"Remastered" Recordings - Marketing Gimmick?

[Bonafide]

Depends on the decade they were 'remastered'. In the late 90s and early 2000s with the advent and early rise of digital recording technology, most of the remastered albums were fatiguing to listen to on multiple sonic levels. I can only speak for myself, but I love buying CDs and do frequently. I go out of my way to find original un-remastered releases for many albums whose original production (and consequent mastering) was a big part of the sonic appeal to me. Seldom 'remastered' versions preserve that quality. Lower volumes and greater dynamics of the original recordings are excellent to me.

 

[Coolhandjjl]

I think it's part re-issuing (marketing), part taking advantage of the higher fidelity of CD. Back in vinyl days I've read they'd intentionally cut some bass in order for the needle not to jump off the groove!

More likely it was to fit more grooves on the side, IE more music. Some new remasters set the hi-pass much lower, resulting in wider grooves/more bass, but less songs per side. I have some 2 LP remasters that we’re single LPs back in the day.

Squishing too many grooves in also resulted in some groove bleed/echoing in of the content from adjacent grooves. Again, good remasters avoid that, but may need more sides than the original

 

[lermgalieu]

I've heard a marked improvement on some of the Zeppelin remasters. In truth, remastered records very often sound better to me. On the other hand, aot the OP, I usually hate remixes (case in point: Mike Watt's remix of Double Nickels on the Dime, which he later admitted sucked). Different strokes.

 

[JW56789]

It depends on the original masters or 1st copies' condition, then how and who did the work.

I've owned a copy of Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs and the Allmans' Live at Fillmore East since the original LP's on Atco and Capricorn in succeeding versions over the years, and the Tom Dowd re-mastered versions of each are my favorites. Not a huge difference, but since I know these recordings pretty intimately, I can hear the differences. I'd also say yes for the Page Zeppelin remasters.

 

[CryingBass]

Anything that might remove 100% of Autotune crap is +1 IMHO

 

[MDBass]

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.

Remastering an album doesn’t take anywhere near as long as recording it in the first place.

Mastering involves additional processing to a single stereo micn rare occasions it might be a stem master, meaning the engineer has the ability to process all of the stereo busses (drums, vocals, guitars, etc.) as individual stereo tracks before re-summing them into a completed mix.

This is generally only done when there are significant problems with the initial mix that can’t be corrected globally.

To give you an idea of the time required to master an album versus recording and mixing, an A-list
mastering engineer like Ted Jensen at Sterling Sound charges around $2000 per album.

An A-list mix engineer like Chris Lord-Alge charges $10,000, per SONG, just to mix

 

[Gianni "Orlandez" Orlati]

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?

“Fragile” from Yes ..

 

[silky smoove]

Anything that might remove 100% of Autotune crap is +1 IMHO

That would be a remix, not a remaster and it assumes that an Antares hardware unit wasn’t printed on the way in.

 

[MDBass]

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.

Mastering was indeed much different in the 70’s/80’s than it is now: the physical limitations of vinyl itself, and well as the fidelity of the sound systems at the time, had a lot to do with that.

 

[MDBass]

That would be a remix, not a remaster and it assumes that an Antares hardware unit wasn’t printed on the way in.

Yes indeed.

 

[dkelley]

It's certainly not BS. Anyone saying that remastering is BS has no respect for the incredible difficulty and challenges put upon REAL mastering engineers throughout history. These days, we get such great mixes in forgiving daws like reaper that we don't even bother with mastering engineers - just throw reaXpressor multiband on the output and ReaLimit after it to catch overs and voila - it's "mastered". But it's not. REAL mastering is an artform, and changes throughout the recording to solve every little problem they come across in the mix, continually adjusting for errors in the mix itself, or in many cases, improving, or at least controlling, dynamics so the album is perfect. Take the pink floyd's wish you were hear album. Put on that album from the start, in a quiet environment, wtih great speakers around you, and/or great headphones, and listen to AMAZING mastering, and of course amazing mixing and hey, not too shabby musicians either LoL. But with a bad mastering engineer, that would have lost it's magic for the first few minutes of the album.

 

[roller]

Remastered albums -- these usually show up with more punch than the originals... but I, too, am usually in favor of finding a CD version of the original master. Music is art... and albums are a snapshot of a given time... and I like old snapshots.

Remixed albums -- while not as common as remasters, these can really steer away from the original release. For example, Pink Floyd's Delicate Sound of Thunder remix from a couple of years ago pales in comparison to the original. The bonus tracks are nice to have, but I ended up re-ingesting the original CDs into my computer as I far prefer that mix.

However, the Brendan O'Brien remix of Pearl Jam's Ten is a fun listen. Not nearly as off the original mark, I found this one above tolerable.

 

[MDBass]

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.

Analog mastering isn’t inherently more noisy or compressed than a digital master, it all comes down to the tools being used.

Intentionally clipping high end analog mastering converters became a big part of commercial music recording during the 2000’s, and still is to this day.

Chopping off the ends of transients, instead of brick wall compressing them back down into the mix as a peak limiter does, preserves more dynamic punch and also adds some pleasing harmonic saturation.

The effect was so sought after that plug-in companies now make clipping plugins specifically designed to emulate analog master converter clipping.

Pushing that clipping too far results in audible crackling, as the steady state audio information starts getting clipped in addition to the transients.

This essentially ruined a handful of otherwise great records during the “loudness wars” of that era.

 

[truand85]

There's usually a difference, but not always in good... I remember a remastered Budgie album that was particularly bad

 

[shoulderpet]

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.

Its interesting but I do much prefer the original mix, the reverb in the original mix makes the songs song huge

 

[dangevans]

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.

Yeah, I now that. Don't get too bent out of shape with my typo.

 

[Coolhandjjl]

Yeah, I now that. Don't get too bent out of shape with my typo.

But were you referring to a remix or a remaster? Wasn’t clear.

 

[Coolhandjjl]

Anything mastered by Bill Ludwig is gold. He set the standard back in the 70’s and is still involved in remasters today.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ludwig

 

[Savage_Dreams]

gimmicks? some are, some arent. some are great improvements, some are horrible changes. some that even if they dont really sound different tonally, they at least are a bit louder, which is nice if your doing a random play of various music from files. thees no way to generalize remasters as a whole.

 

[OptimalOptimus]

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.

They did a few years ago and it isnt better