IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Original vs. Remastered Albums?
AlexanderMKD
post Feb 11 2012, 02:01
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 20-January 12
Member No.: 96564



What do you think which ones are better, original recordings or remastered editions of music albums? I'm not a professional but many times a remaster sounded much better than original for my ears for example clearer and softer sound, but also many times a remaster sounded worse than original with too much loudness . So what's your opinion?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UjQc0dM4H4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9N9mUhd7lY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkkqsN69Jac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v6ML2DsBfA


What do you think about deep purples remasters, first three albums remastered in 2000 and other eight Anniversary Editions? They sound better to me than originals.

What about black sabbath... the first 8 albums with ozzy from 2004 black box remasters sound much clearer but they are a bit loud, also the 2008 remasters of Heaven And Hell and Mob Rules sound very rough and there is too much loudness.

What about Dire Straits, 1996 remasters? They are a bit louder but i like the clearer sound and the crisp treble.


I always use a equalizer when listening to music 2 equalizers exactly, one from Windows Media Player and one from pc's onboard Realtek sound card.










I use "Deluxe DLS 2118" 2.1 speakers 2 x 12.5w 4 OHM speakers and 40w 8 OHM subwoofer. It's not a professional equipment but still can hear the difference.

This post has been edited by AlexanderMKD: Feb 11 2012, 02:04
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
mjb2006
post Feb 13 2012, 02:53
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 780
Joined: 12-May 06
From: Colorado, USA
Member No.: 30694



Some/many people in this forum are not going to be very helpful when you're asking questions about music you obtained from unauthorized distributors, especially material still in print, like the 2010 edition of this album you're asking about.

However, I will try to help you understand. In 1982, several concerts were recorded to multi-track tape (one mono channel for each voice or instrument, plus some for the audience). Portions were copied, mixed together into a single two-track (stereo) recording on another tape: this is the "original" stereo "master recording". This recording had to be copied and further "mastered" for consumer formats like vinyl, cassette, or CD. So there are "master" tapes for each format: one for each side of the record, one for each side of the cassette, one (in digital format) for the first release of the CD, and one for each "remastered" CD. These all sound a little different...sometimes a lot different, depending on who did the mastering, and when. Engineers do all kinds of things to "improve" the sound when preparing it for each format. What is better or worse depends on the listener and their preferences.

All CDs were "digitally mastered".

The 1989 CD is not older than the vinyl 1982 LP, so is it "original"? No, it can't be, but it's probably the first edition of this album on CD, and it's probably more true to the original recording than what's on the vinyl, although the vinyl probably isn't that different. CDs (re-)mastered in the mid-1990s to the present day tend to be a mixed bag, some aspects being made better and others being made worse, such as by the over-use of dynamic range compression. Again, what you prefer depends on the recording and what was done to it during remastering.

This post has been edited by mjb2006: Feb 13 2012, 02:53
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th August 2014 - 16:15