Should we be starting a remastered CD thread for all to post their findings in of said remasters?

I picked up a few MFSL cd's a while back that are pretty good sounding. I dont have original masters of those albums but I have mp3 versions which sound quite a bit worse. And not because of the Mp3 format.

I have remastered Van Halen 1 and II cds and they are much better than the originals. I picked up Pink Floyd DSOTM(my original disappeared some time ago) and it doesn't say remastered but digitally mastered right on the CD and it sounds amazing on the M80s. I have the remastered, The Wall, on my Christmas list as well.

Although I don't have the original CDs for comparison, I was surprised by how the Van Halen CDs sounded. The only frame of reference I have is the original LPs from way back. Those are long gone now, along with my memories of how they sounded.

speaking of pink floyd, I'd love to see/hear a HD DVD version of The Wall.

I have a $10 gift card from amazon I got when I took a zune survey a while back... thinking of putting it towards a cd or perhaps that HD DVD that someone mentioned a while back.... the weird funky 7.1 mixes.. off to find that thread.

EDIT: after a little help from the custom search engine I found the thread
http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=181933

hmmm how should I spend my $10 coupon?
I could get the Pink Floyd DSOTM for under $10... decisions decisions

I just picked up Boston & Boston-Don't look Back - both remastered in 2006. I compared them to my original cds and about all I could tell that was different was there is more bass and a little more mid range and it was louder; but all of that just pushed Brad's vocals farther back, but the guitar work sounds very nice. I would say these are not a must have to add to your collection unless you don't already have them. I think the originals sound very good incomparison, even a little better IMO, as the vocals are a little more in line with the rest of the music and not hiding a little behind.

I'm finding many remastered CDS over the last several years are sounding compressed and lack the dynamic range of the originals. With MP3 files being all the rage many recording engineers are reallocating space by compressing the range to get more volume. While at first it may sound better, I've noticed vocals, quiet passages, drums and cymbals don't sound right and bass soumds overcooked. The recent Mothership remastered Led Zep collection and Bryon Ferry's Dylanesque are just two recent examples of this misguided technique. I'd rather just raise the volume myself and keep the dynamic range. For this reason I'm no longer buying remastered CDs.

John's comment is well-founded with respect to many pop CDs. Fortunately I've found that with the classical CDs that I listen to remastering is beneficial in many(most?)cases. Just one example would be the RCA Living Presence items from the 50s and 60s which have been remastered in connection with SACD, and sound very good, SACD or regular CD.

Yes it does seem to more prevalent with pop cds. Most SACD jazz and classical cds are well engineered with the intent to keep them as close to the original master tapes as possible. When it comes to Mercury,RCA Living Presence, Decca Stereophonic or any of the Speakers Corner Records the SACD, CD or DVD-A sound very good though not as good as the original vinyl. Its impossible for any digital format to capture all the dynamic range of a great vinyl recording. On the other hand its nice to have a remote to program tracks.

I think buying remasters must depend on whether or not you have a poor original, as is the case for many classic/hard rock cds I have. A number of them have very little low end and the upper frequencies have been recorded so high it sounds garbled or at the very least the whole cd sounds hollow. I have had good luck in the past with remasters so I am now only going to buy the ones I know need help or I don't already have.

I do agree the downloading of MP3s and such are killing the dynamics for those of us that still buy cds.

We can only hope some of the petitions for better dynamics will sink in.

I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions but I found just about all of the original CDs in my collection from the 80's and 90's sound better than the remastered CD versions which almost always sound louder. On the other hand most sacds sound better than the cds but there again that is not always the case. Somewhere I have an old file that compared waveforms that show just how much compression is used in in order to increase volume. The clipped waveforms don't look pretty.

I'm glad Jakewash started this thread because I was thinking of starting one called "Dude, Who Stole My Dynamic Range".

OK, John and Jason... neither of you is named Jake. Why the names?

My 'name' comes from letters from wife's and kid's names.

Well, okay, so your wife is named Jake? But on the dynamic range question, let me cite a somewhat amusing grouping of some lazy and/or ignorant listeners actually complaining bitterly about a recording with a realistic dynamic range. The excellent Muti Carmina Burana which is one of those that I own and would place in the top 3-4 available drew some of these comments on Amazon. This disc has a dynamic range that I'd judge to be about 60dB, but that's apparently too much for someone who wants to hear everything at a "comfortable" level.

That's hillarious.

Hey, that's a good price. Hmm. . .

Yeah Sean, but add two or three others to get to the $25 for free shipping.

Yes, I'm working on filling up the ol' shopping cart. For some odd reason, I've had a hankerin' for Wagner--just want something heavy and bombastic. Need to pick one more. . .

You want bombastic, try this .

Added. Thanks, John.

Also, I'm glad to report my classical cd collection now takes up more than one shelf on my cd tower. Slowly, but surely. . .

Are you trying to make John laugh?

I'm sure JohnK laughs at me regardless. . .

The longest journey has to begin with the first step.

No offense to wheelz999!

Old nickname my brother gave me after watching one too many John Wayne movies.

I would love to see a scientific chart readout of original cd vs. remastered cds. So many times I read these threads on various forums where one person thinks the remaster sounds better than the original, and then I read a few lines down and there is someone else that says the darn thing is so compressed.

Scientific may be hard to come by outside of a strict waveform analysis, which would certainly illustrate differences in dynamic range. Other than that, wouldn't science be out the window and subjectivity in?

Music and listening tastes are all subjective when it comes to reviews.

I think when the first CD's came out, there was alot of audible hiss on them, which turned some people off, even though there was excellent dynamic range.

10 years later, and the record companies "remaster" the discs by adding noise reduction and compression. The result is in many cases that the hiss is gone, the sound is "cleaner" and the dynamic range is compressed.

Million dollar question - would you rather have audible hiss and more dynamic range or noise reduction and compressed with less dynamic range?

Audible hiss. Do you need info to send me the check?

Wasn't that audible hiss from the tape they used as a master back then. There shouldn't be a hiss for any music recorded now.

As I have said, it appears that if the original is recorded well and you like it, I wouldn't buy the remaster, as they seem to be just boosting bass and volume levels and not much more.

I'd agree but let's not stereotype completely, excuse the pun.

Off the top of my head, I very much prefer the two remastered CDs enclosed int the Tragically Hip's boxed set, Hipanonymous
over the original CDs. The DVD concert enclosed is not bad either but the CDs are exceptional compared to the originals, and we own all the older stuff before they "matured" into just another radio band.

Actually, if a recording has audible hiss, you'll only be able to hear it during quiet passages, and you shouldn't immediately discount it as a poor recording. One of the most dynamic recordings I have on CD has tape hiss. You can find it on either of the two (first, second) Best of Dire Straits albums. The track is called Private Investigations. I highly recommend giving it a listen with the volume turned up as high as you can take it. (Beware, though, because it starts out quiet.)

I have one Dire Straits album. It is the remastered version of Brothers in Arms, released in 1996 or 1997. It sounds very good, although I don't have the original for comparison. It is probably the best made CD that I have, it's too bad the WAF is so low!

I get the impression that Mark Knopfler places a lot of importance on making quality recordings and then avoiding dynamic range compression in the mastering process.

I have the Hipeponomyous box set as well. The sound is good for the most part, but it seems like there is too much bass in most songs. Perhaps I'm just not used to it yet. My "new" equipment is much more capable than what I had a month ago.

I haven't had a chance to compare it to the originals but I've been told that The Hip generally don't have very good recordings. If that's true, any improvement is welcome.

Any one know of a bad Mark Knopfler cd? I can not think of any. The ones I have are are all very good, even my 'The Princess Bride" soundtrack is very good.

You know, I've had that soundtrack for forever, but I haven't ever bothered to listen to it. I should put it in sometime.

Really, why bother? It'll just make you want to watch the movie. Just take the shortcut and pop in the DVD.

But watching the DVD will just make me want to read the book, and reading the book will just make me want to write something good of my own, and being unable to write something good of my own, I'll want to end my own life. Shortcuts are bad.

You make a strong case.

Just received Rush - Permamnent Waves Mofi Remaster. After one session I give it a thumbs up.