Original or Remastered????

[Mount Cyanide]

For Master-ers and Non-master-ers (please state):

When buying a CD of an album originally issued in analog, do you generally go for the original/earlier version or the remastered?
Because on one hand,
the earlier version would be closer in tune to the philosophy of the record (definitely closer to the climate of that era of musicmaking)
AND on the other hand,
nowadays we've got the way better conversion technology (but a far different sonic ethos and perhaps remastering was done in a mass manufactured do it for the money make it sound contemporary hot and loud way).

Which do you opt for and why:
Original CD release?
Re-Mastered release?

[RadioMoo]

Vinyl.

[Fat larry]

Original,Infact if i see digitally remastered on any of the paperwork i generally do not buy it.

[arf]

Originally Posted by Mount Cyanide

For Master-ers and Non-master-ers (please state):

When buying a CD of an album originally issued in analog, do you generally go for the original/earlier version or the remastered?

As usual, no one size fits all. Some engineers take remastering quite seriously and put in the time seeking out the original sources (this in itself is a nearly full-time job and not always successful) and researching and comparing all prior releases from vinyl on down. Some, don't. A good resource for remasters is the Steve Hoffman forum which is populated by serious collectors and those guys really know their stuff, sometimes knowing more about a project and its various incarnations than the labels and producers doing the re-issues. I really enjoy remastering for classic projects and routinely put most of the time in off-the-clock.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by RadioMoo

Vinyl.

Here too, and as a general rule, when buying eighties and earlier stuff, greatest hits packages don't tend to sound as good as the original release.

[Jerry Tubb]

I really like the George Marino remasters of Jimi Hendrix' catalog.

Hoping for some 24-96 versions at some point.

But if I could find the virgin vinyl at a reasonable price...

All mine have been played a zillion times.

JT

[AlexLakis]

Originals. Always. You never know when they're gonna sneak in a horn section or some shit...*AHEM*..."Shake Your Money Maker..." *AHEM* or clip it all to hell...*AHEM*...Bad Religion re-masters...*AHEM*

If you need "Dark Side of the Moon" to sound "better," then I'd hate be on the drugs you're on!

The only thing I agree with is when a young band has old albums that were "mastered" by the mixing engineer because they couldn't afford a real mastering job at the time, then they get signed or whatever, and then they can afford to get the job done right the second time around. That's fine.

Then again, I haven't heard the Boston re-masters, which are apparently very good, so I'm sure there are exeptions, just like there are exeptions to everything. (Although I can't imagine them being any "better...")

[RadioMoo]

Originally Posted by max cooper

greatest hits packages don't tend to sound as good as the original release.

Especially if they were done in the early eighties or before, because they're usually dubbed from the master or from a safety copy.

[Tibbon]

I wish they always listed on the outside who mastered or remastered something. If I look it up and found that Bob Ludwig remastered it (as I like his mastering for the most part) then I'd get it. If it says "Remastered digitally with an L2" **** it.

[arf]

Originally Posted by RadioMoo

Especially if they were done in the early eighties or before, because they're usually dubbed from the master or from a safety copy.

Another cool thing about the early CD 'straight transfer' releases of pre-digital stuff is that the AD conversions of the day were actually a lot better than you'd think - but you don't realize it till you play the CDs on a modern high-end DAC. A lot of those early CDs sound f'ing great on a decent system.

[cornutt]

Allow me to ask a probably-ignorant question. Don't all masters for vinyl have the RIAA pre-emphasis applied to them? That would seem to make them unusable for mastering CD as is; at the least, they would have to be re-EQ'ed.

[Tibbon]

I think the RIAA preemphasis is done literally while cutting the original, so if a master was made on tape before that, then it would be ok to use.

[arf]

Originally Posted by cornutt

Allow me to ask a probably-ignorant question. Don't all masters for vinyl have the RIAA pre-emphasis applied to them? That would seem to make them unusable for mastering CD as is; at the least, they would have to be re-EQ'ed.

THe RIAA curve is applied during the lacquer cutting - it is not applied to the master tape. However, the engineer usually did apply EQ to the mix for better translation to vinyl and often a new tape was made for future cuts that includes that EQ. If a CD is mastered from that, without correction, as often happened, it can sound off since the vinyl is no longer part of the equation.

[16/44.1]

Originally Posted by arf

Another cool thing about the early CD 'straight transfer' releases of pre-digital stuff is that the AD conversions of the day were actually a lot better than you'd think - but you don't realize it till you play the CDs on a modern high-end DAC. A lot of those early CDs sound f'ing great on a decent system.

That's the reason i'm using Sony's PCM 701 for a loooooong time for A/D conversion, after that it stays digital, allways .
It sound a lot better than my 601, which is using 1 A/D converter switching between the two channels.
It even sound better than my Sony DTC77 & DTC2000 !!!!
Very straight forward, that piece of art .
Oh.........I even added new wire from the input chassis to the amplifierprint, and no emphasis during A/D conversion.

[cornutt]

Originally Posted by arf

THe RIAA curve is applied during the lacquer cutting - it is not applied to the master tape. However, the engineer usually did apply EQ to the mix for better translation to vinyl and often a new tape was made for future cuts that includes that EQ. If a CD is mastered from that, without correction, as often happened, it can sound off since the vinyl is no longer part of the equation.

Thanks for the info.

One case where I like to see remasters is in cases where compromises had to be made in order to fit the material within the limitations (such as time per side) of vinyl. For instance, I think it would be neat to hear Rush's "Farewell to Kings" album re-mastered for CD at the proper speed, and with the songs in the order that the band and producer intended. Apparently, they had to do some pretty severe things to that one to cram it onto vinyl.

[Georgie]

Hi,
First post here in Gearslutz, after literally "swallowing" B. Swedien's forum...
Originals always...!!!
If they still exist anyway...But be awareof some fancy and perfectlooking vinyl remakes too,
Last year I bought an otherwise meticulus re-issue of Led Zeppeling's
"In through the outdoor",(vinyl) saying it was cut from the originals and it was a big disappointment .
It sounded like... well.....digital...

[Jerry Tubb]

I also really enjoy George Marino's recent remastering work on Led Zeppelin II.

Although I might prefer an extra dB of low end, it simply sounds fabulous.

I also have the original vinyl that I purchased on the day it was released.

[Darius van H]

I also avoid remasters - 'cause they're usually squashed - unfortunately some of the earlier CD releases were incredibly thin and tinny.

[Empty Planet]

Don't know who did the Lennon remasters, but the "Walls & Bridges" I have is harsh and unpleasant. I somehow doubt Lennon would have approved it.

Cheers.

[taturana]

i'll also love the led zeppelin ii remasters... my reference for rock drum sounds... full sound... bonham is king... listened to the cd until had to buy a new one...

also stevie wonder- innervision got a great remaster done. the credits go for kevin reeves at universal mastering...

peter gabriel 's passion on sacd sound too good. ian cooper at townhouse cutting room...

in general, if they are done a top notch pro with the right equipment i see no reason for it not to sound good... technology moves on... the sound quality should too...

but i still like my vinyls....

[RadioMoo]

Originally Posted by arf

Another cool thing about the early CD 'straight transfer' releases of pre-digital stuff is that the AD conversions of the day were actually a lot better than you'd think - but you don't realize it till you play the CDs on a modern high-end DAC. A lot of those early CDs sound f'ing great on a decent system.

What I was saying is that they compiled a new master tape for greatest hits packages by dubbing the individual songs from (ideally) the original stereo masters or from safety copies, so you were two, three or more generations removed from the session master (hiss, loss of resolution, etc.).