I got a few early cd's that sound bad, no amount of remastering can save these.. They are:






I notice how tinny both sound and with little to no base. Both were released through CBS, which might explain something and dropped in the early days of cd's (mid 80's)


Now i compare Don Johnson's "heartbeat" album with that of Chicago's "18", and whlst both came out the same year (1986), Chicago's album, despite being full of synths and drum programmes, still sounds great and is mixed well, whilst Don's album sounds like it's being played on a ghetto blaster.


I noticed Chicago's album says on the back of the cd case:

"the music on the compact disc was originally recorded on analog equipment....."

I think thats the difference. Both albums production is as dated as eachother, but Chicago's album still sounds awesome if you know what i mean (David foster, or humberto gattica obviously know how to mix and engineer) and thats because it was still recorded through analogue. Some cd's from this era have the
signs:

AAD
ADD
DDD

on the back of them. The ones that have DDD, tend to sound rubbish now, and i think thats also because they were recorded, mixed and everything done digitally. Now fast forward to 1994's Yes album "talk", and despite it being done on a hardrive, it sounds unbelievable and so fresh. So now cd's can sound good.


Just wondering what CD's you have that sound awful or have been mixed badly? And do you like stuff "digitally remastered"?

For example, i don't think Motown can digitally remaster for shit. They should just not bother.

Funnily enough, Chicago's next album, "19", out in 1988, sounds awful, with the horns way back in the mix. I think that was down to the producer though (Foster did not produce "19")
[Edited 11/1/06 18:31pm]

Come on guys, Iam sure some of you have shitty sounding CD's? Do u reckon digital remastering is always a good thing?


When Phil spector personally had a hand in his quite recent boxset, my brother said it sounded worse then the originals, and its quite shocking for Spector to get it wrong?

Many albums NEED remastering for sure; e.g Prince 78-88!

However alot of albums were poorly mixed in the first place and still sound bad after the remastering process.

Led zeppelin later albums are horribly mixed and you can't hardly hear Robert's amazing voice. It seems they were recorded with the band together and not with the singer seperate. This was a bad idea becuase the best results are achieved when the singer goes into the booth alone, then the vocals are mixed on top of the instruments. On 'Trampling underfoot' for example you can hardly hear Plant which is a shame cos' he's my fav singer EVER!

George marino is the man for mastering and eddie kramar is master mixer.
Alot of artist are ignorant to how important the mixing/mastering process is.

Jimi hendrix for example was unhappy about the mastering of his fisrt three albums and said in future he would oversee all mastering of his albums.

BTW The chili peppers last three albums NEED REMASTERING; they are horrible, tool loud with distortion all over. They are so bad there has been petitions to get WB to remaster them!
[Edited 11/2/06 3:17am]

mikek1 said:

"Trampling Underfoot". Don't you mean "Trampolening Bigfoot".

Trust you, Mr Sexytits, to have Don Johnson's Heartbeat and Chicago's MOR From Hell album, 18. You know why they sound bad? Because they are bad - as in bad albums. Period.

thesexofit said:

this is very true. voicescarry opened my ears to how much better the originals were.

I bought the remaster of Big Country's 'The Crossing', and it's one of the worst remastering jobs I've ever heard in my life. The entire album sounds like it was recorded with an air conditioner on in the background. It's so bad that I can't even listen to the album...Completely kills my appreciation of the music.

Shapeshifter said:

Hmph. How do u know about them albums, unless u own them No denying Foster was the shit in the 80's. Love him or hate him, he can produce. And as i said, "16" sounds great


Thanx guys for ur comments.

I got "thriller" remastered, u can hear a difference slightly, but that album sounded good in the first place anyway? A bit pointless really?

Prince albums do not really need remastering. Maybe "purple rain" though?

Lo-fidelity forever!

How much help is mastering anyway? I don't think anything can fix a bad mix.

coolcat said:

mastering can help generate a cleaner sound
but the songs would have to be remixed, and amplified

EmbattledWarrior said:

But they'd need the original instrument tracks... Is it customary for record companies to keep these?

coolcat said:

they would be on the different audio tracks of the master tapes, wouldn't they?

coolcat said:

no but if the original masters are intact the songs could be remixed.

I wish all the zep songs would of had the vocals recorded seperate and mixed over the top; all the later albums sound shit but the early one amazing. That's because of the recording(in a house) and the mixing.

mikek1 said:

didn't Jimmy Page himself remaster the ENTIRE Led Zepplin catalogue for the boxed set?

ufoclub said:

yes. However they were poorly recorded for the latter part of their career and i guess some of them couldn't be rectified.