View Full Version : The remastered version is worse
mtlin
11-01-2008, 05:08 PM
I just got the Replacement's Let It Be, which was remastered in 2008. My first impressions, the remastered version is brighter and more compressed. Not good things. Why did they bother?
fyler
11-01-2008, 05:10 PM
see: the Loudness Wars
it applies to reissues, as well as new albums.
mtlin
11-01-2008, 05:15 PM
I suppose the extra compression should have surprised me, but the added brightness is truly gratuitous. It just makes it sound a little thinner and trashier. Sigh.
michaelvincent
11-01-2008, 05:29 PM
Mixing, and even more concerning, mastering are becoming a fading art. MP3's, cheap computer speakers and ipods are truly diminishing the mass market's need for something of true audiophile quality (why worry about a nice wide range of dynamics and frequencies when the common bitrate for an mp3 seems to be 198kb or worse?). Not to mention the need for bands to 'stand out' on the radio. People are just brick walling their recordings in an attempt to make them sound louder, when in reality all it does is fatigue the ears and make pretty much anything unlistenable after about 3 songs.
The new Metallica album takes this to new and utterly disasterous heights.
Anyone remember dynamics? Those were the days.
Chiba
11-01-2008, 06:35 PM
The new Metallica album takes this to new and utterly disasterous heights.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks so. I like the music, but can barely stand to actually listen to it.
--chiba
I had a version of "Hotel California" that was (to my ear) OBVIOUSLY remixed- some of the niftiest guitar work was pushed back in the mix to the point you could barely hear it over the vocal.
Sad.
Lo Blues
11-01-2008, 07:10 PM
Melodies are nice but sounds are far underrated. Wonder how long it will take for people to realize this.
Caretaker
11-01-2008, 07:34 PM
They do it so when they "correct" it in a year or so, you will buy it yet again.
They do it so when they "correct" it in a year or so, you will buy it yet again.
:D Probably right!!
lanny
11-01-2008, 07:58 PM
I purchased the 're mastered' Alarm single 'Rain in the Summertime' a few weeks ago on Itunes. I popped on the headphones and couldn't believe the sound..disastrous. The fantastic guitar work on that song is buried. Super trebly also.
SGNick
11-01-2008, 09:23 PM
Are you talking about the Let It Be remaster, or the "Let It Be... Naked" album?
Let it be naked is cool, I dig it much more than the original release.
Caretaker
11-01-2008, 09:25 PM
Are you talking about the Let It Be remaster, or the "Let It Be... Naked" album?
Let it be naked is cool, I dig it much more than the original release.
Neither. Not everything is about the beatles. lol
SGNick
11-01-2008, 09:28 PM
I just got the Replacement's Let It Be, which was remastered in 2008. My first impressions, the remastered version is brighter and more compressed. Not good things. Why did they bother?
Is he talking about another bands "Let it Be"?
Mixing, and even more concerning, mastering are becoming a fading art. MP3's, cheap computer speakers and ipods are truly diminishing the mass market's need for something of true audiophile quality (why worry about a nice wide range of dynamics and frequencies when the common bitrate for an mp3 seems to be 198kb or worse?). Not to mention the need for bands to 'stand out' on the radio. People are just brick walling their recordings in an attempt to make them sound louder, when in reality all it does is fatigue the ears and make pretty much anything unlistenable after about 3 songs.
The new Metallica album takes this to new and utterly disasterous heights.
Anyone remember dynamics? Those were the days.
The above is mostly true. One niggle. iPods (at least the Classic model) can now import and play full-size zero-compression wav or aiff files. You can import them from a CD at full size, (turn off CD error correction please) and they sound just like the original. I have compared my Classic, using the same CD to my Adcom CD player, and if anything the iPod (having no error correction) sounds better.
The improvement of hardware and delivery speed is giving back that which it took away a few years ago.
As far as the big picture goes, there is NO reason re-releases have to sound bad. It's the same old incompetence, cynicism and greed that the music biz is so full of.
Best way to get a reissue is to make your own. Good vinyl, good phono pre and cartridge, and a good A-D convertor and any good DAW will give you better results than a lot of the commercial releases.
DC
Bill Brasky
11-01-2008, 11:41 PM
I've noticed that the remastered versions are always worse, so much so that I avoided buying them and would buy the older versions. Something is wrong when you prefer your old cassette version over the new CD version, and I'm not even an audiophile snob.
fazen
11-02-2008, 12:00 AM
Is he talking about another bands "Let it Be"?
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsatisfied
I've noticed that the remastered versions are always worse, so much so that I avoided buying them and would buy the older versions. Something is wrong when you prefer your old cassette version over the new CD version, and I'm not even an audiophile snob.
There are exceptions. The reissue Beatle's No. 1 CD sound fantastic and the Boston reissue that Tom Scholz oversaw sounds great as well.
DC
Paul Conway
11-02-2008, 03:54 AM
I've noticed that the remastered versions are always worse, so much so that I avoided buying them and would buy the older versions. Something is wrong when you prefer your old cassette version over the new CD version, and I'm not even an audiophile snob.
Yes! I'm not the only one! I haven't figured out whether it's the remastering or just the format, but I much prefer listening to my old Hendrix tapes than the remastered cd's.
SGNick
11-02-2008, 08:34 AM
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsatisfied
LOL, I just re-read the first post, didn't realize that "Replacement's" wasn't a typo, I thought he had just got the "replacement Let It Be"!
That's what happens when you read the Gear Page too late at night!
Who would name their album after an already super successful album?
Gary F.
11-02-2008, 10:14 AM
[quote
Who would name their album after an already super successful album?[/quote]
Nick-
Go get your self a copy of the Replacement's Let it be.
I agree with the sentiment that mastering is becoming a lost art. Sad. But on the plus side, the Who's Quadrophenia was remastered a few years ago and is a huge improvement over the the vinyl and first CD release.
Gary
bluesjuke
11-02-2008, 10:51 AM
The Rematsered "Layla" is worse too.
Vocals are buried.
I bought a remastered version of the first couple of Gene Vincent albums (with Cliff Gallup) and was horrified by the sound quality. The 2 CD's are unlistenable. I'm not usually bothered by such things, but this was really bad. I have a greatest hits that I found at a flea market (for $1) that is way better sound quality-wise. Too bad someone "improves" on old stuff and destroys it in the process.
keninsyr
11-02-2008, 01:30 PM
The Rematsered "Layla" is worse too.
Vocals are buried.
I agree with this. The original was so much better sounding.
FlyingDutchman
11-02-2008, 01:53 PM
Listening to "The Airborne Toxic Event" album. Has a great song on it Sometime Around Midnight. Awful mix. Almost unlistenable. Its too bad that mixing has become a lost art. I still like quality recordings even if they are on my Altec Lansing computer speakers.
mtlin
11-02-2008, 03:08 PM
LOL, I just re-read the first post, didn't realize that "Replacement's" wasn't a typo, I thought he had just got the "replacement Let It Be"!
That's what happens when you read the Gear Page too late at night!
Who would name their album after an already super successful album?
I guess they were just being cheeky.
jefesq
11-02-2008, 06:05 PM
ZZ top's 1st album remastered, also awful
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.