Not convinced sometimes by arguments regarding older CDs

Not taking sides here but that is debatable. But to digress I know I haven't either. I think there is more going on with the comment and response that you see in this thread and it has been for some time.

 

there is a 1988 Steve Hoffman-remastered-for-MCA, Who/Meaty Beaty Big & Bouncy still in print, and readily available at most online music retailer sites, BRAND NEW, for between $ 9-11 ... it ain't even an audiophile pressing; it's just for non-elitist meathead grunts like me who still love their music sweet ...

nearly all of the many early 90s Warner Archives Series remastered by Lee Herschberg are still in print, and readily available new for around the same prices as above... all sweet-sweet sounding stuff for many of us peasantry grubs ...

well anyway, the elitist theory ain't flying for me either

 

Amen. Got mine for $.99 sealed.

 

don't get me wrong though ... there is plenty of stuff too, that is NOT available cheap that sounds really far out good ... and I got that stuff too, baby ...

i'm just sayin'

 

aww yeah ...

 

One thing i do not like on some old cd are digital fade in and fade out done during the cd mastering. Some MOFI cds have this kind of mastering. What i mean is a loss of hiss tape between tracks.

 

The link does not back up your claim at all.

 

However, the original 1986 Castle cd of Paranoid blows them both out of the water.

 

I agree with Keith on this. Just like there are crummy remasters, there are crummy original CDs that I've come across.

Sometimes the need to make a remaster sound "better" (boosting bass, messing with EQ when it isn't necessary)ends up overruling the common sense of just making it sound the best it can by trying to reproduce what's on the mastertape.

 

True, but "Closer to Home" is an improvement to the older CD it replaced I feel. The older greatest hits version sounded like it was recorded from a portable cassette player with a mic....

 

I've had to bake many, many tapes (especially Ampex Grand Master) over the years to get them to play back. The only thing I hear affected, sound-wise, is dropouts and playability. It's not EQ or hiss or anything like that.

Even with baking, you still have to scrupulously clean the heads and the tape path, sometimes every few minutes, just with the crud on the edges of the tape. Baking is not a 100% panacea for this.

As far as the tapes being 25+ years older: my observation is that there were quite a few 1980s CDs that got quickly mastered from 3rd or 4th-generation dubs, simply because the labels' warehouses were poorly organized and in a hurry to get the CDs out. A lot of the major reissue people (like Bill Inglot and Ron Furmanek) have incredibly stories about rejecting a half-dozen tapes before the "real" master finally showed up. I think that was the biggest problem of the CD reissue business for the first 20 years.

No question, all these tapes are slowly falling apart. No analog media -- not even motion picture film -- can last forever. Digital media has its issues as well. It would be an interesting case to take, for example, Steve's 1980s Buddy Holly CDs and compare them to the original master tapes, the way they sound in 2010. (Assuming they survived...)

 

That makes sense so point taken. I suppose I still want as close as a representation of the master as one can get unless it is one of the very poor sounding masters due to the reasons you mention.

 

I have to highly disagree with you on this one. It DEPENDS a lot on the when, why and who of the pressing of the album. Many years back it was considered perhaps not "common practice" but was at least done somewhat regularly. The attenuation of very deep bass on album masters is documented and was considered just one of the tools of the trade by most engineers. Ive read about it many times, in audio journals and magazines.

In fact it was one of the prime reasons on one list of audio reviewers in one magazine I have as to why CD (( when just coming out )) would give vinyl more than a run for its money. It was said that CD, when made from the full unrestricted original master, as opposed to a vinyl master, was giving the entire 20-20khz range with no attenuation of deep bass.

To limit issues with turntable mis-tracking and distortion and the built in limitations of playing time per side, many releases were cut with not only levels varying, but frequencies rolled off at higher limits or attenuated. It may have been a more common process many years ago and not be used on "audiophile pressings" for the last several years, but the standard original vinyl issues, that was a complaint or comment I read about a lot back in the day.

It was actually quite "unusual practice" for a record to be cut with "Full dynamics and unlimited ultra low frequencies". When an album was cut "full blast" it was often discussed and was considered a real rocket. One that comes to mind is TELARC's 1812 overture. It was cut with dynamics intact and if I can find the old issue of the review of it, it even commented on how on even classical stuff that sometimes levels and deep bass were sacraficed at times to preserve playback ability on most average systems.

 

Youve made the case for me......MOFI in their original adverts, actaully expressed this concern of how most normal vinyl was pressed using a somewhat modified master to accomodate "playing issues"/

That was MOFIs ticket, to actually bypass the so called "Vinyl master" and go to the unrestricted bandwidth "true master" and gain perhaps a bit of clarity and less tape hiss, as it was one generation closer.

They gave you what was on the "original master" to use their words, and we all know perhaps a bit of eq at times. But it was still the full bandwidth master.

 

Many of the older releases are superior to their remastered counterparts, however, you would be remise to view them all as superior. I used to think that way until experience taught me otherwise. But a lot of the remasters are way too hot for me, and that's just a fact of modern mastering. I don't know why they feel they have to drive the levels so high. I have a volume control that I can crank if the urge is there.

 

I think "Some" originals are better, some not. Many old original CDs used several generation old masters first off since they were trying to get CDs out of the gate fast in the beginning few years.

Many assume the high hiss levels on old CDs are due to lack of No-noise, true, but its also due to sometimes a 3rd or 4th gen master was used.

Its on a case by case basis with me. Many newer remasters use the true first gen master, with all kinda high tech digital conversion and all, but THEN slam it with some wonky EQ choices and Slam it with a lot of compression. So its more a case of good and bad. Sure it may be 2 steps closer to the true master, but its been compromised in other ways.

 

Do you mean the Japan 2008 editions? I've enjoyed them.

Tim

 

No im talking about the more commonly available Re-masters from several years back, forget exactly when, more like early to mid 2000s

The japan ones are good, not even saying the early 2000s ones are bad per se, but just in direct comparison to the originals they are somewhat different.

 

Inspired by this thread, I completed a brief cataloging.

Newer Masters (Clearly preferred): Badfinger, Beatles (mono), CCR (DCC and AP), Bob Dylan (mono and stereo), Love, Sparks (Island), Neil Young (Box)

Newer Masters (Slightly preferred): Black Sabbath, Cheap Trick, The Doors, The Jesus Lizard, Television (Shm cd), The Who (Shm cd), Neil Young (First 4)

Older Masters: Beach Boys (DCC and older 2fers), Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, The Police, Rolling Stones, Steely Dan, T. Rex (except for the Shm cd of The Slider)

Mix: Buffalo Springfield, Cream, CSN, King Crimson, Motorhead, Pink Floyd

No Preference (I have heard both and feel no need to change what I already own): The Byrds, Bryan Ferry, The Jesus and Mary Chain, The Replacements, Roxy Music, Talking Heads

Looks like I am more of a remaster guy.

 

The org CSN sound pretty good and they are cheap.

 

I agree with you 100%. Some people here like to make sweeping generalizations to stir the pot. It's nonsense.

 

Agreed. Before people jump all over Steve, they need to consider the person he was responding to and that person's presence here.