Why are some people concerned about whether a CD is remastered or not? In a lot of cases, the album is just louder or the bass is pumped up. If that's what you want, just get Nero or some other software and do it yourself.

Well for certain artists it does matter, like Prince, because he creates a whole wall of sound that when a remaster is done well, will let the listener hear subtle nuances that they've never heard before, and in some cases even instruments. Of course there are other artists like Britney Spears in which imo no matter how they may try to make her sound better, they always fail, and most people aren't going around saying,'When are they going to remaster Baby one more time'?

Anywho, just my 2 cents .

I don't really have that much of a problem with remastering. I think the main problem is brickwalling and compression. Over 95% of popular artists today are victims of this "loudness war" movement, which is painful and god-awful on my ears and speakers. Take an engineer such as Steve Hoffman or Bill Ingelot, and that's what I call a nice remastering job. I'm alittle worried about this stuff about Prince remastering his classic albums in the future because some of the albums on CD have great dynamics (i.e. Around the World in a Day, Purple Rain and For You). I feel that some people just have poor equipment and set-ups because compressing a catalog such as Prince's, would be a terrible thing.

CALLING ON SOULALIVE to break it down, repeat SoulAlive.

Steve Hoffman is a genius! I love what he did with Dreamboat Annie by Heart! Incredible sound mix!

[Edited 6/6/11 15:42pm]

MickyDolenz said:

Why are some people concerned about whether a CD is remastered or not? In a lot of cases, the album is just louder or the bass is pumped up. If that's what you want, just get Nero or some other software and do it yourself.

Well some really need it BIG TIME, like Prince Sign O The times, it just sounds low low low, listen to Billy Joels catalog prior to remastering, listen to the early INXS albums, those things are crying to be remastered, problem was that most early albums were just tossed onto cd with no concern, it was just simple analog transferring. Its alot more than just turning up volume, the early Joel and Inxs stuff sounds like they were outside the studio recording, and Sign O the times is one of the worst sounding albums/cds of all time.

lastdecember said:

MickyDolenz said:

Why are some people concerned about whether a CD is remastered or not? In a lot of cases, the album is just louder or the bass is pumped up. If that's what you want, just get Nero or some other software and do it yourself.

Well some really need it BIG TIME, like Prince Sign O The times, it just sounds low low low, listen to Billy Joels catalog prior to remastering, listen to the early INXS albums, those things are crying to be remastered, problem was that most early albums were just tossed onto cd with no concern, it was just simple analog transferring. Its alot more than just turning up volume, the early Joel and Inxs stuff sounds like they were outside the studio recording, and Sign O the times is one of the worst sounding albums/cds of all time.

I have the 2001 Michael Jackson "special edition" CD's, and my original records sound better. I mainly bought them for the extra tracks. I also have a few of those Stevie Wonder 2000 remasters (and some other acts remasters), and it's just more bass. That's alright if you have a low rider with a boomin' system and you're trying to rattle your car. I've heard very few remasters that have an improvement in sound. If I want to hear something louder, I have a volume knob.

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

Well some really need it BIG TIME, like Prince Sign O The times, it just sounds low low low, listen to Billy Joels catalog prior to remastering, listen to the early INXS albums, those things are crying to be remastered, problem was that most early albums were just tossed onto cd with no concern, it was just simple analog transferring. Its alot more than just turning up volume, the early Joel and Inxs stuff sounds like they were outside the studio recording, and Sign O the times is one of the worst sounding albums/cds of all time.

I have the 2001 Michael Jackson "special edition" CD's, and my original records sound better. I mainly bought them for the extra tracks. I also have a few of those Stevie Wonder 2000 remasters (and some other acts remasters), and it's just more bass. That's alright if you have a low rider with a boomin' system and you're trying to rattle your car. I've heard very few remasters that have an improvement in sound. If I want to hear something louder, I have a volume knob.

Well i hear that, but the Billy Joel cds prior to remastering are so bad they arent even worth having on CD, as is Prince's Sign o the times which not only is poorly transferred it sounded like shit on vinyl too, sound-wise that is, he has never had good engineers as we know, now his stuff is too loud to the point of distortion in the mixes.

We must also understand that digital recordings, such as MJ's Bad and Stevie's Hotter Than July and Journey Through the Secret Life of Plants, are just a wasted remastering job because they are recorded and/or mixed with digital equipment. Remastering a digital recording doesn't always enhance anything with sound quality. Prince was using analog from the 70s all the way to the 80s, prior to 1990. When his stuff was transferred to CD, it didn't sound so hot as the vinyl. But in my opinion, some of the CD issues sound pretty great, in terms of dynamics and detail (i.e. ATWIAD, Purple Rain, For You). Hey, that's just me...I don't know!

[Edited 6/6/11 16:42pm]

MickyDolenz said:

Why are some people concerned about whether a CD is remastered or not? In a lot of cases, the album is just louder or the bass is pumped up. If that's what you want, just get Nero or some other software and do it yourself.

I swear I think they do more than just jack up the bass or the sound, because to me they sound a lot crisper, too - I don't know how to explain it exactly.

I really, really, really wish Prince's body of work would be remastered. I'd love to hear Something in the Water at a way better quality.

jbrown83 said:

Well for certain artists it does matter, like Prince, because he creates a whole wall of sound that when a remaster is done well, will let the listener hear subtle nuances that they've never heard before, and in some cases even instruments. Of course there are other artists like Britney Spears in which imo no matter how they may try to make her sound better, they always fail, and most people aren't going around saying,'When are they going to remaster Baby one more time'?

Anywho, just my 2 cents .

Your first sentence is exactly it - you can hear EVERYthing, the sound is much cleaner on a remastered disc.

^^^I can hear everything on the vinyl. CD's sound flat to me, remastered or not. A lot of people today listen to music on ear buds or computer speakers, which have poor sound quality anyway, which is probably why they're satisfied with MP3's.

When Motown issued a lot of their back catalog on CD in the 80's, the sound was really low on many of the titles. That's why I'm happy to hear about the upcoming Teena Marie remasters. One of my favorite Teena songs, "You Make Love Like Springtime", was mastered so low on the original pressing of the "Irons In the Fire" disc, I have to struggle to hear it on my Ipod. I don't like repurchasing titles I already own but, in certain cases, a remaster is essential for me.

It depends on who does the remastering.

Rhino/Hip-O have done an excellent job remastering albums that have went against time, sound quality wise. And contrary to what you think, the bass and some of the instrumentation is not omitted in the releases of this one.

Harlepolis said:

It depends on who does the remastering.

Rhino/Hip-O have done an excellent job remastering albums that have went against time, sound quality wise. And contrary to what you think, the bass and some of the instrumentation is not omitted in the releases of this one.

Agreed! But compressed sound and brickwalling is a bitch. Some remasters try to live up to "loudness war" standards. Thankfully, Rhino, Hip-O, and other great independent reissue companies do excellent jobs remastering stuff.

silverchild said:

I don't really have that much of a problem with remastering. I think the main problem is brickwalling and compression. Over 95% of popular artists today are victims of this "loudness war" movement, which is painful and god-awful on my ears and speakers. Take an engineer such as Steve Hoffman or Bill Ingelot, and that's what I call a nice remastering job. I'm alittle worried about this stuff about Prince remastering his classic albums in the future because some of the albums on CD have great dynamics (i.e. Around the World in a Day, Purple Rain and For You). I feel that some people just have poor equipment and set-ups because compressing a catalog such as Prince's, would be a terrible thing.

Yes.

People really should invest a few hundred dollars / euros more in their playback equipment and not lust for remasters before doing that.

Mixing and mastering engineers have always tried to optimize the records for the type of dynamic and frequency rate responses that the stereo setups of the time have been able to reproduce. A lot of the 1980s records sound just fine on setups that are from the same era. The current batch of compact stereos and desktop speakers have ridiculously sharp sounding tweeters and the bass is excessive and muffled (or just muffled), so no wonder old records don't sound right on those.

There are some really questionable remastered CDs out there. I thought some of the David Bowie remasters that came out at the end of the 1990s sounded like different records. It's been a little while since I've listened to those, but it was almost like the overall mixes sounded different due to all the tampering. At that time it seemed like people thought that whatever you do to records digitally will be an improvement. That's when I started to realize something was about to go really wrong.

novabrkr said:

silverchild said:

I don't really have that much of a problem with remastering. I think the main problem is brickwalling and compression. Over 95% of popular artists today are victims of this "loudness war" movement, which is painful and god-awful on my ears and speakers. Take an engineer such as Steve Hoffman or Bill Ingelot, and that's what I call a nice remastering job. I'm alittle worried about this stuff about Prince remastering his classic albums in the future because some of the albums on CD have great dynamics (i.e. Around the World in a Day, Purple Rain and For You). I feel that some people just have poor equipment and set-ups because compressing a catalog such as Prince's, would be a terrible thing.

Yes.

People really should invest a few hundred dollars / euros more in their playback equipment and not lust for remasters before doing that.

Mixing and mastering engineers have always tried to optimize the records for the type of dynamic and frequency rate responses that the stereo setups of the time have been able to reproduce. A lot of the 1980s records sound just fine on setups that are from the same era. The current batch of compact stereos and desktop speakers have ridiculously sharp sounding tweeters and the bass is excessive and muffled (or just muffled), so no wonder old records don't sound right on those.

There are some really questionable remastered CDs out there. I thought some of the David Bowie remasters that came out at the end of the 1990s sounded like different records. It's been a little while since I've listened to those, but it was almost like the overall mixes sounded different due to all the tampering. At that time it seemed like people thought that whatever you do to records digitally will be an improvement. That's when I started to realize something was about to go really wrong.

Remixing is another thing that I have a problem with. I loved what was done with The Beatles Let It Be...Naked and even some Lennon reissues from the early 2000s, but remixing is a questionable thing.

The Let It Be project was interesting. That's the only version I have of the record, actually.

I don't know if the above-mentioned Bowie releases were remixed though. Compression and EQ'ing can just bring out different elements to the foreground in the mix and change the overall feel of the music considerably. Also, the snares and the cymbals may end up sounding like bursts of noise when tampered with too much. I suppose people liked that sort of a "remastered" sound for a while, because it adds a lot of high-frequency energy to the mixes. Previously people had been complaining that tapes and LPs lacked high frequencies, so once they finally got that in abundance they associated it with higher fidelity. It took a while for people to realize that it wasn't always an improvement at all.

novabrkr said:

The Let It Be project was interesting. That's the only version I have of the record, actually.

I don't know if the above-mentioned Bowie releases were remixed though. Compression and EQ'ing can just bring out different elements to the foreground in the mix and change the overall feel of the music considerably. Also, the snares and the cymbals may end up sounding like bursts of noise when tampered with too much. I suppose people liked that sort of a "remastered" sound for a while, because it adds a lot of high-frequency energy to the mixes. Previously people had been complaining that tapes and LPs lacked high frequencies, so once they finally got that in abundance they associated it with higher fidelity. It took a while for people to realize that it wasn't always an improvement at all.

I'm not that familiar with the Bowie remasters from the 90s, as I only brought a few of them, but I can speak on the 1999 and 2010 versions of Station to Station. The 1999 version sounded like it was tampered with alittle, whereas the 2010 special edition utilized the original tapes (untouched and all). That's just my opinion. Oh and Let It Be...Naked is the only version of Let It Be I have too.

silverchild said:

novabrkr said:

Yes.

People really should invest a few hundred dollars / euros more in their playback equipment and not lust for remasters before doing that.

Mixing and mastering engineers have always tried to optimize the records for the type of dynamic and frequency rate responses that the stereo setups of the time have been able to reproduce. A lot of the 1980s records sound just fine on setups that are from the same era. The current batch of compact stereos and desktop speakers have ridiculously sharp sounding tweeters and the bass is excessive and muffled (or just muffled), so no wonder old records don't sound right on those.

There are some really questionable remastered CDs out there. I thought some of the David Bowie remasters that came out at the end of the 1990s sounded like different records. It's been a little while since I've listened to those, but it was almost like the overall mixes sounded different due to all the tampering. At that time it seemed like people thought that whatever you do to records digitally will be an improvement. That's when I started to realize something was about to go really wrong.

Remixing is another thing that I have a problem with. I loved what was done with The Beatles Let It Be...Naked and even some Lennon reissues from the early 2000s, but remixing is a questionable thing.

Sadly true historically

JamFanHot said:

silverchild said:

Remixing is another thing that I have a problem with. I loved what was done with The Beatles Let It Be...Naked and even some Lennon reissues from the early 2000s, but remixing is a questionable thing.

Sadly true historically

I mean that is the most cringe-worthy thing alot of engineers and mixers can ever do when they remaster stuff. For example, any true Stevie Wonder fan will know that the "classic period" remasters from 2000 were simply remixed and mastered from the second-generation tapes, not the original master tapes. The only time that Stevie and sound engineers were spot on as far as remasters are concerned was when this was done:

And it was/is by far, the definitive Stevie Wonder reissue....remastered perfectly from the original tapes, which Stevie will never let anyone use ever again. They're probably old and dull anyway. Proud owner as well!

[Edited 6/6/11 23:44pm]

MickyDolenz said:

Why are some people concerned about whether a CD is remastered or not? In a lot of cases, the album is just louder or the bass is pumped up. If that's what you want, just get Nero or some other software and do it yourself.

I understand exactly what you are saying. I can see why people would want remasters of the 1980s Prince CDs because they sound absolutely horrible. The sound is so low on them and they sound kinda muffled like the treble has been turned down. To me, they sound like someone recorded a cassette tape onto a CD.

But as someone who has a CD recorder, I'm not talking about a CD burner in a computer, I'm talking about an actual stereo component that is hooked into the stereo and you sit and manually record CDs just like we used to do when we would record cassette tapes back in the day, if I record an old Prince song from the vinyl onto a CD, it sounds wonderful. The sound is louder, the quality is crisper, and it sounds just like the original vinyl except it is now on an actual CD. That's because, even back in the day, vinyl always sounded better than cassettes but so many people bought cassettes because they could play them in the car which I always found rediculous because just buy the vinyl and make your own cassette and then you have both for the price of one. But I guess people weren't into as much as I was back then. But as I said before, the Prince CDs, sound like they were recorded from cassette tapes which never sounded as good as vinyl even back in the day. They were more for car stereos or portable boom boxes and people really didn't pay much attention to them back then because they were looking for convenience but if you played a cassette on a good home component system, you could tell the difference because cassettes always sounded horrible on home stereos. But these days, with advances in sound in car stereos, people are starting to hear the difference and if something that is supposed to be CD quality sounds like a cassette, it's going to sound horrible. But it trips me out the amount of money that people will spend on a car stereo system but when you get in their house, all they have is a little ass boom box or simply their computer speakers. That's ass backwards. I never invested much in car or portable devices anyway because they are just temporary, short term, ways of listening to simply get you from point A to point B. Plus, you can't shake ass in a car anyway so why does sound quality matter.

But I guess the point I'm trying to make is, a lot of the widespread demand for remastering these days is due to people who have never had the vinyl or have never heard the vinyl so all they've heard is the old CDs that sound like they were recorded from cassette tapes so naturally when they hear these songs up next to other CDs by other artists, they hear the dramatic drop in sound volume. And since people seem to be so obsessed with small portable devices these days and aren't going to invest in a big stereo system with a turntable, there would be a big demand for these CDs to be remastered and bring that volume up. But honey, I still say throw away those portable devices and get you the biggest stereo system you can find with a turntable because stereos are just like dicks, bigger is better and the bigger it is, the harder it pulsates and throbs.

.

.

.

[Edited 6/7/11 3:17am]

lastdecember said:

MickyDolenz said:

I have the 2001 Michael Jackson "special edition" CD's, and my original records sound better. I mainly bought them for the extra tracks. I also have a few of those Stevie Wonder 2000 remasters (and some other acts remasters), and it's just more bass. That's alright if you have a low rider with a boomin' system and you're trying to rattle your car. I've heard very few remasters that have an improvement in sound. If I want to hear something louder, I have a volume knob.

Well i hear that, but the Billy Joel cds prior to remastering are so bad they arent even worth having on CD, as is Prince's Sign o the times which not only is poorly transferred it sounded like shit on vinyl too, sound-wise that is, he has never had good engineers as we know, now his stuff is too loud to the point of distortion in the mixes.

Now, that's very true. Play the vinyl of another Prince album and then turn around right afterwards and play the vinyl of "Sign O The Times" and you will definately hear a difference. Not only is the sound lower, but it also sounds a little muffled.

Re the Stevie MSFL "Innervisions" master, the master tapes were actually erroneously sent to MSFL - this was a happy mistake, as such.

Remasters are a con and it's hilarious how many people fall for it. So it's too quiet? Simple solution - turn it up. Bass is too low? Turn up the bass. That is what these controls are for. But hey, feel free to waste your money on a remaster which overly compresses and distorts the original album.

I only buy remasters if they include unreleased tracks. Much cheaper to pick up a copy of the original CD off Amazon/eBay...or even VINYL.

And to those tools harping on about Prince remasters, none of Prince's work has been that well recorded (particularly Dirty Mind) so remastering won't make it better. That's part of the charm of his work.

[Edited 6/7/11 5:32am]

kitbradley said:

When Motown issued a lot of their back catalog on CD in the 80's, the sound was really low on many of the titles. That's why I'm happy to hear about the upcoming Teena Marie remasters. One of my favorite Teena songs, "You Make Love Like Springtime", was mastered so low on the original pressing of the "Irons In the Fire" disc, I have to struggle to hear it on my Ipod. I don't like repurchasing titles I already own but, in certain cases, a remaster is essential for me.

I agree.Many CDs that were pressed in the 80s have horrible sound.I pre-ordered those Teena Marie remasters and I'm ecstatic.Can't wait for them to arrive

armpit said:

MickyDolenz said:

Why are some people concerned about whether a CD is remastered or not? In a lot of cases, the album is just louder or the bass is pumped up. If that's what you want, just get Nero or some other software and do it yourself.

I swear I think they do more than just jack up the bass or the sound, because to me they sound a lot crisper, too - I don't know how to explain it exactly.

when a CD is remastered properly,you will sometimes hear things that you didn't notice before! A perfect example is Heatwave's 'Central Heating'.The sound on the remaster is incredible!!

Mong said:

Re the Stevie MSFL "Innervisions" master, the master tapes were actually erroneously sent to MSFL - this was a happy mistake, as such.

Remasters are a con and it's hilarious how many people fall for it. So it's too quiet? Simple solution - turn it up. Bass is too low? Turn up the bass. That is what these controls are for. But hey, feel free to waste your money on a remaster which overly compresses and distorts the original album.

I only buy remasters if they include unreleased tracks. Much cheaper to pick up a copy of the original CD off Amazon/eBay...or even VINYL.

And to those tools harping on about Prince remasters, none of Prince's work has been that well recorded (particularly Dirty Mind) so remastering won't make it better. That's part of the charm of his work.

[Edited 6/7/11 5:32am]

Really? I could've sworn that Stevie considered that MSFL CD to be the best version he had heard of Innervisions. I also thought that Stevie delivered those tapes directly to MSFL, but they were messed up after the production of the MSFL remaster. Stevie was highly disappointed how the master tapes were handled by the producers, so he promised to never let those tapes to ever be used again. But in the end, he always supported the project.

I concur on what you said about Prince's releases from 1978-1989...they weren't the best recorded or mixed, but the good thing is that they were recorded with analog equipment. If Prince gets with the best, highly-professional engineers, those recordings will sound fresh. Trust me. I don't know about Lovesexy or Batman because those were recorded with analog, but mixes were transferred with digital equipment. You can't promise any thing with something is recorded or mixed digitally and remastered digitally (i.e. Stevie's Hotter Than July). It doesn't always work. But Sign o' The Times will sound superb. I can hear and see it perfectly.

[Edited 6/7/11 6:27am]

SoulAlive said:

kitbradley said:

When Motown issued a lot of their back catalog on CD in the 80's, the sound was really low on many of the titles. That's why I'm happy to hear about the upcoming Teena Marie remasters. One of my favorite Teena songs, "You Make Love Like Springtime", was mastered so low on the original pressing of the "Irons In the Fire" disc, I have to struggle to hear it on my Ipod. I don't like repurchasing titles I already own but, in certain cases, a remaster is essential for me.

I agree.Many CDs that were pressed in the 80s have horrible sound.I pre-ordered those Teena Marie remasters and I'm ecstatic.Can't wait for them to arrive

I concur as well. Alot of those older Columbia and Motown discs from the 80s sound too thin and low. Remember those Compact Command Performances discs? Bad! But take an album like George Michael's Faith, which actually sounds great on the original CD than the 2010 remaster. The remaster sounded way too loud and compressed. I personally liked the warmth the the original disc. It's a digital recording as well. Madonna's Like A Prayer CD, on the other hand, sounds horrible on the original disc and it is a digital recording. I wonder how it will sound if the was remastered!?

I can't wait to get those Lady T remasters next week as well, but those original discs just sound...not so good.

silverchild said:

SoulAlive said:

I agree.Many CDs that were pressed in the 80s have horrible sound.I pre-ordered those Teena Marie remasters and I'm ecstatic.Can't wait for them to arrive

I concur as well. Alot of those older Columbia and Motown discs from the 80s sound too thin and low. Remember those Compact Command Performances discs? Bad! But take an album like George Michael's Faith, which actually sounds great on the original CD than the 2010 remaster. The remaster sounded way too loud and compressed. I personally liked the warmth the the original disc. It's a digital recording as well. Madonna's Like A Prayer CD, on the other hand, sounds horrible on the original disc and it is a digital recording. I wonder how it will sound if the was remastered!?

I can't wait to get those Lady T remasters next week as well, but those original discs just sound...not so good.

I hated those Compact Command Performances CDs!!

Madonna's 'Like A Prayer' is in *desperate* need of a remaster!! The sound is so flat.

I don't really care for extra amounts of treble and bass. A lot of contemporary records sound like there were extra "layers" of high and low frequencies added to the music. There probably is in many cases - bass maximizers and aural exciters do that exactly. It just starts sounding sort of cheap to my ears when the high and the low frequencies sound "detached" from the music. Especially with styles like funk the tightness is lost if there's too much sizzling treble and booming bass.

Some famous records that sound good to my ears that spring to mind:

Miles Davis - Miles Ahead

Michael Jackson - Thriller

Dio - Holy Diver

Guns N' Roses - Use Your Illusion I&II

Once you start adding bass, you'll also have to add treble in order to balance out the mix. As a result, the middle frequencies will sort of "sink" to the background.