Another "remaster" thread/rant

M

Mr Peabody

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,326
Location
St. Louis, MO, USA
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?
 
Mr Peabody said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mr Peabody said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Mr Peabody said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

XV-1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
IMHO 95% of the remasters are just a ploy to sell the same album over and over again while there is no actual improvement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top