Not convinced sometimes by arguments regarding older CDs

Disagree. The member made a huge generalization and Steve responded in kind. Steve's work sometimes gets rough treatment here also. "Pretenders" anyone?

 

Well I only see him talking to bonjo but maybe I'm reading it wrong.

 

So what in your opinion is a mastering engineer's job if they're only supposed to do flat transfers? Any chimp could do that.

I've listened to many master tapes, and trust me - you don't always want to hear them flat. Even our host will tell you that. Ever hear the Electric Flag's "A Long Time Comin'" LP from 1967? There's a reason why those tracks have been remixed every time they've appeared on CD. The original master sounds like crap!

Sometimes the original master isn't always the artist's original intent because the technology and/or the skill of the mix engineer isn't where it should be. Fixing those problems with "compression, fancy EQ, etc.", but knowing when to leave things alone is what a mastering engineer's job is supposed to be.

 

Not every master can sound like the bulk of Gordon Lightfoot's masters nor can they sound like the bulk of Amy Grant's masters nor can they sound like the Everly Brothers masters, the Buddy Holly masters, the bulk of Elvis's masters, etc. It's all a case by case deal.

 

Well, right now I'm listening to a 1983 Japan copy of Genesis' S/T CD...just received today from the classifieds...and I had to turn the volume WAY up it's so quiet, and easy on the ears.

Oh, and this Elitist purchase cost me $3.00. Wow, I must think I'm hot $hit, huh ?

 

I suspect there's more than a little truth to this

 

I hear what you're saying, but on the other hand a lot of early '80s CDs can be bought used for less than the cost of the current remaster. Honestly, the main reason that so many here prefer early masterings has nothing to do with how rare they may or may not be--it only has to do with the trend in almost all recent masterings toward compression and limiting. In the rare case in which a modern mastering does not make use of compression or limiting, believe me, people on the forum will gladly sing its praises. Heck, many sing the praises of the Beatles remasters here because they only use "moderate" limiting instead of the usual full-blown brickwall.

 

While I get this place quite a bit.

 

Not long after first joining up on this forum I bought Steve's 'Bad Company' new on AF Gold. To my ears it sounded tonally flat and outright bland. I thought to myself what are these folk here that are raving about this disc smoking? In the end I sold it as I hated the sound so much. Interestingly, I have since changed the front end and back ends of my system (a significant downgrade!) and many of the discs in my collection now sound substantially different and much better. So out of curiousity I bought another copy of 'Bad Company' off of a forum member and low and behold it sounds fantastic! I do think systems and how they are set up play a large part in how a disc may sound. I only have to move my speakers an inch or two and the sound completely changes. So yes, the mastering is important but equally important in my view is how well the system is set up. I recall a thread a while back where people posted photos of their systems and remember thinking at the time just how little attention some had paid to setting up their systems. I appreciate that many people do have space and/or layout limitations but in my view I don't see how judgement can be passed on any mastering good or bad when speakers are on opposing walls, one in a corner one out from a wall, and fronts ends and amps are stacked on top of one another or are balanced precariously on a rickety old table! Oh! And regardless of how much or how little money a system is worth, system synergy is equally important too. If the bits don't gel the sound will suck regardless of how well it is set up.

 

Pretty dismissive, no? Bonjo has been here for some time and contributed.

It's not like he is a newbie.

 

That's not how I read it. It seems to me that Steve was reacting to the offensive tone of bonjo's whole post, rather than the difference in opinion per se.

Personally, I think the comments about "tuning out" opinions and having to "live with [them] around here" are what was rude.

 

The best hope for a remaster is that the label found some better master tapes and used those for the new CDs.

The reality is that some mastering engineers, either through bad judgement or pressure by reissue label execs, opted to use excessive NR, compression, and EQ on the new releases, sometimes in an effort to make them sound either more "modern" or much different than the previous release.

I don't think all later remastered CDs are bad, but it's definitely a case-by-case situation. Some are bad, some are worse, some are the same, some are better only for a few tracks, and some are lightyears better across the board. And some are just different.

BTW, I don't see Steve's comments as being rude at all. He's just expressing an opinion, not insulting a person. Not a big deal. You guys gotta simmer down.

 

It's not. YOUR name on my best CDs led me to the Bad Co. Gold, which led me here, and I've learned SO much from these archives, and PMs and purchases from the likes of Darcy, and Dave, and Rick, and Shawn, and of course, Keith. Hell, I'd donate if I could only stop buying for a few weeks.

 

I think it was just an observation.

 

I've been wondering how the age of the master tape impacts this opportunity. We're now 27 years into the compact disc era, thus the master tapes are that much older than they were at the dawn of the cd age.

I realize this is a very case specific question depending on tape source, storage methods, manufacturer, etc., but I wonder if otherwise well done remasters suffer due to the tapes being 25 +- years older than when the original cd was mastered? Does baking the tapes generally resolve such issues so there's no discernable loss in quality?

 

This is great advice.

 

However rare a CD you have might be, the one thing you can be sure of is that there will be other people here who have it - and if there's disagreement on the merits of that CD then there will be a thread somewhere all about it.

I've found more often than not that original CDs sound better than modern remasters but, of course, that's not always the case.

There's really only one way to find out - listen to the music...

 

But as we all know, the source tapes and DAC are only part of the equation. The mastering is the other part. Poor mastering choices can negate the advantages of using the master tapes and the best DAC available today.

Also, with regards to early CDs, rarely do we know what tapes were used. Just because a CD was issued in Japan, it doesn't mean it was mastered there.

 

We would be best off if people would just decide what they like without ridiculing those who have different preferences.

 

The original post contains a false premise. The truth is that very few people "assume" that new remasters are automatically inferior to older CD's. It would be fairer to say that many are wary of new remasters. I certainly am, and it's based on simple experience. I'm talking about entire catalogues. Abba remasters, McCartney remasters, Stevie Wonder remasters, Jackson Browne remasters, Beach Boys remasters, David Bowie remasters, Steely Dan remasters, Led Zep remasters, John Lennon remixed remasters, etc. etc. etc. I have all of them, and never listen to them at all because the original masterings sound better.

So, if you ask why people are wary of new remasters? The answer is simply experieince.

 

The Polydor Axis is a totally different (and inferior) mix so I would avoid. Be leary of the golden ear crowd that doesn't pick up on mix differences AYE is sourced from a poor tape with major speed issues. EL is said to be good, never heard it though.