I’m a red book fan of 60’s rock ‘n roll classics. What do people think of all the current remasters? Forgive me if this has been covered.
I have really moved away from rock in the last four decades and more deeply all the time into jazz. . . one group that I have followed is the Grateful Dead and their remasters this century have been great–in part because of the amazing Plangent Process.
I’ve also kept up with Yes and Jethro Tull remasters and think they are excellent because they were remixed by Steven Wilson. I like Wilson’s remixing and mastering work on other artists more than his own music.
And I’ve been overjoyed with Mobile Fidelity’s SACD treatments of the Dylan albums, stereo and mono, they have remastered.
it really depends on a number of factors:
how good are the tapes now?
how good were they to begin with (we’re looking at you Doors’ first album)?
who is doing the remastering?
who is funding that remastering?
did the original band get their hands on it to turn it into a remix? (ewwww)
Then of course, if you are talking about vinyl, how good is the pressing?
So I guess what I’m saying is, there just isn’t a 1-size-fits-all answer to it.
If you like your music absurdly compressed reach for the new versions.
I couldn’t disagree with this more - most of the high quality remasters really do not add compression at all, if anything, some of them reduce what was in the first masters.
Opinions.
Listening
The truth is they can be all over the map as far as compression in mastering. Many are very dynamic.
I have been studying dynamic range for recordings for quite a long time. There is a database where they document this stuff. Look at the following page. It lists the dynamic range for each version. The newer the remaster, the more compressed. (generally. Thankfully there are exceptions!)
Sure, this is just one album. I picked it at random. Search for any album you care to and you may see that that later the release, the more compression is used. I thought this was common knowledge.
https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/1/dr/asc?artist=Yes&album=fragile
*note. the Steven Wilson remasters have the highest dynamic range. No surprise there but he is not like all the rest.
But dynamic range is not all about compression - yes compression can cause a lack of dynamic range but its not the only element there. I don’t find that folks remastering high-quality recordings are in the “loudness war” at all as that site seems to suggest.
Just the updating of equipment, the tastes of the person at the desk, the age of the tapes, and attempts to fix errors can cause it to sound or measure differently in DR. But to declare that they all have added compression, or to suggest that they all suck is disingenuous at best.
What I definitely agree with is that Steven Wilson is excellent at remastering (and recording for that matter), but so are Bernie Grundman, Ryan K Smith, and Kevin Gray among others. I personally find the 1990s remasters by Bob Ludwig to be far too heavy-handed, but then the stuff he originally mastered are often excellent.
Opinions.
so are yours. what’s your point?
Compression, brick walled, ear bleeding = you know it when you hear it. As others have said, it all depends on the mastering and how good the tapes are to begin with. Whats the old saying? You can’t get blood out of a turnip.
My point is we have different experiences.
I fine with yours. Mine is just different.
Here is an example of the worst I have ever seen:
Remix and Remaster:
Iggy did get the sound he was looking for. He hated Bowies version (the original release)
I own both, I don’t listen to either.
I’m not as deep into the how to’s and what foe’s of the remasters. I’m more into the bonus material and preferably live performances. I enjoy listening to the progression of how a song evolved, original thought to completed track.
That being said, I generally like most of the expanded sets.
Oh, now youre getting me hot. I loves me a heavy dose of compression. 44.1 w/ compression to 11 slinging on a panasonic with Focal speakers
Thanks to all who answered! A lot to think upon.