Not convinced sometimes by arguments regarding older CDs

it's fairly simple to me, my empirical listening experience reveals that about 90% of today's masterings are over-compressed; and unfortunately, I didn't know that for some time, and wasted lots of money on cd's that I now consider to be crap; I rarely gamble on a current remaster now, I will wait for guidance on sound quality, otherwise I assume it doesn't sound good...that works for me, considering my previous history of bad purchases...and BTW, you don't need much of an audio system to hear the old vs. new differences, they are obvious and compelling

 

Ive found the recent Van Morrison ones not great sounding and the originals are better. The remasters suffer from some No-noise and some compression, but not a huge deal, but in direct comparisons, the originals are for sure more natural.

 

And even though I'm not really all that wild about vinyl, the early LP pressings of Astral Weeks beats its digital counterparts in all important aspects.

 

I was referring to the recent remastered Japanese CD editions of Astral Weeks, His Band and Moondance - not the general reissue campaign. I really thought these were an improvement on my regular CD editions.

 

I won't go out of my way to get old cd's anymore to try and recheck my perceptions, but if I run across something I try it. A recent learning experience was the "fatbox" (US version) lamb lies down on broadway versus the 90's remaster which illustrated the effect of remaster processing on the instrumental timbre. I have to confess I would not have noticed this had I not compared the two, the remaster was and is still listenable to me, it just has what I'll call squelching.

 

Hendrix albums are a special case. IMO, there are no definitive editions of those. Some prefer the Polydors. Some (like myself) prefer the MCA Gastwirts. Some prefer the EH.

All of them have their issues. I really depends on what bothers you the least (bad EQ, NR, clipping, speed anamolies, etc.)

I'm more shocked that he did not cite a vinyl copy.

I have owned a pink label Capitol LP, the double separated original CD, and both 2009 remasters. To my ears, the original CD is the worst of the bunch.

Clearly, what our gracious host expects from the White Album is different from what we expect.

Same reason that some people will always think that LPs sound better than CDs.

With very few exceptions, "original CDs" were more like flat transfers while remasters are often EQ'ed, noise-reduced, brickwalled, etc. This is usually the reason.

Personally, I see a lot of postive posts about remasters. The 2009 Beatles remasters got lots of raves. The 2010 Lennon and McCartney remasters are, also, getting positive reviews.

(As a Frank Zappa fan, I will tell you that you will find very few Zappa fans that prefer the original CDs.)

If people want to generalize, that's fine. I think most of us trust our ears.

 

Strawmen are often difficult to understand.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

Good question. Technically those CDs are "remasters" too, because they aren't the original mastering. But if you're referring to recent remasters (within the last 10 years or so), no not all are bad and indeed some are improvements. It's really a case by case basis but it seems as though about 95% of recent remasters are garbage, in the sense that they were ruined by the loudness war (which is never an improvement, IMO). I can almost guarantee the reason Steve prefers the 80s version of the White album is becuase the dynamics are better preserved and the EQ is better. Afterall, those are the two key components to a good mastering job.

One example that comes to mind is Paranoid by Black Sabbath. The 1990 Warner Bros CD is awful, but the 1996 Castle Remaster blows it out of the water. If I understand it correctly, a lot of early CDs were made from inferior tape sources or tapes that were originally EQd to be cut to LPs. One would think that when the record companies decided to begin their remastering campaign they would have done it right. Sought out the master tapes - and many did, but the loudness war cancelled that out. Who cares what source they used whenever they completely ruin the integrity of the digital format itself?

 

This process started for me before I discovered this forum, but it has only intensified since I joined.

I can't count how many times I decided that a certain version of a certain CD was perfectly fine only to later hear the LP or CD that someone else was raving about and realize that they were right. My CD was inferior.

Last year, I was very annoyed when I heard a sound clip from the 2009 remaster of Abbey Road because I thought I was happy with my 1987 CD. Turns out, I prefer the 2009 version, so I had to buy it. (Don't anybody play me a Blue Box LP, MFSL LP, or Black Triangle CD.)

 

Early to me is before 90.

 

Was there even any Paranoid CD released before 1990?

 

I go with the original mastering every time. They were "into" the project. They knew what they were doing (except on Tommy, which I HATE), and the mediocre sound of say . . Quadrophenia or Exile is an artifact of the era.

 

Baffling ain't it ? I've decided to just enjoy the mysteriousness of it all. still think they sound even better when they come with an OBI

 

These remasters have been well received because of what was not done to them. They have not been no-noised, compressed and limited to death.

 

Agreed, but they are still remasters.

Maybe the powers that be are learning.

 

I think the general negativity towards remasters on this forum is a reaction to the general public's general acceptance that remasters are alway better, which of course has been touted by the record companies to sell CDs over the last few years. I thought the same way until coming here. I have personally found some great sound in some of those old CDs, not all, but some. I just picked up a Dionne Warwick Rhino CD from '86 (of her early material) which has amazing sound, naturalness and bloom, which any of the later compilation CDs of the same material completely lack.

 

reb, put on the black triangle Abbey Road, crank it up to comfortable listening levels and hit the stop button. Now, go throw in the new remaster and tell me there's no added digital compression. Same with a lot of the '87 Beatles releases on CD. On this though I have to say nothing has beat Vinyl regarding The Beatles catalog in general.

 

Unless a new CD is remastered by Steve Hoffman or Barry Diament, it's is going to be regarded with suspicion around here (and even that rule is starting to falter)...

If there's also an original Japanese disc from the early 80's, forget it.

It's something you just have to live with around here, so learn to tune it out.

 

do you believe that? There are also many good mastering engineers. Period!

 

Because it's not agony? This place is great source of info on all things music.

 

Except cd masterings apparently

 

I think its a take-off on Karla Bonoff, no?