I think the Steve Wilson remixes of the classic Yes albums sound better than the originals, and the Doors remixes from 2007 do, too.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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?
- Thread starter Altitude
- Start date
I've heard some pretty unfortunate remasters...not remixed, only remastered...where the sound of the original LPs was better. More emphasis on the bottom end and a thicker (compressed?) sound overall. It's sort of nonintuitive that vinyl, which can't reproduce low frequencies as well as digital can, could actually be mastered with more bass emphasis, but there you have it.
A poster boy for this is a remastered Byrds compilation I got on CD. Every single song that is also on my vinyl copy of "Byrds Greatest Hits" from the late 1960s sounds emasculated on the CD. This is not a "vinyl sounds better" rant, because in the way audiophiles judge things, the CD is miles better. However, the original vinyl sound is dense and punches you in the gut. The bass guitar is way up in the mix and fat as hell. On the CD, the bass guitar sounds clearer but doesn't dominate the way it did on the original vinyl masters.
Two other CDs I can think of that also sound way too polite where my vinyl is hot and nasty are Spirit's "The Family That Plays Together" and a Spencer Davis compilation (I'm A Man, Gimme Some Lovin', Stevie's Blues, Keep On Running, etc.). To someone who has listened to the vinyl for 30+ years and then hears the CD they don't even sound like the same mixes, that's how radical remastering can be.
The trend today is for more "air" and an "open" sound. While it does make it easier to hear all the parts, it also means what made the original vinyl sound great is gone. In some cases the remastering even makes distorted guitars sound clean...wonder if there's a pedal for that?
I'm writing about remasters of stuff recorded up through the mid 1980s. I can't see how remastering more recent recordings makes sense. Anything mastered originally for CD doesn't need remastering since digital masters don't wear out the way vinyl masters do. Vinyl that sells in huge numbers requires multiple remasters over time and I've heard some awful ones. I had a copy of Led Zeppelin II pressed in the late 70s that had a constant whistling sound in the background throughout the entirety of "Thank You"
You know Jimmy Page wasn't sitting next to the idiot who cut that new master. That's why record collectors prize first pressings so much.
BTW, the first US pressing of LZ II was cut so hot that on cheap record players like I had in 1970, LZ II skipped in a bunch of songs as the lowest frequencies vibrated the stylus right out of the grooves
A poster boy for this is a remastered Byrds compilation I got on CD. Every single song that is also on my vinyl copy of "Byrds Greatest Hits" from the late 1960s sounds emasculated on the CD. This is not a "vinyl sounds better" rant, because in the way audiophiles judge things, the CD is miles better. However, the original vinyl sound is dense and punches you in the gut. The bass guitar is way up in the mix and fat as hell. On the CD, the bass guitar sounds clearer but doesn't dominate the way it did on the original vinyl masters.
Two other CDs I can think of that also sound way too polite where my vinyl is hot and nasty are Spirit's "The Family That Plays Together" and a Spencer Davis compilation (I'm A Man, Gimme Some Lovin', Stevie's Blues, Keep On Running, etc.). To someone who has listened to the vinyl for 30+ years and then hears the CD they don't even sound like the same mixes, that's how radical remastering can be.
The trend today is for more "air" and an "open" sound. While it does make it easier to hear all the parts, it also means what made the original vinyl sound great is gone. In some cases the remastering even makes distorted guitars sound clean...wonder if there's a pedal for that?
I'm writing about remasters of stuff recorded up through the mid 1980s. I can't see how remastering more recent recordings makes sense. Anything mastered originally for CD doesn't need remastering since digital masters don't wear out the way vinyl masters do. Vinyl that sells in huge numbers requires multiple remasters over time and I've heard some awful ones. I had a copy of Led Zeppelin II pressed in the late 70s that had a constant whistling sound in the background throughout the entirety of "Thank You"
You know Jimmy Page wasn't sitting next to the idiot who cut that new master. That's why record collectors prize first pressings so much.BTW, the first US pressing of LZ II was cut so hot that on cheap record players like I had in 1970, LZ II skipped in a bunch of songs as the lowest frequencies vibrated the stylus right out of the grooves
As always, some sound good and some don't sound as good. It really depends on a bunch of factors which have largely been covered.
Almost all of it is redundant in this day and age since most people stream music, which is really low quality. Then listen through a phone, which is really low quality, on wireless headphones.
Almost all of it is redundant in this day and age since most people stream music, which is really low quality. Then listen through a phone, which is really low quality, on wireless headphones.
they remastered it, the comment was about remixing it. which to me as well was a huge missed oppurtunity.
Actually, 30th Anniversary version of Nevermind should sound worse. It has less dynamic range than the original 1991 release, which was already perfectly fine. Check this out, top is 30th Anniversary version, bottom is the original release of Smells like Teen Spirit (adjusted for approximately equal volume with ReplayGain +5dB):
Notice how the 30th Anniversary has peaks "shaved off" by something like a brickwall limiter. It probably has some clipping, too. Although this could've been much much worse (like even more limiting applied). This is a typical situation of modern mastering, a trend that started in early 1990s, actually. More about this can be found by researching subject of "Loudness War".
Remasters can be great, and some of them are indeed improvement over the original. But this long since turned into a marketing hype buzzword. The word "remastered" is now also being used in videogames, which is not fitting at all.
Megadeth remastered their catalog. hangar 18 sounds completely different, and not in a good way. I refuse to listen to the remastered versions of the megadeth albums. When I went to buy Rust in pieces on vinyl, I imported the 1990 version from Europe to get a non remastered copy.
That is criminal to do that to a band that is all about dynamics
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
Pretty much everyone I know who cares about the end result still has a mastering engineer prepare the final product. It's true that with modern DAWs and amazing plugins, it's amazingly easy to create mixes that are so much more consistent that they don't SEEM to need mastering, and in fact there's usually so much going on with some peoples' stereo bus processing that everything could theoretically be referred to as 'pre-mastered'. But - as a mixing/mastering engineer of some stripe myself - there's always something to tweak and polish even if the final mixes seem 'done'.... and if anyone thinks that just throwing a multiband compressor and limiter on the final mixes is 'mastering'.... they're wrong. And it's still so infuriating to get into mastering a project and have people think they can just 'fix it in mastering' if something is wrong in the mix. Nope. If it's a problem in the mix, it'll still be a problem in mastering. You can't polish a turd.
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
This was my experience with the original early 90s CD version of 'Chicago Transit Authority', which was remastered for CD by the great Joe Gastwirt. It sounds almost as good as the original record(s), and is the only digital version of the album I can stomach. I also have the 'remastered' version done for Rhino Records in the early 2000s and it's nearly unlistenable for me. Too hot, too grainy and in your face... all the warmth and subtlety is gone.
Even more intriguing is that I had the chance to talk with Joe on a phone call once, when one of my old bands was considering using him to master our album. Side note - Joe was surprisingly reasonable in terms of price considering how legendary he is. But I digress - at some point we talked about albums he worked on in the past and I mentioned his remaster of Chicago Transit Authority and how great it sounds to me. He said he can't listen to that one because he feels like it could have been so much better than it was.... that he just didn't have the tools he needed to do the job he wanted in terms of CDs as a medium at that time.... which was maybe '92/'93. But he was flattered I enjoyed it!
Even more intriguing is that I had the chance to talk with Joe on a phone call once, when one of my old bands was considering using him to master our album. Side note - Joe was surprisingly reasonable in terms of price considering how legendary he is. But I digress - at some point we talked about albums he worked on in the past and I mentioned his remaster of Chicago Transit Authority and how great it sounds to me. He said he can't listen to that one because he feels like it could have been so much better than it was.... that he just didn't have the tools he needed to do the job he wanted in terms of CDs as a medium at that time.... which was maybe '92/'93. But he was flattered I enjoyed it!
Taking your advice, I did listen to several of the remixes. And I have several thoughts on them. However, just to be clear, Ian Anderson (as much as I love him) also thought that "A" and "Under Wraps" were good ideas as well.
That prejudice out of the way I wanted to listen to what I think are two of Jethro Tull's greatest albums; Songs From the Wood and Heavy Horses. I chose these because SFTW was my introduction to Jethro Tull in album format. I chose HH because it's another of my favorites. Lastly, I wanted to hear Steven Wilson's "take" on the titular Minstrel in the Gallery because it is wonderfully representative of JT's dynamic compositions and Ian Anderson's vocal abilities.
Here are my impressions:
Generally, I found that most of what I listened to in terms of the remixes had clarity that the originals did not, for whatever reason, most of the songs seemed less dynamic. There was not the gripping jump in sonic levels when moving from verse to chorus in the song Heavy Horses. The sound was far too "even".
Other songs I listened to from the album Heavy Horses included One Brown Mouse, Moths, and No Lullaby.
Aside from the reduction in the dynamic qualities, John Glasscock's basslines were noticeably diminished on the entire album. I found the same to be true on Songs From the Wood.
Overall, the remixing on Heavy Horses was not horrific but, in my opinion, it did not add anything that would make me want to go out and re-buy the album.
Songs From the Wood is another story.
I listened to Songs From the Wood, Pibroch (Cap in Hand), Ring Out, Solstice Bells, and Cup of Wonder.
I will start with the bad: Solstice Bells and Cup of Wonder were, in my opinion, completely drained of life. I hated them. They sounded flat and boring.
The title song was neither harmed much nor was it improved at all. Finally, Pibroch (a song that is one of my all-time favorites) lost some of its beautiful dynamics and most of Glasscock's bass playing but fairly survived.
The biggest surprise for me was Minstrel in the Gallery. By the time I got to it, I fully expected to be disappointed and egregiously so. On the contrary; this was, in my opinion, the song that benefited most from Mr. Wilson's remixing. There is a beautiful secondary acoustic guitar line that is almost lost in the original mix but was brought more forward and was an amazing surprise!
To sum up, I expected a lot worse and was glad that it wasn't. Still, I would not seek any of these remixes out.
They remixed their whole catalog, not remastered. That’s why they sound so different.
Some reports suggest that in addition to remixing and remastering the catalog there were also a number of overdubs to change out parts Dave was never totally happy with. I've never done enough of a comparison to notice but I could see Dave taking the time to do that.
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
It's actually neither, or both, or a mix of both at the same time. The demands of mastering are always dictated by the source material (mixes) and no two (or 3 or 4) albums are ever mastered the same way, even by the same mastering engineer.
Last edited:
One point that is rarely mentioned: there are no existing masters for vinyl in a way.
So most of the early cds are not correct copies of the vinyl masters, 'cause these don't exist.
Explanation: vinyl and the way it is created doesn't 100% reproduce the tape which feeds it.
I was involved into the production of one record mastered for vinyl in the late 80s or early 90s.
We were handed different masters on tape and chose the one we liked the most. Then some test pressings were done using this master-tape.
These test pressings - see above - sounded different from the chosen master tape.
Then the master tape used for the pressing was manipulated to correct the shortcomings of the vinyl pressings.
For example, if the low-end was too weak on the vinyl, this was corrected with EQ on the then used master tape.
As a result the master tape had too much low-end, but the vinyl sounded very close to the original master.
In a way, it would be much more accurate to just use a first pressing of the original vinyl, play it with the best turntable available through a high quality converter and use these wave files for the digital releases.
Or at least to give an authentic impression of how the record was supposed to sound.
Most remasters are just money printing or giving people a reason to buy the same music for the 10th time
There are exceptions: one of the best produced albums of all time - Avalon by Roxy Music - sounds incredible good on CD or Spotify, too.
So most of the early cds are not correct copies of the vinyl masters, 'cause these don't exist.
Explanation: vinyl and the way it is created doesn't 100% reproduce the tape which feeds it.
I was involved into the production of one record mastered for vinyl in the late 80s or early 90s.
We were handed different masters on tape and chose the one we liked the most. Then some test pressings were done using this master-tape.
These test pressings - see above - sounded different from the chosen master tape.
Then the master tape used for the pressing was manipulated to correct the shortcomings of the vinyl pressings.
For example, if the low-end was too weak on the vinyl, this was corrected with EQ on the then used master tape.
As a result the master tape had too much low-end, but the vinyl sounded very close to the original master.
In a way, it would be much more accurate to just use a first pressing of the original vinyl, play it with the best turntable available through a high quality converter and use these wave files for the digital releases.
Or at least to give an authentic impression of how the record was supposed to sound.
Most remasters are just money printing or giving people a reason to buy the same music for the 10th time
There are exceptions: one of the best produced albums of all time - Avalon by Roxy Music - sounds incredible good on CD or Spotify, too.
That's an unfortunate artifact that plagues most remasters. If the engineer doesn't know what to do with it, they compress it, further reducing the dynamic range.
Making many people happy, who can't distinguish a bass from a guitar.
A good friend of mine asserts that 90% + of the population have tin ears.
That's the sad truth.
Rockopera Tommy (The Who):
"Put in your ear plugs,
put on your eye shades,
you know where to put the cork."
