Hey guys, I haven't posted in a long time. Glad you are still here!
My question is, given the varying degrees of quality in remastered cd's how do you guys decide whether you are going to purchase a remastered cd or an original recording cd, if both versions are available?
Hard to tell without listening to it.
You can compare releases based on dynamic range alone here:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/Generally, re-released albums on cd are because of a change of music rights. A new release of an old album doesn't guarantee anything in terms of assured quality. Reviews and music forums are a good resource. I pick the used cd store monthly for near mint cds for $5 or less.
Here is one that is a great example of a re-master collection worth getting:
http://www.amazon.ca/Every-Breath-You-Ta...ords=the+police
I would have to agree with anyone and everyone's assessment(s) of re-mastered cd's. I have at least 300 and the quality is entirely a crapshoot.
One would think that remasters of music from the 60's and 70's wouldn't be likely to sound better than remasters of original music from the 80's or 90's. It is irrelevant. It's all about what is actually ON the master tapes, who's doing the remstering, and, sadly, what's the size of the budget? That of course, is the final reality of almost all things.
The most significant and amazing remaster I have heard from any cd is "Aqualung," by Jethro Tull. It's not fully appreciable if you don't first listen to the original. If you are not astounded, you're deaf or dead; either way, don't ever speak to me again.
Beatles renasters are "good" for the early ones, much better for the later ones, though nothing to write about at any legth. (Love all the vocals outta the left channel, George M., way to go! The first few (before "Rubber Soul") are better remastered in mono.)
Some of The Beach Boys records will make you cry at their beauty.
Jeff Beck's first, "Truth," but look for the one with, lkie 8 or 9 extra tracks, that's THE one! It really says, "Led what?," and beats Lep I by only a coupla/few months (68/69).
The next few, eh?
Dire Straits get an "A," esp. "Brother in Arms."
I'm not gonna rate Floyd's, 'cause if I don't get all f'n gushy over them, Fred'll be acting like I drove up to Canada and murdered all four guys in Rush or something.
One might think that if one of the original band members is involved or doing the remastering, then it's got be good, right? Well, "Quadraphenia," by The Who, is done by Townsend and is a whole new record. It sounds like it was recorded within the last 5 years. Pete gets an "A+," Jimmy Page gets, like, a "B+." They're better in lots of ways, but no "grin factor." An "A" for Roger Glover from Deep Purple for doing it himself---and well.
Joni Baloney's 10 cd set is good, not great, but at <$4 a disc, there's nothing at all to gripe about.
Michael Jackson's remasters are great, but the original recordings didn't exactly suck, did they?
There's a 2cd set of Little Richard that's (waaay) less than $20 and worth every penny, including the f'n FOUR DOLLAR S & H
charge!
Cream remasters are some of the worst I have heard.
So, read the reviews, like someone here already suggested. Let them be the bleeding edge consumers. Or, like me, if you like to take your musical chances and your lumps with equal lack of the need to get drunk, be really, really happy when you find great ones!
Bob, as always, informative AND entertaining.
Not necessarily in that order.
Fred would certainly miss all four guys in Rush!
Hahah, I wondered who else would catch that. I assumed he meant the guest appearance by Bubbles.
The DRD is explained here:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/unofficial-dynamic-range-databaseDynamic range is the difference between peak and quiet moments in a soundtrack. Low dynamic range makes recordings sound compressed and "Loud" ie. modern pop music.
High dynamic range makes recordings sound big, expansive and "Live" or realistic.
Here is a great recording with awesome dynamic range that gives you the "OMG, He's right fucking here!" sound.
This is definitely a re-master worth getting if you like blues.
http://www.amazon.com/Folk-Singer-Muddy-...ers+folk+singer
The SACD version of this release is actually cheaper than the CD equivalent.... The equivalent CD version is now a collectors item from Mobile fidelity and sells for well over 100$.
A bargain for the Hybrid SACD (which plays in any CD player) at $38... lol.
Quick rundown of releases:
The 1993 CD version--Excellent
The 1999 CD version--Mediocre
The 2013 SACD version--Excellent
You can see why here, great example btw.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=muddy+waters&album=folk+singer
The 1999 version sells for 7$ or so.
Still an awesome bargain btw, but given the choice....
Hi BobG,
There is a new site which has the answers to all your questions and more . . .
HRA Planet Check also . . .
The Front Page
Fred would certainly miss all four guys in Rush!
Look, I know that the fourth guy committed suicide a long time ago. I'm not stoopid. I couldn't have listened to Geddy for even THAT long without offin' myself, either. Poor guy. They were just never the same without that clarinet, though.
(I can't believe that hung there for as long as it did before someone made reference to it. I was hoping to upset Fred. Damn!)
Hell, I know A LOT of recordings on that list and I would beg to differ with many of his inclusions. See what happens when you're not listening to stuff through Axioms? Pity, that.
I believe the "fourth" guy you are referring to was the original drummer. He died of a heart attack attributed to diabetes.
C'mon, Mike! You Sure? I always SWORE there was a clarinet somewhere in there.
What's that? Ohhhhhhh, I always thought that was a clarinet!
one of a kind, Bob.