Remastered vs Original... thoughts

nicoff

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
2,259
When it comes to recent recordings I usually prefer the remastered versions. But I recently ran into some remastered versions of very old music (original recording was from the 30’s) and I was not impressed. Music sounded clean, but it was flat, monotonous; there was no passion in it. Much prefer the old analog and noisy LP.
Bottom line: it is not about the sound; it is about the music.
 
Most remasters of rock / pop that I've come across are worse than the original, provided the original was made before the whole "loudness wars" phenomenon started. The remasters end up being more dynamically compressed.

Once in a while you find a remaster that is not compromised in dynamic range, but it seems rare. Maybe in other music genres there is more sensitivity to the material.
 
I subscribe to Qobuz for digital files and normally play music as it was originally recorded. I don't find many remastered files that I prefer to the originals. Unfortunately Qobuz doesn't always offer both types of files for a particular album.

As far as analog goes, I also prefer to listen to originals. I figure that it's how the engineer and the band wanted it to be heard. My thoughts on remastered versions are how one or a small group of people think it should sound to them.

My opinion only, of course.
 
I don't think 'remastered' is always 'better'. Plenty of reviews thanks to internet to provide guidance on specific albums. Famous example was when Plant 'remastered' some Zeppelin album, then everyone realized his own hearing had deteriorated and the sound he thought was 'good' was really quite 'bad'. Also, there's the matter of compression in digital re-releases.
 
When it comes to recent recordings I usually prefer the remastered versions. But I recently ran into some remastered versions of very old music (original recording was from the 30’s) and I was not impressed. Music sounded clean, but it was flat, monotonous; there was no passion in it. Much prefer the old analog and noisy LP.
Bottom line: it is not about the sound; it is about the music.

Doesn’t your post advocate for the opposite because you are complaining about the sound and not the music?
 
Doesn’t your post advocate for the opposite because you are complaining about the sound and not the music?

I am complaining that it is not musical at all. It sounds clean with no noises or scratches but it is sterile. The “remastered” music is devoid of the passion that you can feel from the old LP.
 
I am complaining that it is not musical at all. It sounds clean with no noises or scratches but it is sterile. The “remastered” music is devoid of the passion that you can feel from the old LP.

who likes noisy, scratchy vinyl? In all my years I never met a vinyl collector or music lover for that matter that intentionally listens to vinyl for the 'artifacts'. Your sentiments put you in a very small minority.
 
My experience regarding remasters is that it depends. USUALLY, but not always, an early original copy sounds better than a remastered version. The real key is often the original pressing and whether its "the best" original. For LPs I really love, I've been buying multiple "earliest pressings" some of which are from different pressing plants (for companies that used multiple plants). Often 1 is superior to the others. Even within a group of early pressings (e.g. RCA Living Stereo 1S stampers) 1 is often audibly superior to the others.

Vinyl is complicated...
 
i think when we hear pre-50's recordings they are not relevant to the Lp era recordings, and are more for an historical perspective of musicianship and not sonics. unless you are playing original 78's which is a whole separate case. so our expectations should be matched to the situation. there is no 'original tape' to use as a source to get a 'better' copy. they copy the original pressing.

in the modern Lp era (after 1952 or so) with modern tape decks doing the recordings (both mono and stereo) now the quality of an original pressing verses a re-issue is in play. and although results can vary, mostly original pressings in decent condition will be the best way to hear any recording. maybe 45rpm re-issues muddy that water somewhat. and certainly there are many re-issues sounding better than original pressings we might find. but that unicorn clean original will still be the holy grail. and when you are talking mono originals, they don't need to be visually in such great shape to sound fine, since surface abrasions don't harm the groove on those mono deep grooves. having a mono cartridge with the larger stylus size makes a difference on those. some really apparently hammered Lp surfaces can sound fine.

it's lots of work, and $$$'s, to find early or original pressings. mostly re-issues can be very good. there are lots of re-issue series that can be reliably counted on to have great sounding Lp's. so chasing originals is not necessary.
 
who likes noisy, scratchy vinyl? In all my years I never met a vinyl collector or music lover for that matter that intentionally listens to vinyl for the 'artifacts'. Your sentiments put you in a very small minority.

You misread what I said. I am talking about one specific recording not all remastered recordings. The voice of the singer was/is more real in the LP despite the fact that you can hear nicks and pops. The digital version sounds as if they ran the recording through some kind of software that rendered it lifeless. Yes, the digital has no nicks and pops but it has no soul to it.
And just to clarify, I stream 95% of my music and rarely listen to LPs these days but I still have about 400 albums (I am not a collector mind you).
 
“I remixed a remix and it went back to the original” - Mitch Herberg.

Remastering done well can be great. I’m a huge deadhead, and the remastering of their concerts released under the Dick’s and Dave’s picks are always way better than the original SBD mixes circulating.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top