Another "remaster" thread/rant

[Mr Peabody]

I realize remastering can be of benefit in some cases but I find often it is not, especially compared to the original. Or, what I think to be the original.

What prompted this, I saw a "remaster" of Tom Petty, Damn The Torpedos, I wanted to listen to it anyway and was excited to see the remaster. I've owned the LP since high school when it first came out and have since purchased a Greatest Hits on CD, so really familiar with the album.

On first listen it just didn't sound right to me, so I compared it to the older offering. By comparison the remaster was louder, less space between instruments, sounds were bolder but it was like detailed had been squeezed out. Is this due to compression being used? The older version seemed a bit thinner but detail was better and sounded more natural, the snare sounded more like a snare, etc. The organ even sounded better although it wasn't pushed up into the mix so much like the remaster.

This was via Tidal I compared the remaster and older version, I didn't feel playing the LP or CD wound be apples to apples.

I find myself often times preferring the original. For instance, the Jimmy Page remaster of the LZ catalog, I do like the remaster, it seems things are punched up a bit but on the original it seems like strings have more textural detail. Probably not the best example since I do still like the remaster.

A better example, a friend was torturing me with ELO's Mr. Blue Sky, we started with the original then he found a remaster. He said, "that was better wasn't it?", he was surprised when I said, no. Pretty much the same as I described with the Tom Petty, the ELO remaster sounded bolder but the detail and textural info had been squeezed out somehow.

So anyone hear things like me or digging the remasters?

[Priaptor]

I realize remastering can be of benefit in some cases but I find often it is not, especially compared to the original. Or, what I think to be the original.

What prompted this, I saw a "remaster" of Tom Petty, Damn The Torpedos, I wanted to listen to it anyway and was excited to see the remaster. I've owned the LP since high school when it first came out and have since purchased a Greatest Hits on CD, so really familiar with the album.

On first listen it just didn't sound right to me, so I compared it to the older offering. By comparison the remaster was louder, less space between instruments, sounds were bolder but it was like detailed had been squeezed out. Is this due to compression being used? The older version seemed a bit thinner but detail was better and sounded more natural, the snare sounded more like a snare, etc. The organ even sounded better although it wasn't pushed up into the mix so much like the remaster.

This was via Tidal I compared the remaster and older version, I didn't feel playing the LP or CD wound be apples to apples.

I find myself often times preferring the original. For instance, the Jimmy Page remaster of the LZ catalog, I do like the remaster, it seems things are punched up a bit but on the original it seems like strings have more textural detail. Probably not the best example since I do still like the remaster.

A better example, a friend was torturing me with ELO's Mr. Blue Sky, we started with the original then he found a remaster. He said, "that was better wasn't it?", he was surprised when I said, no. Pretty much the same as I described with the Tom Petty, the ELO remaster sounded bolder but the detail and textural info had been squeezed out somehow.

So anyone hear things like me or digging the remasters?

One of the if not the biggest scam in audio are these never ending remasters. Just another way to get us to part with our money. Invariably the original of most of these things are better while the remasters are "different" but rarely better. There are a few exceptions but not many. I have pretty much given up on most of these remasters.

The real question is how good the original master is.

[AJ Soundfield]

What prompted this, I saw a "remaster" of Tom Petty, Damn The Torpedos, I wanted to listen to it anyway and was excited to see the remaster.

Well, unless you're hearing the Master Quality Aliasing version, you're not hearing what every artist in history intended. Petty confirmed via John Edwards.

cheers,

AJ

[Rob181]

Well, unless you're hearing the Master Quality Aliasing version, you're not hearing what every artist in history intended. Petty confirmed via John Edwards.

cheers,

AJ

Posthumously...

[still-one]

You can find at least as many examples of improved re-releases as you can for the original.

[Audiophilehi]

I realize remastering can be of benefit in some cases but I find often it is not, especially compared to the original. Or, what I think to be the original.

What prompted this, I saw a "remaster" of Tom Petty, Damn The Torpedos, I wanted to listen to it anyway and was excited to see the remaster. I've owned the LP since high school when it first came out and have since purchased a Greatest Hits on CD, so really familiar with the album.

On first listen it just didn't sound right to me, so I compared it to the older offering. By comparison the remaster was louder, less space between instruments, sounds were bolder but it was like detailed had been squeezed out. Is this due to compression being used? The older version seemed a bit thinner but detail was better and sounded more natural, the snare sounded more like a snare, etc. The organ even sounded better although it wasn't pushed up into the mix so much like the remaster.

This was via Tidal I compared the remaster and older version, I didn't feel playing the LP or CD wound be apples to apples.

I find myself often times preferring the original. For instance, the Jimmy Page remaster of the LZ catalog, I do like the remaster, it seems things are punched up a bit but on the original it seems like strings have more textural detail. Probably not the best example since I do still like the remaster.

A better example, a friend was torturing me with ELO's Mr. Blue Sky, we started with the original then he found a remaster. He said, "that was better wasn't it?", he was surprised when I said, no. Pretty much the same as I described with the Tom Petty, the ELO remaster sounded bolder but the detail and textural info had been squeezed out somehow.

So anyone hear things like me or digging the remasters?

This is a huge concern of mine. The loudness wars continue. I’m ok with a little tweak in a remaster but it’s overkill. The DR levels are beyond unacceptable. For years remasters have been compressed to the point of unlistenable. Of course there are few and I mean very few exceptions. Don’t really know what the engineers behind the remastering are thinking. It certainly isn’t with their ears.

End of rant.

[Mr Peabody]

I don't know about as many good remasters as bad, I do know it can be done right, the Steve Wilson remasters of Classic Rock albums have been good, IMO.

You can find at least as many examples of improved re-releases as you can for the original.

[Jack]

As are most Bob Ludwig remasters if the original was even remotely fixable.

[Audiophilehi]

As are most Bob Ludwig remasters if the original was even remotely fixable.

I don't know about as many good remasters as bad, I do know it can be done right, the Steve Wilson remasters of Classic Rock albums have been good, IMO.

Totaly agree with both of you.

[XV-1]

The vinyl reissue of Damn The Torpedos is damn good. Great job done by Chris Bellman.

do yourself a favour and buy the two Tom Petty vinyl box sets and be prepared to enjoy - all remastered in analog by Chris Bellman @ Grundman stiudios.

[CPP]

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/li...The+Torpedoes+


Interesting DR levels on a lot of the releases for this album

I own the 1979 MCA 5105 LP release

[Mr Peabody]

I saw that big collection on Tidal, I wonder if the remaster I heard is from that or if another version.

The vinyl reissue of Damn The Torpedos is damn good. Great job done by Chris Bellman.

do yourself a favour and buy the two Tom Petty vinyl box sets and be prepared to enjoy - all remastered in analog by Chris Bellman @ Grundman stiudios.

[CPP]

I saw that big collection on Tidal, I wonder if the remaster I heard is from that or if another version.

With Tidal we will never know where it came from.

[XV-1]

I saw that big collection on Tidal, I wonder if the remaster I heard is from that or if another version.

These were only released on vinyl - so definitely not it.

https://www.discogs.com/Tom-Petty-An...master/1119790

https://www.discogs.com/Tom-Petty-An...master/1438309

[Mike B.]

I am glad I got to see the band live before Tom departed. Impressive band. The new kid on the block for the Heartbreakers was the bass player. He had only been with them for 19 years. That was during the Hypnotic Eye tour.

[bart]

You can find at least as many examples of improved re-releases as you can for the original.

That is my experience also.

[Mordante]

IMHO 95% of the remasters are just a ploy to sell the same album over and over again while there is no actual improvement.

[still-one]

IMHO 95% of the remasters are just a ploy to sell the same album over and over again while there is no actual improvement.

If it was truly just a ploy and not remastered then 95% of all remasters would sound the same.

[Mordante]

If it was truly just a ploy and not remastered then 95% of all remasters would sound the same.

Different does not equal better

[Audiophilehi]

Just remember, just because it's louder doesn't mean it's better.