wrong type of sound to art created in the 60s.
Possibly reducing dynamics and boosting bass and treble to suit modern trends can be detrimental to music that sounds fantastic already. My opinion only.
In my opinion remaster really suck balls, the more and more remasters I hear via streaming, the less and less I choose to listen to older music that I like, they completely ruin it, ruin what makes the music from the day. FOR THE LOVE OF MUSIC STOP FUCKING UP OUR MUSIC!! and claiming its 'better'
I love Remastered CDs. As long as its done properly. Rising the volume on them is what i love.
Most of the times they are crap. Just squashed dynamic, everything is made louder. But sometimes they are better than original masterings.
most of the times there better
@@Jordan-fn5rj no
They can take their remasters available on digital streaming or CD and put them in a dark place. I find that the remasters I have listened to hide the separation between instruments and vocals in the interest of making everything equal volume to make the loudness trick your brain into thinking the music is better. What you lose is the original intent of the music which is to be in the room with performers. Modern remastering throws this out the window. It is however getting harder and harder to find those original versions Because the music industry are a bunch of thieves and lairs.
@Mike P I tried to order new vinyl from pink floyd's website about 6 months ago but nothing worked. They have the three big ones in a set including Dark Side in heavy vinyl for $75 total. Not sure if they are remastered or not, hope not. But if what you say is true perhaps it will be alright.
@Mike P Thanks, Hard to find. I do use discogs. I do have and buy CDs but there are certain vinyl albums I want that I used to own. I had almost 900 vinyl before I left Australia in 1977. Now I am just trying to replace my favorites. Some were not any good back then but others were amazing. The original Carly Simon No Secrets was a stunner , her voice came though with such clarity an zero background noise/hiss. I love to just sit and listen and watch that turntable go around, it's like a campfire LOL. My Project manual turntable in piano black forces you to be in the moment.
Any music that is put on CD has to be "digitally remastered" other than that its all marketing mumbo jumbo...
great video paul and happy holidays and i would like to invite you and all of your fans to my group on facebook called cds & stereos unlimited my group can be found under groups on the facebook page thanks a lot and happy 2020 paul
They are bad. Every remasterd CD I own has less realistic tonal color of instruments than the early originals. Same goes for vinyl remasterd. Whatever there doing these days it's cheap and taking shortcuts of how they used to do it many years ago
Remastering 101:
• Nothing will ever sound better than the original recording (aka the "master tape"). Any copy you make from it will always be in some way inferior. (Just like photocopying a photocopy.)
• An old-school "red book" audio CD will always be 44100 samples per second, 16-bits per sample, 2 channels. That works out to a bit-rate of 1.4112 Mbit/sec. No type of remastering will ever be able to stuff more resolution than that, into an old-school audio CD.
• What remastering *can* do, is use better equipment to read the analog audio off the master tape, than was used the first time around.
• I also kind of doubt that the master tape was shipped to the original CD factory. It's more likely that a tape copy was made of the master, and then the CD was pressed from that copy. But during a remastering process, maybe the remaster-er-er has physical access to the actual OG master tape, which will remove the loss of quality caused by digitizing a CD from a copy.
• Maybe the master tape is multi-track, and during the original CD mastering process, someone made an EQ decision that in hindsight everyone regrets __ . During the remastering process, if the remaster-ess has physical access to the actual multi-track master tape, she could choose to make a better decision than that first bonehead, so that parts of the recording that were muted before stand out better on the remastered version.
• 44100 samples per second was chosen for audio CDs, because that is the bare minimum to capture all frequencies from 0 to ~20kHz. If someone runs a CD through a DAC, then re-samples it at a higher rate, and then tries to sell it to you as a higher-quality recording, that is snake oil. Once you've reduced infinity samples/sec down to 44.1k samples/sec, you have thrown away all that extra quality, and resampling it afterwards cannot bring it back. The ONLY way to resample higher is to resample from the master tape (and at that point, it won't fit on an old-school CD anymore. Maybe SACD, DVD-Audio, or FLAC files.)
@Fat Rat I just explained that.
It appears to still be a thing.. Even Billy Idols new music sounds like shit in dynamics. Look at the website dr.loudness-war.info/ and all the new releases..
The Sony & Philips Compact Disc Digital Audio Standard was published in 1980. So lets put the first A to D Converters that created content for that media in the late 1970’s. Lets put that at 1978. The first ones were Ca Ca at best. That would be creating digital content from Analog Tape or a Live Capture. “Perfect Sound” forever as it was promoted.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio
The Sony & Philips “Blue Book” Compact Disc Digital Audio Plus Standard was published in 1995. By then the A to D Converters had gotten better, not as good as they are today, but better.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Book_(CD_standard)
So there’s your window. 1980 to 1995. The quality of Digital Audio, whatever media it’s on, created in that time frame varied widely in quality. Trying to remix a Ca Ca digital capture from 1985 may result in a Ca Ca remix.
Umm... you DO realize that blue book only expands upon red book to add a data track, right? It in absolutely no way at all changes ANY of the specifications of the audio portion of the disc, and as such, is 100% irrelevant to the scope of this discussion.
@@Orcinus24x5 Correct. But the time frame IMO is about right. The first AtoD converters, most of them anyway, were pretty poor. Do you remember some of those "Digital" LPs that were published? A couple times in my career I had a brush with BurrBrown in Tuscon for an engineering position but ended up somewhere else. I think BB is now part of Texas Instruments.
비정한 세상.. 피 토하는 음악..tt
CD remaster bad . Manipulation original sound recording. The original sound recording it s better quality Source Master tape
The CD remasters are cut
Rip- off, in the audio industry, surely this cannot be true.😂😂
Standard cds sound good as is it is now.
first veiwer
Shits old, let it die
What do you want, a cookie?
I would like to say one thing and one thing only about the so-called controversial remastered version of music and movies and classic video games thing. And for that i would like to say that nobody freaking Care's. This is why geek culture never caught on and officially dead on arrival since the 50's. 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅