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.....

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

EmmaMcG said:

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.

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

Gusb2Esq 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.

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.

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.

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.

mobile fidelity sound lab

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

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...

TheFman said:

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.

jjhunsecker said:

zaza3121 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?

sexton 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.

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.

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.

TrevorAyer said:

TrevorAyer said:

IMO, yes.