independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Remasters, are they a waste of time?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 07/17/17 2:52pm

Toofunkyinhere

Remasters, are they a waste of time?

I'm not just talking about the new "Purple Rain" remaster. I'm talking about remasters in general. 90% of the time all they seem to do is compress the life out of the dynamic range, making the music lose a lot of the feeling that was there in the original masters. Is remastering destroying music?
[Edited 7/17/17 14:56pm]
We're here, might as well get into it.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 07/17/17 3:08pm

EmmaMcG

I think it depends on the quality of the original release and the quality of the proposed remaster. If the remaster is actually going to improve upon the original, then that's great. So, in theory, remasters are not a waste of time. Especially if they come with outtakes or previously unreleased material.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 07/17/17 3:17pm

Gusb2Esq

I have to be honest, I love music, wish that I could play an instrument and listen all the time. With that said, I don't really hear that significant of a difference in the remasters. I think that a lot of this is because of the way he hear/listen to music now a days. Its generally through the head phones that come with your cel phone, a small bluetooth speaker, or your stock car stereo. I'm not sure you can really tell a difference on those platforms. Even my home stereo, which I guess is fairly decent, now uses small ceiling home theater speakers and a sub.

Seems like in the "old days" when there where big home speakers and large amps/receivers, you could probably hear a bigger difference with the remasters???? Just my thoughts..... confused

[Edited 7/17/17 15:18pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 07/17/17 5:33pm

SoulAlive

EmmaMcG said:

I think it depends on the quality of the original release and the quality of the proposed remaster. If the remaster is actually going to improve upon the original, then that's great. So, in theory, remasters are not a waste of time. Especially if they come with outtakes or previously unreleased material.


I agree.When done right,remasters can be amazing.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 07/17/17 6:29pm

MickyDolenz

avatar

I like the Genesis box sets from around 2008 and The Beatles' Yellow Submarine Songtrack released around 1999. In both cases the songs were remixed as well as remastered. You can really tell the difference with The Beatles. The original versions had the instruments on one speaker and the vocals on the other, and the Songtrack has real stereo mixes. On Genesis The Lamb album, the song .It sounds really clear and the guitar & drums can be heard better. I have the original vinyl and the mix on it sounds muddy & dull compared to the remixed version. I also like the interviews filmed in 2007 and TV show footage from when the Genesis albums originally came out.

You can take a black guy to Nashville from right out of the cotton fields with bib overalls, and they will call him R&B. You can take a white guy in a pin-stripe suit who’s never seen a cotton field, and they will call him country. ~ O. B. McClinton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 07/17/17 7:02pm

luvsexy4all

depends on if the company is trying to fuck with the consumer...like the Black Sabbath remasters r a rip-off

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 07/17/17 7:32pm

SoulAlive

all of the Beatles remasters that I have heard are absolutely amazing
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 07/17/17 9:51pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

Gusb2Esq said:

I have to be honest, I love music, wish that I could play an instrument and listen all the time. With that said, I don't really hear that significant of a difference in the remasters. I think that a lot of this is because of the way he hear/listen to music now a days. Its generally through the head phones that come with your cel phone, a small bluetooth speaker, or your stock car stereo. I'm not sure you can really tell a difference on those platforms. Even my home stereo, which I guess is fairly decent, now uses small ceiling home theater speakers and a sub.



Seems like in the "old days" when there where big home speakers and large amps/receivers, you could probably hear a bigger difference with the remasters???? Just my thoughts..... confused

[Edited 7/17/17 15:18pm]


Very true. With better equipment- even modest- such as bigger speakers and a decent amp- you can hear a significant difference in sound quality
#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 07/17/17 10:01pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

Depends a lot on the mastering engineer involved. Some, like Vic Anesini, Bill Inglot, Bernie Grundman, and Bob Ludwig can be counted on to generally do good work. I was just listening to the Bruce Springsteen remasters from a couple of years ago , and was just amazed how beautiful and clear they now sound.
#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 07/18/17 6:18am

kitbradley

avatar

If it weren't for remasters, I would hardly purchase any music. Remasters and reissues probably comprise 90% of my CD purchases over the past 10 years. Some have been better than others, definately. It all depends on the Engineer. I'm always happy to see remasters of CD's that were orginally issued in the 80s since most of them were originally mastered at lower volumes.

"It's not nice to fuck with K.B.! All you haters will see!" - Kitbradley
"The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." - Socrates
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 07/18/17 8:26am

jjhunsecker

avatar

kitbradley said:

If it weren't for remasters, I would hardly purchase any music. Remasters and reissues probably comprise 90% of my CD purchases over the past 10 years. Some have been better than others, definately. It all depends on the Engineer. I'm always happy to see remasters of CD's that were orginally issued in the 80s since most of them were originally mastered at lower volumes.

Especially Prince's catalog. Brilliant albums like "Parade" and "SOTT" and "Lovesexy" sound like crap, and need to be remastered by a sensitive engineer . It's a shame so much of his catalog sounds so bad.

#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 07/18/17 11:49am

novabrkr

For me, they have been.

Yeah, albums like SOTT definitely need more bass, but I can add that using a knob on my playback system (actually, I have, like, 12 different knobs on my playback system that I can use for the purpose).

Most remasters just butcher the music for the untrained ear to interpret it as somehow more "modern-sounding". For example, the remaster of Bowie's Ziggy Stardust from the late-90s was just ridiculous. It sounded like completely different mixes. I went back to the Rykodisc releases for Bowie's classic output. It seems I wasn't alone with my sentiments, as the albums were remastered again a few years later.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 07/18/17 11:54am

SoulAlive

kitbradley said:

If it weren't for remasters, I would hardly purchase any music. Remasters and reissues probably comprise 90% of my CD purchases over the past 10 years. Some have been better than others, definately. It all depends on the Engineer. I'm always happy to see remasters of CD's that were orginally issued in the 80s since most of them were originally mastered at lower volumes.

same here.The majority of the music I buy is remasters.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 07/18/17 3:13pm

MickyDolenz

avatar

You can take a black guy to Nashville from right out of the cotton fields with bib overalls, and they will call him R&B. You can take a white guy in a pin-stripe suit who’s never seen a cotton field, and they will call him country. ~ O. B. McClinton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 07/19/17 12:23pm

SoulAlive

jjhunsecker said:

Especially Prince's catalog. Brilliant albums like "Parade" and "SOTT" and "Lovesexy" sound like crap, and need to be remastered by a sensitive engineer . It's a shame so much of his catalog sounds so bad.

I agree

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 07/19/17 1:33pm

TheFman

Toofunkyinhere said:

I'm not just talking about the new "Purple Rain" remaster. I'm talking about remasters in general. 90% of the time all they seem to do is compress the life out of the dynamic range, making the music lose a lot of the feeling that was there in the original masters. Is remastering destroying music? [Edited 7/17/17 14:56pm]

YES

I hate remasters with a passion.

Originals are how they are supposed to sound.
Image And Justice For All with (more) bass, that wouldn't just be the same...

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 07/19/17 6:11pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

TheFman said:



Toofunkyinhere said:


I'm not just talking about the new "Purple Rain" remaster. I'm talking about remasters in general. 90% of the time all they seem to do is compress the life out of the dynamic range, making the music lose a lot of the feeling that was there in the original masters. Is remastering destroying music? [Edited 7/17/17 14:56pm]

YES


I hate remasters with a passion.

Originals are how they are supposed to sound.
Image And Justice For All with (more) bass, that wouldn't just be the same...


You probably haven't heard the right ones. Check out "The Essential Kinks" or Sly Stone's "There's a Riot Going on", mastered by Vic Anesini, or Bruce Springsteen's 1973-1984 catalog, recently remastered by Bob Ludwig, to hear how GOOD remastering can improve the sound quality by leaps and bounds
#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 07/19/17 11:51pm

JorisE73

TheFman said:

Toofunkyinhere said:

I'm not just talking about the new "Purple Rain" remaster. I'm talking about remasters in general. 90% of the time all they seem to do is compress the life out of the dynamic range, making the music lose a lot of the feeling that was there in the original masters. Is remastering destroying music? [Edited 7/17/17 14:56pm]

YES

I hate remasters with a passion.

Originals are how they are supposed to sound.
Image And Justice For All with (more) bass, that wouldn't just be the same...

I also had this opinion until I heard Quadrophenia from The Who straight from the mastered tape before it was pressed on vinyl, tape and CD. The original vinyl, tape or CD's is not how albums were supposed to sound but just as accurately as the medium could allow. Only the original mastered tapes have the true intended quality. Properly done remasters are more representative of the original sound than initial/original vinyl, tape or CD.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 07/20/17 12:26am

zaza3121

jjhunsecker said:



kitbradley said:


If it weren't for remasters, I would hardly purchase any music. Remasters and reissues probably comprise 90% of my CD purchases over the past 10 years. Some have been better than others, definately. It all depends on the Engineer. I'm always happy to see remasters of CD's that were orginally issued in the 80s since most of them were originally mastered at lower volumes.




Especially Prince's catalog. Brilliant albums like "Parade" and "SOTT" and "Lovesexy" sound like crap, and need to be remastered by a sensitive engineer . It's a shame so much of his catalog sounds so bad.


Parade is considered as an audiophile record. Just because it's not loud doesn't mean it sounds like crap. Turn it up on your stereo and enjoy how clear and powerful it sounds.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 07/20/17 8:11am

jjhunsecker

avatar

zaza3121 said:

jjhunsecker said:



kitbradley said:


If it weren't for remasters, I would hardly purchase any music. Remasters and reissues probably comprise 90% of my CD purchases over the past 10 years. Some have been better than others, definately. It all depends on the Engineer. I'm always happy to see remasters of CD's that were orginally issued in the 80s since most of them were originally mastered at lower volumes.




Especially Prince's catalog. Brilliant albums like "Parade" and "SOTT" and "Lovesexy" sound like crap, and need to be remastered by a sensitive engineer . It's a shame so much of his catalog sounds so bad.


Parade is considered as an audiophile record. Just because it's not loud doesn't mean it sounds like crap. Turn it up on your stereo and enjoy how clear and powerful it sounds.


We have to agree to differ. On my system, "Parade" sounds muffled and distant .
#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 07/20/17 9:04am

sexton

avatar

jjhunsecker said:


zaza3121 said:

Parade is considered as an audiophile record. Just because it's not loud doesn't mean it sounds like crap. Turn it up on your stereo and enjoy how clear and powerful it sounds.
We have to agree to differ. On my system, "Parade" sounds muffled and distant .


Are you two talking about the Parade CD or the vinyl record?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 07/20/17 9:21am

jjhunsecker

avatar

sexton said:



jjhunsecker said:



zaza3121 said:

Parade is considered as an audiophile record. Just because it's not loud doesn't mean it sounds like crap. Turn it up on your stereo and enjoy how clear and powerful it sounds.

We have to agree to differ. On my system, "Parade" sounds muffled and distant .


Are you two talking about the Parade CD or the vinyl record?


CD. Don't have a turntable anymore
#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 07/20/17 9:27am

TrevorAyer

Remasters are fucking trash ... every last one of them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 07/20/17 9:33am

TrevorAyer

Ps parade is his best sounding record ... buy a real stereo and delete your MP3s
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 07/20/17 9:51am

funkaholic1972

avatar

TrevorAyer said:

Ps parade is his best sounding record ... buy a real stereo and delete your MP3s

Yup, I agree! Get the 2013 HD (24/96) version of Parade, even better sounding.

RIP Prince: thank U 4 a funky Time...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 07/20/17 11:18am

namepeace

SoulAlive said:

EmmaMcG said:
I think it depends on the quality of the original release and the quality of the proposed remaster. If the remaster is actually going to improve upon the original, then that's great. So, in theory, remasters are not a waste of time. Especially if they come with outtakes or previously unreleased material.
I agree.When done right,remasters can be amazing.


Agreed. I'm not the kind of audiphile that can critique the nuances of remasters. The )Purple Rain remaster discussions often focus on minute details. But the differences in qualities Emma mentioned matter.

For example, the Rudy Van Gelder Collection remasters Blue Note released in the early 2000's were outstanding.

On the other hand, the Millenial Collection greatest hits remasters of the late 90's/early 00's were a mixed bag.

Just two examples. But I do think that it helps with aged catalogue items from your favorite artists. I'd love to get remasters for SOTT, ATWIAD, Parade and Batman. If it's an artist I'm only casual fan of, though, I will only buy selected tracks or don't really care that much about repurchasing the same product.

Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016

Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 07/20/17 11:19am

namepeace

funkaholic1972 said:

TrevorAyer said:

Ps parade is his best sounding record ... buy a real stereo and delete your MP3s

Yup, I agree! Get the 2013 HD (24/96) version of Parade, even better sounding.


I actually think LoveSexy sounds better than most of his 80's output. But I'll check the HD's out.

Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016

Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 07/20/17 11:20am

jjhunsecker

avatar

TrevorAyer said:

Remasters are fucking trash ... every last one of them.


Beg to differ. You have to judge on a case by case basis. Have you heard the 2014 Springsteens ? Or the Elvis Presley catalog remastered by Vic Anesini ? Or Rhino's remastered versions of Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours" or "Tusk" or "Tango in the Night "? Or how about the upgrade of "Loaded" by the Velvet Underground, also on Rhino ? Great sound on all, just off the top of my head
#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 07/20/17 11:24am

jjhunsecker

avatar

TrevorAyer said:

Ps parade is his best sounding record ... buy a real stereo and delete your MP3s

I don't do MP3s.. only CD, SACD, and DVD-Audio. All through a pretty decent pair of floor standing speakers, not earbuds
#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 07/20/17 11:52am

RodeoSchro

IMO, yes.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Remasters, are they a waste of time?