Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Remastered CD's
#401897 03/14/14 08:30 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 82
BobG Offline OP
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 82
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?


M60's Rotel Nad Music Hall MMF-5
M80's VP150 QS8's Sherwood Newcastle Panasonic Plasma
Algonquins
Re: Remastered CD's
BobG #401902 03/14/14 11:36 PM
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 260
Likes: 4
T
local
Online Confused
local
T
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 260
Likes: 4
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: smile

http://www.amazon.ca/Every-Breath-You-Ta...ords=the+police

Re: Remastered CD's
TrevorM #401927 03/15/14 05:57 PM
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,596
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,596
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!


Always call the place you live a house. When you're old, everyone else will call it a home.
Re: Remastered CD's
BobG #401932 03/15/14 08:05 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,463
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,463
Bob, as always, informative AND entertaining.

Not necessarily in that order.


***********
"Nothin' up my sleeve. . ." --Bullwinkle J. Moose
Re: Remastered CD's
St_PatGuy #401946 03/16/14 04:46 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 901
S
aficionado
Offline
aficionado
S
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 901
Thanks Bob! Always fun.

Re: Remastered CD's
BobG #401950 03/16/14 09:33 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,357
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,357
Fred would certainly miss all four guys in Rush!


Regards,

Mike
Re: Remastered CD's
BobG #401963 03/17/14 12:45 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,955
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,955
Hahah, I wondered who else would catch that. I assumed he meant the guest appearance by Bubbles.


With great power comes Awesome irresponsibility.
Re: Remastered CD's
TrevorM #401965 03/17/14 01:37 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 82
BobG Offline OP
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 82
Originally Posted By: Hellcommute
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: smile

http://www.amazon.ca/Every-Breath-You-Ta...ords=the+police

So, how do I interpret the dynamic range info? Do I just go by their classification of "bad" "transition" or "good", or is there more to it than that? And I assume that dynamic range is only one component to measurng the sound quality of the recording?

Also, can you recommend sites where I can find reviews of the cd's?


M60's Rotel Nad Music Hall MMF-5
M80's VP150 QS8's Sherwood Newcastle Panasonic Plasma
Algonquins
Re: Remastered CD's
BobG #401982 03/17/14 08:18 PM
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 260
Likes: 4
T
local
Online Confused
local
T
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 260
Likes: 4
The DRD is explained here:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/unofficial-dynamic-range-database

Dynamic 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. sick 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. cool This is definitely a re-master worth getting if you like blues.

http://www.amazon.com/Folk-Singer-Muddy-...ers+folk+singer

Re: Remastered CD's
BobG #401983 03/17/14 08:30 PM
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 260
Likes: 4
T
local
Online Confused
local
T
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 260
Likes: 4
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. laugh

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. cool

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=muddy+waters&album=folk+singer

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 

Link Copied to Clipboard

Need Help Graphic

Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics24,365
Posts431,736
Members15,414
Most Online2,082
Jan 22nd, 2020
Top Posters
Ken.C 18,044
pmbuko 16,437
SirQuack 13,682
CV 11,798
MarkSJohnson 11,450
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 161 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newsletter Signup
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4