I've been visiting a Bob Dylan discussion site, and pussy after pussy keeps whining about how the (from what I hear & have heard) EXCELLENT new remasters of his classic shit are "such rip-offs" and "why would anyone buy these CDs again?" or "it's just a scam to get our money..." and so on. In other words, the same old tired bullshit that those-who-cannot-handle-change spew forth EVERY time an artist's shit gets remastered.

I heard it with Stevie. I heard it with Bowie. I heard it with the Stones. I hear it all the time. And it's ridiculous!

For one thing, nobody is forcing anyone to buy these albums "again."

For another thing, these dipshits are misunderstanding the whole process and motivations FOR the remastering process. The old Dylan and Stones CDs were terrible transfers...they sounded like someone poured Yeti shit all over the tapes...

When you add a new mastering for SACD or some other new, improved format, these whinyass bastards start crying even more loudly. It would be insane for someone to refuse to buy the new, beautiful transfer of Casablanca on DVD because they wanted to hang on to some shitty old tape...why should it be any different for music?

I can understand the reluctance to spend money. But be honest about your lack of funds, or your unwillingness to spend them! Don't try to pass it off as if the record companies were just faking the remastering, and blindly fleecing the fans. And sure as hell don't try to pull the lousy old "there's no difference...I can't hear a damn thing different at all...blah blah" excuse. Just because your ears are dysfunctional, don't assume that mine are, too!


True, dedicated remastering is fucking great.

The last remastered series I bought was MJ's back catalogue. If you can't hear a difference in sound quality while listening to those then you need to get your head rinsed.

Thank you!

Cloudbuster said:

Those CDs are GREAT! Thriller on SACD is even better!

Hi KS!

I find it amazing that fans would be bitching about CDs being remastered.I go CRAZY whenever a CD by one of my favorite artists is remastered,especially if bonus tracks are included.I think it's a crying shame that Prince's incredible catalog hasn't been remastered by now.Some of his CDs (especially 'Controversy' and 'SOTT') sound like shit right now.I can't think of two other CDs that need remastering more than two those albums...lol...

Tell those Bob Dylan fans to get their heads out of their asses!

To be honest I have never heard a SACD/super CD or anything like that. But I can hear a huge difference between vinyl and CD and understand completely the crap limitation of 16 bits (it's shit, I tell you, but you just never noticed it). Play your remastered CD on something other that a Sony picnic-player with graphic equalizer and plastic speaker boxes, get yourself some good ears and you shouldn't be able to miss the difference.

Cloudbuster said:

I bought the remastered 'Off The Wall','Thriller' and 'Bad' CDs.Eventually,I'm gonna get 'Dangerous' but since there are no bonus tracks,I'm in no real hurry...lol

DavidEye said:

It is a complete crying shame. I remember going 'shopping' for high end hi-fi (worth over 100,000K), and Prince CDs sounded absolutely dead. It was woeful. They suffered from more than just the limitation of 16 bits.

sabaisabai said:

CDs can be a very weak format...SACD, however, is amazing! THIS is what CDs should have sounded like...

KingSausage said:

Explain to me the difference in sound and players of SACD. I've never heard them before and know nothing about them.

All of Madonna's back catalog sound incredible remastered. Looking forward to the Eurythmic's back catalog,thanks Tron for the info.

KingSausage said:

yes definitley! So deos the remastered "Funkadelic" & Parliament CD's.

PhilG said:

Agreed.But I'm waiting for them to remaster 'Like A Prayer' and 'Erotica'.

TRON said:

The difference in sound is HUGE...it has the precision of CDs, but the warmth and impact of vinyl, and then some! Seriously, SACDs sound fantastic...absolutely great...it sounds like you have a band right in your fucking living room...

As far as the differences between players go, I'm not a good source for that. I'm sure some hardcore audiophile sites could give you some tips. I got my player for very cheap, and it still sounds great! You should hear Heathen...

KingSausage said:

Have you listened to any of the DVD Audios? I think theyre even better than the SACDs.

I agree with your original post but it can be annoying to start buying a particular artists catalog , only to find out that theyre being remastered soon.This happened to me with Stevie .And Atlantic had remastered several Yes titles,just a short time ago and now Rhino is releasing their versions w/bonus trax.Isnt this what happened with Bowie's?I guess you really have to do your homework to get the best deal.I wouldnt complain tho.I Love remasters!

KingSausage... I've had a similar experience peruising the various Bowie forums/newsgroups on the net.


2 things:


1) I CAN understand why some people may not want to be forking out for yet a 3rd remastered CD copy of Ziggy or Aladdin, but still, hardly any other artists get that kind of continued support from a label in archiving and packaging a back catalog. I would LOVE it if more of my favorite artists got this treatment.


2) They keep bitching about how releasing a single disc and a limited edition double disc of a new album, or putting b-sides on singles, or bonus tracks on imports or whatever, is just Bowie and the labels being money-grubbers. I don't know if it's because they're young, and don't remember or have experience with artists releasing b-sides, or if it's that they're old and cheap, or what, but I would be creaming if more of my favorite artists had 3-6 b-sides, bonus tracks, or what have you with every album. hell, that's half the fun of being a hardcore fan of someone, tracking that stuff down, and hearing what didn't make the cut.

What is a remastered album exactly ?? I mean what do they do technically ?? Do they take the old masters and manufacture cds with the latest technology possible or do they replay all instrumental tracks ?? What is the exact definition ?? sorry for my ignorance, but are there technically different categories ??

KING SAUSAGE IS THE ILLEST

Totally agreed with thread!

AaronMaximus said:

AMEN!

I don´t like remastered CDs. Remastered CD´s are such rip-offs. Why would anyone buy these CDs again? After all, it´s just a scam to get our money...

Agree with the thread but not adding extras onto CDs. I like listening to albums all the way through, not having to switch off as soon as god awful interviews come on a la the MJ remasters

Yeah,the interviews on the MJ remasters seem so out of place.It would have been better to have included more bonus songs instead.

DavidEye said:

They were really interesting for the first time, especially hearing Rod Temperton sounding just like William Hague - I mean I knew he was British but I still expected a sort of faux American accent! Anyway, it's annoying if you ever have the albums stuck on 'random' on your CD player, but I've just about got the knack of it.

i dont think all remasters are that great. some of them seem to rob the original vinyl pressings of warmth, and certain 'thickness' in sound. i cant quite explain it. but i once had one of teachers explain it to me that digital can only process sound in terms of '0' or 'I' which instantly limits the scope and range of sound that the original master tapes of old (and a lot of new) albums have. they were all recorded analogue after all, so wouldnt it make sense that they were heard in their original format? some remasters, like songs in the key of life, i think dont sound as good as the original vinyl i have. i think they just sound good to a lot of people cos they are used to sterile, precise digital sound, as thats the 'standard' now, but it doesnt mean its necessarily better.

thirstinhowlVIII said:

SACD is the answer...

KingSausage said:

i hope so. i still like vinyl though. just got a dvd player too, and im not sure if its sacd compatible. bummer! vinyl is the best to me - i mean, thats how all those old albums were originally after all.

...well, my opinion is: i have bought remastered cd's but its only because someone barrowed it and never brought it back...and ive found that sometimes the clarity, isnt a complaint at all, like, when i listen to ella fitz' or duke ell' or some of our other vintage artist- having "that" slightly flawed sound can take you places, make you feel nostalgic about what youre listening to, dig!
so to each its own, but i do realize its also about a commercial kick too, so...
[This message was edited Tue Sep 23 10:34:29 PDT 2003 by silverjean]

thirstinhowlVIII said:

well... that's all sort of the point of the remasters. when CD's were first introduced, you lost a lot of the sound quality and warmth that you'd still hear on vinyl. it's not 100% perfect yet, but the technology for transferring has advanced to the point where you get back a lot of that warmth and "thickness" that was missing from the original CD's in the 80's and early 90's.