Not convinced sometimes by arguments regarding older CDs

Having enjoyed reading the comments by the community on this forum for some time now I have to say it's a joy being surrounded by people with similar love for music and obssessive attention to detail.

But one thing that does irk with me is the assumption often made that any 'remaster' is automatically inferior to an original 80s pressed CD.

I know all about the loudness war but remasters surely can sometimes be improvements?

Two examples that spring to mind are the original Polydor CDs of Jimi Hendrix - especially the first album Are You Experienced and Smash Hits, which sound truly terrible, muddy and dull compared to recent remasters - and yet people still rave about them as being the definitive editions to own. Why?

And the second is a comment by our host recently that he preferred the fatbox 80s version of the White Album to the recent 2009 remasters. But gave no explanation as to why? When I listen to those remasters they are so clearly an improvement on the originals to my ears, that I just don't understand such a comment.

I know everyone is different and I respect differences of opinion but I'd like to hear why some people will always think earlier CDs are always better than remasters come what may?

Thanks for listening.

 

Stubbornness. As you said, difference of opinion. Different hearing abilities.

 

I agree about the '87 White Album comment. It's not that the remaster soounds bad or terrible, I just prefer the first edition.

Evan

 

It sounds like you prefer modern EQ instead of the way things used to be EQd. The new White Album remaster has some strange things going on in the midrange that cause me to get ear fatigue, and the original White Album CD sounds better due to the EQ settings. I actually prefer the vinyl over both, but that's just my opinion. Not all remasters are bad, and in fact, many are quite good, but they do get messed up a lot! Are You Experienced has never sounded great to me on CD, so I can't comment on that.

What equipment are you listening through? You don't have that filled out in your profile, and that does make quite a bit of difference as far as how good things can sound.

Frank R.

 

i've seen it here a million times.


guy 1: man, they really need to remaster (insert album here)
guy 2: they are! its coming out soon
guy 1: ahh.. i don't need it. it probably won't sound better than my scandenavian 8-track. just more record label greed!
guy 2:

 

Nobody has said the Polydor of AYE is definitive....it's the U.S. 1'st master on Reprise that has the magic..the Polydor is running at the wrong speed and indeed sounds horrible...

 

BKarloff...hmm...interesting name.

 

Yeah - a lot of people claim to prefer old Japanese pressings that are sourced from relatively poor quality Japanese safety copies that were transferred using early stage digital-audio converters. Kind of funny.

 

I will say as far as the Loudness Wars...I think I have spoiled myself over these last 7 months, with such fine sounding older discs that are quieter...it became apparent when my son put on a Montgomery Gentry CD the other day, and ten minutes in, I felt myself becoming annoyed, the beginning of a headache, and I could swear my teeth began to hurt !?!?!?

Jeez.

EDIT : By the same token, every DCC Gold I've been able to get my hands on sounds like Audio Heaven.

 

Beyond the issue of hearing abilities there are simple differences of taste. All things being equal, 24-bit encoding beats 16 bit for resolution. But resolution isn't everything and if you listen to music over vintage gear, sometimes it's hardly a factor at all. I can't stand the sound of the Sony 1610 and its ilk. As much as I admire and enjoy Steve Hoffman's earliest efforts with DCC, I feel those early CDs would have been better if they were mastered with 24-bit gear. However, getting the right tape, playing it back on the right machine and getting the eq right count for more in the end than whether it's 16 or 24 bit.

Only problem is that by and large, audio quality is not considered a selling point these days. That's probably true, twenty-somethings don't really have a problem with MP3 sound. I can't see as there's any reason to disagree with them considering the nature of the music and the state of the economy and the general sonic awfulness of that standby of the college aged young hipster, College Radio. MP3, overall, is a major step up from that standard. If you're into high-end audio, you may find yourself assaulted by the sounds of the MP3 generation, but how is that any different that what our parents experienced with us? In any case, in spite of having superior mastering tools these days, there's an awful lot of bad sounding mastering these days, and that's really what the Forum is getting all riled up about.

 

Amp: The Roksan Kandy L.III

Speakers: http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/805bw/

CD player: http://www.stereotimes.com/CD090606.shtml

 

Well, the two main problems with modern mastering are lack of dynamic range and choice of eq. Of course not all new releases and remasters take these to extremes.

I personally find that some level of limiting / compression can make a recording gel more. Sometimes without it, certain things jump out too much from the average volume level and extreme dynamics in pop recordings can actually be annoying sometimes (Yes's Talk album for instance).

The key is moderation. Moderation seems to have been lost for the most part these days though.

 

At the end of the day, CD still has 16 bits of resolution. Any additional bits of resolution carried through A/D capture and any intermediate processing get lopped off in the final creation of the 16 bit CD image, with some (to my ears) minor improvement of low level resolution due to noise dithering techniques.

Mike

 

I do feel less gullible about remasters and reissues after spending a few years on this board. I rarely have an extreme negative reaction to a modern master. But there are some that deserve their reputation as "ear bleeders" and plenty that sound different, but not necessarily better than earlier versions.

The good thing is that I'll now happily buy a $3.99 copy of something I'm mildly interested in when it shows up in the Used bins after a remaster comes out. I don't knash my teeth thinking that I might be missing something... if the earlier disc sounds okay I'm fine with it (and may actually have the best-sounding version available).

 

True, but at the same time, the sonic problems of early converters went beyond theoretical considerations. The Sony 1610 sounded worse than its lower cost sibling the F-1 on account of bad design and poor implementation of the analog circuits. Going from an early Sony converter to a Technics DAT machine was a sonic step up for me, gonig from that to an outboard A/D was an even bigger step up. It's not simply the difference between 16 bits and 24 bits—which is a huge help in postproduction, by the way—but the difference in the audio quality of good A/D converters as compared to the lack of audio quality in bad A/D converters.

 

Generalizing will result in a pointless discussion. I have personally heard older pressings which I think are better then their remastered counterparts (Stevie Wonder, except for the AF reissues), and I have heard remastered recordings which I think are an improvement (Beatles). I've heard the original Hendrix Reprise editions and I was surprised at how good they sounded, as I used to share the same opinion that 80's A/D technology was not up to snuff.

 

Reading some of the debates on original/remastered CDs on this forum has really been an education for me. It's clear that different people want different things from a CD: some want as close an approximation to the original vinyl sound as can be achieved, others want the 'new light through old windows' experience. I can see the validity of both points of view, but I do think some people have developed a remasters=bad mentality that doesn't always sit with the facts.

 

Not that hard. Put on a nice target and a nice volume. Enjoy. Don't touch anything and put on a newer remaster. If you find yourself jumping to turn down the volume, well then.

 

Does this apply to all the early Hendrix Polydors - ie Axis and Electric Ladyland - out of interest?

 

Before I discovered the forum, I had to have the most recent remasters and I was content with these. Research and reviews from folks here has opened my eyes to a whole new world. Some remasters are great, some are bad. Some older discs are bad, some are great!

 

To address your main question, some of it boils down to personal taste. But let's face it, it's also the in vogue opinion on this forum.

 

I have the the original West German Polydor "Band of Gypsys" and it sounds frickin' great! Don't have any other versions of the album to compare it to.

 

Sorry for missing that explanation Steve and thanks for the reply. I'd like to know what you would have done differently and your opinion of modern remasters in general. My point is that surely they are not all bad. The recent Van Morrison, John Martyn and Thin Lizzy (first 3 albums) series being examples as well as The Beatles.

 

Maybe an obvious question, ive heard both the originals and the newly remastered ones, and you mention EQ changes to the new one. My issue, with the White album, I find the 87' one lacking air or clarity, or perhaps what you call the "breath of life". In comparison how was your listening experience with the masters you mentioned hearing?