Does a remastered cd normally have audible/modernized differences compared to the original release?
- Thread starter Watt93
- Start date
I'm sure the audiophiles amongst us will comment with more detail, but...
In my own listening experience -yes.
The master recordings are remixed and extra separation and nuances tweaked and added.
Purists argue things should stay as released, but technology moves on and crisper, ‘fresher’ sound can come about when applied to the masters.
That said, some people just find re-masters a bit louder than the original release.
They often say the sound technician is the most important member of the band...
Kind regards,
FWD
In my own listening experience -yes.
The master recordings are remixed and extra separation and nuances tweaked and added.
Purists argue things should stay as released, but technology moves on and crisper, ‘fresher’ sound can come about when applied to the masters.
That said, some people just find re-masters a bit louder than the original release.
They often say the sound technician is the most important member of the band...
Kind regards,
FWD
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yes - otherwise there would be no point in remastering it. It doesn't make it automatically better though, that's more a subjective thing depending on your personal taste. Personally I prefer the Smiths remasters that Johnny Marr did a few years ago to the originals, which seem a bit flat when I try to listen to them now.
gargumma
Active Member
The only honest answer is that it depends entirely on three things: what the original sounds like, what is done in the name of "remastering" (not always one same thing) and what your tastes and preferences are like when it comes to fidelity, clarity, loudness and possibly other aspects.
Discussion on those could go on and on. I'll sum it up:
- The originals: if the original recording is muddy like some '60s or '70s garage stuff, or if it's, say, an old bluesman, then maybe the original recording suffered and could be improved. But only "if". There's lots of other stuff that probably don't need to be changed, and it's also a matter of perception (profitability aside).
- What "remastering" means: "remastering" should mean just one thing (and I'm absolutely FAR from being an expert on it). But the problem is, they have been releasing all sorts of stuff labeled as "remastered" and it's all over the place. Often, the sound is just made louder because they think that will somehow "improve" the music to the ears of a new generation or whatever crap alike. Being like that, labelling something as "remastered" could improperly mean different things. The Pet Shop Boys' remasters are a thing of beauty, because they deeply cared and sincerely worked on making everything clearer and more dynamic. New Order's so-called "remasters" were barely remasters (at a point, they weren't at all), and suffered with all sorts of problems because not only no one cared, but also whoever cared didn't know what they were doing. R.E.M. remasters were just made annoyingly louder and distorted because of that, with zero gain in dynamics and quality.
- Your preferences: again with the "old bluesman" thing: if you think the guy should be heard with all the original imperfections because that confers authenticity to the sound and takes you back, then more power to you. If you think the sound should be a bit more polished because the music is what matters, then that's another perception. Should it be cleaned, made louder, made clearer, remixed? All a matter of preference.
Discussion on those could go on and on. I'll sum it up:
- The originals: if the original recording is muddy like some '60s or '70s garage stuff, or if it's, say, an old bluesman, then maybe the original recording suffered and could be improved. But only "if". There's lots of other stuff that probably don't need to be changed, and it's also a matter of perception (profitability aside).
- What "remastering" means: "remastering" should mean just one thing (and I'm absolutely FAR from being an expert on it). But the problem is, they have been releasing all sorts of stuff labeled as "remastered" and it's all over the place. Often, the sound is just made louder because they think that will somehow "improve" the music to the ears of a new generation or whatever crap alike. Being like that, labelling something as "remastered" could improperly mean different things. The Pet Shop Boys' remasters are a thing of beauty, because they deeply cared and sincerely worked on making everything clearer and more dynamic. New Order's so-called "remasters" were barely remasters (at a point, they weren't at all), and suffered with all sorts of problems because not only no one cared, but also whoever cared didn't know what they were doing. R.E.M. remasters were just made annoyingly louder and distorted because of that, with zero gain in dynamics and quality.
- Your preferences: again with the "old bluesman" thing: if you think the guy should be heard with all the original imperfections because that confers authenticity to the sound and takes you back, then more power to you. If you think the sound should be a bit more polished because the music is what matters, then that's another perception. Should it be cleaned, made louder, made clearer, remixed? All a matter of preference.
Last edited:
A
Anonymous
Guest
What this guy said. For me it really depends on how it was originally recorded. The pavement reissues, especially for the first three album, almost makes them sound like different releases to me. I'd heard crooked rain before and was ok but when I heard the remaster I was kinda like wow now I get it. Same for dinosaur jrs you're living all over me, though some will say the muddy noise element was the point but when I got the remaster of that I could more clearly see what a great songwriter he was. It does also depend on how it's remaster as suedes Saturday night for example was a big difference and it almost seemed like they took a different take or something. The remaster however can just be used as a marketing ploy to get people to rebuty albums that were recorded really well on modern equipment just so they have something to put on the marketing sticker on say the twentieth annaversary release etc. in the end I'd say just preview if you can if you already own the original or if they're the same price and you're getting something for the first time get the remaster. I just recently got the re,altered version of beasties check your head and really I can't see a big diff but I didn't already own it so I said why not
