• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

"Remastered" Recordings - Marketing Gimmick?

#21
Remastering will not affect the original *mixes* at all - BUT - depending on exactly what the remastering process involves, it can definitely change how certain things present themselves differently in the final master. There are so many variables with compression, limiting, the quality of the gear being used to do the remastering, EQ choices that change the overall sonic quality of the album, slight changes in levels between each tune, etc. The choice also has to be made to either remaster and end up with an album that is the same general loudness and sonic spirit as the original master, or mastered louder to take advantage of the added headroom that CDs and other media can provide vs. analog media. Most of the remasters that attempt to get 'modern loud' sound horrible that I've experienced, because the original mixes weren't done in a way that plays well with modern loudness levels - but fortunately the 'loudness wars' died out a while back and no one really masters that way anymore.

When you get into 'remixed AND remastered', that's a whole other ballgame... I've heard some masterful (no pun intended) things done to some records that really have to be evaluated totally on their own in many ways. One of the best remix/remaster jobs I've ever heard was Steven Wilson's complete redo of 'Chicago II' several years back. The original album was always so muddy and indistinct in its mixing and mastering. Wilson's work changed it in a good way and finally allowed so much more clarity and more subtleties to come through.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mikewalker and pluki7
#22
dangevans said:
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.
Click to expand...
You used both ‘remastered’ and ‘remixed’ in your comment. They are entirely different things.

A ‘remix’ is done with all the original source tracks and alters the levels of the various instruments, in essence producing a whole different treatment of the music.

A ‘remaster’ is done with the final mix-down only. The mastering makes that final mix-down fit the media best whether it be such and such vinyl pressed at such and such pressing house with such and such presses or digital delivery for mp3, high res digital, etc., etc.

A remastered vinyl release done properly can lower the noise floor, increase channel separation, open up the midrange, create the impression of better individual instrument presentation, all done without altering the final mix-down because it can’t. The mastering engineer does not have access to the individual tracks. Just the final mix-down.
 
Last edited:
#24
Shepsdad said:
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.
Click to expand...
That sounds like the SixPack, widely panned for its remixed drums. Avoid.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Six_Pack_(ZZ_Top_box_set)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikewalker
#25
Altitude said:
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?
Click to expand...
Take the time to listen to the remastered version of Pearl Jam's "TEN". The difference is night and day (in a good way). Its the only version I listen to now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikewalker
#26
Remixes are much rarer. Since they are a new work, it gets its own copyright registration, separate from the original. That can sometimes have less duration that the original when dealing with works of deceased songwriters whose original work was under life of the artist + xx years.
 
#27
Jeremy Crockett said:
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?
Click to expand...
He’s guitarist for the band, Porcupine Tree. You just need to listen to his remixes to know what makes him qualified. Apparently, Ian Anderson thought he was right for the job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4860
#31
Jeremy Crockett said:
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?
Click to expand...

Musician/Composer/Producer, with a decades-long catalog of prog (90s-now, with Porcupine Tree and as a solo artist), and an ear for production that really, REALLY tickles my ear - even when I don't like a song, the sound is on point. I usually use a Porcupine Tree or Wilson record/song as a reference mix when going for modern prog sound.
 
#35
logdrum said:
Invest in a good DAC if it comes to you as a Lossless or some digital format. If it is CD or Blue-Ray not all CD Blue-Ray players are the same.

You need a good speaker as well or very good headphones.
Click to expand...

And if Vinyl - you do not have to get so crazy and be an audiophile but get a good cartridge and stylus - a decent direct drive turntable and maybe a good phono preamp if you need it.

For my second sound system I bought a 100 watt per channel Denon receiver and some good bookshelf pair (Mission speakers true 100 watts per speaker - bi amp and multi wire capable )120 from craigslist. The Denon had 3 optical inputs and 2 co-axial digital. Then I found a Marantz Blue-Ray player for like 40. It had digital optical outputs also. I spent another 500+ on an entry level Schitt DAC, A JVC turn-table and some Shure cartridge and a small yamaha subwoofer . Except for the DAC and cartridge, I bought all from CL or garage sales and the turntable was hard to find cheap.

I already have a modest all tube sound system which we have had for 18 years. I also got the cheapest Schitt DAC for occasional streaming or digital file music for that. Listening to this system less and less because the tube amps get too warm in the summer. I am not an audiophile and don't get into all that cable voodoo.

I listen mostly to digital files and occasionally spin vinyl and sometimes the CD.

Lastly every 5 - 7 years copy your digital files to another media. SSDs will sometimes lose the data. I found this the hard way but just happen to have a backup
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikewalker
#37
sxaxsx said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's a video on YouTube from the guy who mixed AJFA. He admits that Lars is the reason that album sounds the way it does and he'd love to remix the album but the tape was cut and spliced so much that if you opened it now it would just fall apart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulS
#39
Personally, for me, yes! Some are better than others but generally I hear Improvement in The Sound Stage and the clarity most of the time. The mobile Fidelity Sound Lab CD version of Rush's permanent waves is amazing in my opinion. With good headphones he sounds like he's sitting in the same room with you singing to you. I started buying the remastered Mofi versions when they were vinyl and the first one I bought was the dark side of the moon and it blew my socks off. As with anything in life YMMV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikewalker
#40
Altitude said:
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?
Click to expand...
I can hear a significant difference between remastered Nirvana stuff though I haven't listened to Nevermind yet.
Listen to the later sections of Stairway to Heaven remaster. Vs not. Listen in particular to the drums and bass vs the old recording.
Edit- it's fair to say that I have a pretty danf sensitive/acute ear and I hear things significantly more than people around me when discussed so I'm guessing to most people it is subtle while I'm constantly listening to the mix, compression etc.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back