"Remastered" Recordings - Marketing Gimmick?

[Altitude]

Just took a turn through the new "30th Anniversary Deluxe" version of Nirvana's "Nevermind." The songs are still as good as ever, that's the good news.

As for the "remastered" part? I can't hear any difference. I really never can on any of these "remastered" recordings. Are they even supposed to sound different, or can "remastered" simply mean that a producer went back to the source recording and cut a new production master without necessarily changing anything?

What are some examples of "remastered" recordings that sound to the naked ear like a different or improved version of the original? Or are these all just opportunities to buy the same music you already bought again?

 

[Altitude]

Edit - not to be confused with "remixed" which can be really interesting, especially when you listen back to back with the original.

The "remixed" versions of Rush's "Vapor Trails" and Level 42's "Retroglide" are both profound improvements, both in terms of the presence of the instruments, the mix itself, and legendarily, the reduction of awful amounts of compression in the original versions.

There's a "remixed" version of Pearl Jam's "Ten" that I also find really interesting, it's a much drier sound than the one we're used to hearing. Check it out if you can.

 

[MonetBass]

A couple I have purchased that were in dire need of remastering: Yes, 90125; and Pink Floyd, The Wall. Both sound so much better. Additionally, I had Foreigner's first four albums on CD, sold them as a broke college student, and later bought them again, this time the remastered versions. All of them sound much better than before. The way albums were mastered in the 70s and 80s is quite different than today, and a lot of times you can tell.

 

[SoCal80s]

Where you're more likely to notice a difference is with albums that were made before CD's because those were mastered with the limitations of the intended media in mind. For example, vinyl records had physical limitations with how deep the grooves could be cut, so the master had to make compromises to keep the grooves from getting too deep.
Another place where you might hear a difference is where the original was mastered in analog instead of digital. Analogue mastering added some unintentional compression and maybe noise that a digital mastering won't necessarily add. But if it was recorded in analogue then I question how much you would actually notice that.

 

[JeezyMcNuggles]

Just took a turn through the new "30th Anniversary Deluxe" version of Nirvana's "Nevermind." The songs are still as good as ever, that's the good news.

As for the "remastered" part? I can't hear any difference. I really never can on any of these "remastered" recordings. Are they even supposed to sound different, or can "remastered" simply mean that a producer went back to the source recording and cut a new production master without necessarily changing anything?

What are some examples of "remastered" recordings that sound to the naked ear like a different or improved version of the original? Or are these all just opportunities to buy the same music you already bought again?

Remastered, as in...

All recorded tracks are ran through a DAW, with a new engineer, who then uses new and updated technology (hardware, software, plug ins, etc) to give the listener a cleaner, updated product. If there is no blatantly apparent differences between the two albums, the new one will have less distortion, levels evened out amongst tracks, and usually some subtle nuances that were cloudy in the original recording. Subtle nuances. Subtle.

To remaster an album, takes just about as long as recording it in the first place. Maybe even longer. But, it's purpose is to give you a product that is of better quality. Not something noticeably different.

 

[Altitude]

Remastered, as in...

All recorded tracks are ran through a DAW, with a new engineer, who then uses new and updated technology (hardware, software, plug ins, etc) to give the listener a cleaner, updated product. If there is no blatantly apparent differences between the two albums, the new one will have less distortion, levels evened out amongst tracks, and usually some subtle nuances that were cloudy in the original recording. Subtle nuances. Subtle.

To remaster an album, takes just about as long as recording it in the first place. Maybe even longer. But, it's purpose is to give you a product that is of better quality. Not something noticeably different.

It's pretty subtle indeed in most cases.

 

[DirtDog]

Just took a turn through the new "30th Anniversary Deluxe" version of Nirvana's "Nevermind." The songs are still as good as ever, that's the good news.

As for the "remastered" part? I can't hear any difference. I really never can on any of these "remastered" recordings. Are they even supposed to sound different, or can "remastered" simply mean that a producer went back to the source recording and cut a new production master without necessarily changing anything?

What are some examples of "remastered" recordings that sound to the naked ear like a different or improved version of the original? Or are these all just opportunities to buy the same music you already bought again?

Yes and probably yes. Never underestimate the power of marketing.

 

[wellshuxley]

Where you're more likely to notice a difference is with albums that were made before CD's because those were mastered with the limitations of the intended media in mind. For example, vinyl records had physical limitations with how deep the grooves could be cut, so the master had to make compromises to keep the grooves from getting too deep.
Another place where you might hear a difference is where the original was mastered in analog instead of digital. Analogue mastering added some unintentional compression and maybe noise that a digital mastering won't necessarily add. But if it was recorded in analogue then I question how much you would actually notice that.

Both true, but IME the most significant and qualitatively positive differences I've heard in remasters has been for albums released during the early days of CDs, when everyone was still trying to figure out the new medium/technology, and during the peak of the "loudness wars" (mid-2000s). In the former case, you sometimes had otherwise great recordings ruined by harsh, nasty-sounding artifacts imparted during mastering. In the latter case, you had dynamics all but eliminated from some music during mastering in order to "be competitive" on mainstream radio.

 

[lucas303]

There are tons of remasters out there that improve on the originals. There are tons of remasters out there that don't. Generalizations about remasters are impossible.

If there's a specific remaster you're considering, do a search at the Steve Hoffman forum and it's likely you'll find discussion about it over there. Other than that, just trust your ears.

 

[lucas303]

Where you're more likely to notice a difference is with albums that were made before CD's because those were mastered with the limitations of the intended media in mind. For example, vinyl records had physical limitations with how deep the grooves could be cut, so the master had to make compromises to keep the grooves from getting too deep.
Another place where you might hear a difference is where the original was mastered in analog instead of digital. Analogue mastering added some unintentional compression and maybe noise that a digital mastering won't necessarily add. But if it was recorded in analogue then I question how much you would actually notice that.

There are a lot of early CDs that are prized because the original mixes were just dumped onto CD without any additional processing (beyond what was need for the conversion from analog to digital). Later, and particularly during the loudness wars, there were some real atrocities committed with mastering.

Something that's interesting is a case like the early Metallica albums. "Secret" remasters were done so that if you want the true original recordings on CD you have to do stuff like look at the record company's address that's printed on the back cover because nowhere does the CD say whether you're getting the original or the "secret remaster." To wit: https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/metallica-1996-elektra-cd-remasters-your-thoughts.335543/

The subject of remasters is far too varied to make sweeping generalizations. Anyone who makes broad generalizations like "remasters are good/bad" is only revealing their own ignorance.

 

[BassFishingInAmerica]

The only remixes that I would say are amazing are any of Jethro Tull albums remixes by Steven Wilson (you can even go on YouTube and compare the difference).
Also, the Giles Martin remixes of the Beatles albums (I think he’s done The White Album, Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper).

 

[GodPlayedBass]

Listen to the original recording and then the remaster right after. Both with headphones on.

 

[SunByrne]

Some remasters are indeed just marketing and there's nothing pretty much nothing different.

Some of them, as noted, sound much cleaner or clearer or what have you. My personal favorite here is the Roxy Music album Avalon. If you have the original CD and you compare that to the redbook layer on the SACD it's quite an eye-opener; the newer one sounds much better. (And the original doesn't sound bad, so it's impressive.) Similarly, the MFSL remaster of Dark Side of the Moon is dramatically better than the initial CD release in the 80s, and the "immortal edition" remaster is also a small improvement over that. (I don't want to think about how many times I've bought that album.)

Some of them actually sound worse, though, so gotta be careful. In particular, as @wellshuxley commented, there are remasters out there where they really pushed the volume and most of the peaks clip, and they sound like hot garbage. I hate when people do this. As far as I'm concerned, this is the only serious argument in favor of vinyl—it's really hard to master them as badly as one of these super-clipped CDs.

 

[JRA]

It's pretty subtle indeed in most cases.

i agree, many cases of "remastered" are BS. but many improve the fidelity and empower frequencies that may have only been implied in the 'way-back' master version. you really have to compare (A/B).

The subject of remasters is far too varied to make sweeping generalizations.

 

[Stewie]

When they released ZZTops early albums on CD, they absolutely ruined them. Big reverb, false crispness. Yuck, glad I have the vinyl

 

[Jeremy Crockett]

The only remixes that I would say are amazing are any of Jethro Tull albums remixes by Steven Wilson (you can even go on YouTube and compare the difference).
Also, the Giles Martin remixes of the Beatles albums (I think he’s done The White Album, Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper).

Ok, this seems like the most logical place to ask a question that has been bothering me for months now:

Who, exactly, is Steve Wilson, and what makes him qualified to "remix" Jethro Tull?

 

[Shepsdad]

When they released ZZTops early albums on CD, they absolutely ruined them. Big reverb, false crispness. Yuck, glad I have the vinyl

This is exactly what I thought of when I saw the thread title.

I was in a record shop with a buddy and he bought the “remastered” box set.The guy behind the counter asked him if he was a serious ZZtop fan, and he was like “yeah, of course, I wouldn’t be buying this if I wasn’t”. The counter guy told him he’s probably not gonna be happy with the set, to which my buddy kinda got a little attitude, paid for the CDs, and we left.

We opened the pack and he put one of the disks on in the car, and we both could not believe how absolutely horrible it sounded! It was boomy and reverby to the highest degree. Good lord, that was years ago and I still think about it every time I hear certain Top songs.

 

[dangevans]

When they came out with the Motown box set years ago, that was supposedly remastered, the bass got turned down real low in the mix. Whether you know anything about bass or not, YOU DO NOT lower it in the mix of the original Motown songs! The bass is what made those tunes: Just ask the producers who would wait for James Jamerson to be available to record a track.
Whoever remixed that set shoulda been fired.

 

[sxaxsx]

I still wonder why Metallica has chosen not to remix and re release ... And Justice For All. That could actually be an opportunity to right a wrong but they have chosen not too, even though they now admit it is a terrible mix and claim that it was their hearing being shot from the previous tour that caused it. Then why not remix it right? Like the Beatles did with Let it Be it would be interesting to have two mixes released.
But usually remixes and remasters are worse than the original because of the loudness war they just keep boosting volume and compressing the tracks.

 

[Rottie Roo Roo]

I gotta say I approve of David Bowie's 2013 remaster of "watch that man" because for whatever reason it has the bass cranked WAYYYY up in the front of the mix and his voice is mixed way in the back so that it's barely audible over the huge bassline. Apparently Bowie himself said that's how he intended it to be.

Makes learning it a breeze.