TheFman said:

Originals are how they are supposed to sound.

With vinyl, the originals are not always the best version. King Records were known for melting down unsold copies to make new records to save money. Reused vinyl doesn't have the same sound quality as fresh. Sound quality also varied with different labels. Original mixes are not necessarily the way an act wanted it. Paul McCartney didn't like the Phil Spector mix of Long And Winding Road with strings & female singers. So I guess he likes the Let It Be Naked version better. Record labels sometimes remixed albums artists have turned in without their knowlege and put it out.

MickyDolenz said:

TheFman said:

Originals are how they are supposed to sound.

With vinyl, the originals are not always the best version. King Records were known for melting down unsold copies to make new records to save money. Reused vinyl doesn't have the same sound quality as fresh. Sound quality also varied with different labels. Original mixes are not necessarily the way an act wanted it. Paul McCartney didn't like the Phil Spector mix of Long And Winding Road with strings & female singers. So I guess he likes the Let It Be Naked version better. Record labels sometimes remixed albums artists have turned in without their knowlege and put it out.

Yep, but still the original is how we knew it for whole of our life. I'm not waiting to hear 40 years later that a song actually had to sound different - it will never be better after so long time.

Even when some records originally came out, there were different versions like Quadrophonic, half speed master, Mofi mix, mono/stereo, etc. Sometimes the mix might have been different on 8-track, cassette, or reel to reel than on record.

namepeace said:

funkaholic1972 said:

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.

Yeah LoveSexy has a good sound too, you are definately right. I just had a listen to it (first time in many years) after reading your post and really enjoyed the album a lot. I have always had some sort of love/hate relationship with LoveSexy, but today it all sounded great. I think my "perfect Prince album streak" has just been extended with one album actually (it is now from "Prince" to "LoveSexy")!

TheFman said:

TheFman said:

Yep, but still the original is how we knew it for whole of our life. I'm not waiting to hear 40 years later that a song actually had to sound different - it will never be better after so long time.

What if you had the mono version of The Beatles' white album? Helter Skelter is around a minute shorter than the stereo version. Also most of the Beatles albums originally released in the USA were different than other countries. A Hard Days Night has George Martin Orchestra instrumentals on it. There's albums like Hey Jude that were exclusive to the US. The British versions of the albums weren't here until the CDs came out in the 1980s. That's why the group did that "butcher babies" album cover because they didn't like how Capitol Records "butchered" their albums. Also some of those "Paul is dead" clues are from the American albums.

Geoff Emerick / Giles Martin 2017

MickyDolenz said:

TheFman said:

Originals are how they are supposed to sound.

With vinyl, the originals are not always the best version. King Records were known for melting down unsold copies to make new records to save money. Reused vinyl doesn't have the same sound quality as fresh. Sound quality also varied with different labels. Original mixes are not necessarily the way an act wanted it. Paul McCartney didn't like the Phil Spector mix of Long And Winding Road with strings & female singers. So I guess he likes the Let It Be Naked version better. Record labels sometimes remixed albums artists have turned in without their knowlege and put it out.

.

Why mix a discussion of mixes (or in the specific example of 'Long and Winding Road' arrangements) into a discussion of remastering?

.

Mastering is one of the more poorly understood aspects of the recording industry. Probably best not to confuse the issue even further!

TrevorAyer said:

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

.

Wow, you've hear 'em all, eh?

.

Sometimes final mixes are poorly mastered in the first place. And in some of those cases, remastering the music has resulted in an improvement.

how come the radio sounds better than most cds?

CAL3 said:

Look for the ones made o gold.

luvsexy4all said:

m

funkaholic1972 said:

namepeace said:

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

Yeah LoveSexy has a good sound too, you are definately right. I just had a listen to it (first time in many years) after reading your post and really enjoyed the album a lot. I have always had some sort of love/hate relationship with LoveSexy, but today it all sounded great. I think my "perfect Prince album streak" has just been extended with one album actually (it is now from "Prince" to "LoveSexy")!

If I've helped a fellow Prince fan appreciate LoveSexy more, then that may be my greatest achievement on the Org!

It's a sonically superb record.

And you've actually changed my mind . . . I'm adding Prince to the front end of his Golden Age (1979-88). I'd always said the Golden Age was his career-defining Dirty Mind to LoveSexy, but Prince is such a great progression with memorable, enduring songs that it should be considered part of his prime.

nd33 said:

Like anything, the more you do it, the more tuned in your perception becomes. For example, the more you shop around for a pair of jeans, the more accustomed you become to the idiosyncrasies of style, cut, size, fit. It can take years of critical listening to really become aware of things to listen for in remasters and to decide what characteristics you like. As a working sound engineer myself, it's all a case by case basis and in the eye (or ear!) of the beholder. Some remasters I like, but I have to say, prob most albums I prefer the original mastering of. I remember getting the remaster of Songs In The Key Of Life after borrowing my friends copy for a couple of months and being immediately disappointed by the lack of warmth and the added harshness that wasn't at all what my friends original copy sounded like. Whoever worked on the remaster would've been thinking it sounds clearer, but my perception is it just sounds nastier. It's not necessarily all the mastering engineers fault either, they can be pressured to make it sound "more like today" by record execs or maybe even the artist themself. Most people get initially fooled by the immediate volume increase of a remaster. That volume increase is made possible by modern equipment and techniques, but louder doesn't mean better. Making it loud is another marketing thing, because it tricks us. The true test is listening to an original master and a remaster at the same relative level, by using your volume knob. Or in iTunes you can set a gain adjustment to the remastered album to bring it down to where it sounds a similar level to the original master. When playing back both at the same level, you can accurately judge which has the more pleasing tonal balance and power.

Agreed. I feel and hope in the future there will be a backlash against all this remastering nonsense, and people will want the original sound back.

jjhunsecker said:

Depends a lot on the mastering engineer involved.

yep

Toofunkyinhere said: