question

[pwal³]

i was just wondering what all the "classic" (and other) producers think of their work being remastered? wasn't it good enough the first time?

[Sheens]

it COULD be SENSATIONAL

if the original mix TAPE = mastered all analog (and printed to TAPE for vinyl production) and DIGITAL.

maybe nowadays some vinyl is made from a digital old/new master, and possibly even remixed in digital too.

modern converters are perfect and some superfast too, but still add at least say 4 ms latency for just mastering (depending on the DAW settings)

if the analog tape is also remixed on digital...it get's worse.

but hey....it's LOUDER and most importantly it makes MONEY.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Sheens

[Rain]

I understand remastering an album that was originally mastered for vinyl for a new medium, like CD. What Jimmy Page did for the Led Zeppelin catalogue back then made it clear that this was something legitimate. But the man himself was in charge, and that was before things got stupid.

I remember the first Deep Purple remaster I bought. Actually, I had compared both mixes of Getting Tighter in Bias Peak (and kept the picture)... They killed the groove! Whatever its flaws may be, I'd take the original mastered for vinyl transfer over the audio crime scene that was the new and improved version any day. May not be as good as it can be but it's a lot closer to it.

Amusingly, I was just watching this video on YouTube - the guy was going through all the masters of KISS Creatures of the Night in his collection and, predictably enough, his verdict was - on vinyl, the best version is still the original 1982 master, with a few not awful but not as great revisions, the most recent ones being the closest to the original, but not better (not even the half-speed master) and not quite as good. 

On CD. nothing beat the Mid 90's master - unsurprisingly. 

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Rain

[Sheens]

That was before some 'analog' mastering engineers started using Waves Limiter and Weiss EQ (now at Vintage King for $ 10,240 .00).

They are latency HOGS (convert to digital internally) but the Waves definitely got it loud.

 

get a new vinyl record (remixed and remastered digitally), soso manufactered vinyl....put it on the turntable...

listen while checking all the instagram posts on smartphone...

Edited October 15, 2023 by Sheens

[craigb]

I thought this was a Moody Blues thread!  Imagine my disappointment! 😮

[Grem]

ZZ Tops first "remastered" version of Tres Hombre was terrible. Way too much reverb. Drums sounded like they were in a empty stadium. Same with the first Kansas "remaster" of Leftoverture. Way too much reverb.

What I can't understand is why radio stations keep playing these  versions despite there being better versions out there.

ZZ Top's box set was "remastered" correctly. Got to give Jimmy Page props for doing an excellent job on Zeps remasters.

[Shane_B.]

Mobile Fidelity alwaya seemed to get it right when they remastered for CD. Unfortunately they're gone.

I have Dark Side Of The Moon, A Night At The Opera, and Days Of Future Passed on Mobile Fidelity CD. Absolutely beautiful to listen to.

[Notes_Norton]

From what I've heard:

• A few of the remasters sound noticeably better
• Most of them are different but not significantly different (I usually prefer the one I'm used to, but enjoy hearing a couple of things I missed on the original)
• A few of them are actually worse.

<conspiracy theory>

But there is money in reselling anything. The publishers and songwriters make money, the artists, probably not.

We bought vinyl, they sold us the same thing on 8 track, then cassettes, then CDs, and tried with SACD, which actually sounded very good, but the public was tired of repurchasing what they already bought 4 times.

So what are we going to do, to sell the same thing over again, That 3rd house in the south of France needs a new roof, and my Ferrari is 2 years old now. I know, "REMASTER". In most cases, it can be done automatically, so I don't have to pay anyone else, and if I do, somebody on the payroll already will take care of it.

</conspiracy theory>

Me? I haven't purchased any remasters. My friend had an 8 track, and it changed tracks in the middle of a song—blasphemy. I hated cassettes and simply recorded my vinyl to play in the car. The vinyl I listen to most is ripped to CD and I make mp3s to play in the car.

I don't need no stinkin' remasters. (With a Hispanic accent spokin like a movie star villain)

 

Notes ♫

 

[pwal³]

tbf, i understand the media-specific remastering, and hence the loudness wars, but still as has been mentioned some of the "remasters" are actually remixes, business trying to keep up

i have a couple of SACDs (and DVD versions) but only for the 5.1 mixes (that's mixes not etc) but no longer a 5.1 system to play them on doh -the flaming lips, super furry animals and cornelius were notably worth it but fe the pf dsotm was disappointing 🤷‍♂️

[Notes_Norton]

I have mixed feelings about remixes.

When I get used to the original mix, the remix might be better, but it just doesn't sound right. I know, it's because I've internalized the old mix, and if I listened to the remix enough, I'd get used to it as well. But I've never been impressed with the remix enough to shell out money for what I already have. I'd rather buy something I don't have yet.

 

Notes ♫