Jump to content
IGNORED

Does a remastered cd normally have audible/modernized differences compared to the original release?


Watt93
 Share

Recommended Posts

And I mean when you’re using typical/consumer music equipment. Does the music, in most cases, sound clearly a bit more modern, or clear. That would something I wouldn't be fond of, because I really prefer hearing the original release, the way it came out.

 

Thank you

 

 

Greetings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can vary all over the place. It can be much nicer, a little nicer or it can be worse. Usually worse due to modern customs of compressing the dynamics far too much. In other words a chance to bring old recordings to the modern loudness wars.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I mean when you’re using typical/consumer music equipment. Does the music, in most cases, sound clearly a bit more modern, or clear. That would something I wouldn't be fond of, because I really prefer hearing the original release, the way it came out.

 

Thank you

 

 

Greetings

 

There are a couple of different things here I thnk you are mixing together. Modern technology can be used to make older recordings sound better - cleaner and clearer meaning that you can hear the various elements better. They can also be volume compressed to make them louder and modern sounding - that's something else.

 

In the last few years, most rock and popular remasters sound clearer and cleaner - that's a plus to me - but often have moderate to heavy volume compression added to make them sound modern. If they overdo the VC, it pretty much makes the end result worse. There are exceptions where they are light on the VC or don't add it - then I think the remasters usually sound better. But those are a minority of the albums.

 

In other genres like classical and jazz they tend to have little or no added VC. Classical usually has none, so I generally like the remasters. Jazz tended to also have none, but some more recent remasters have some added volume compression. Usually not so much that it ruins the sound, unlike pop and rock.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: RPi 3B+ running RoPieee to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I mean when you’re using typical/consumer music equipment. Does the music, in most cases, sound clearly a bit more modern, or clear. That would something I wouldn't be fond of, because I really prefer hearing the original release, the way it came out.

 

Thank you

 

 

Greetings

 

 

My my experience is, that while the remaster CAN sound better than the originals (JVC XRCD, and SOMETIMES Mobile Fidelity, for instance), generally they sound worse.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can vary all over the place. It can be much nicer, a little nicer or it can be worse. Usually worse due to modern customs of compressing the dynamics far too much. In other words a chance to bring old recordings to the modern loudness wars.

 

+1

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a couple of different things here I thnk you are mixing together. Modern technology can be used to make older recordings sound better - cleaner and clearer meaning that you can hear the various elements better. They can also be volume compressed to make them louder and modern sounding - that's something else.

 

Oh so these are two things. But I'm not into any of these two actually. Even the first one. So does any remaster, whichever it is, always has this one feature, sounding noticeably cleaner than the original release?

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh so these are two things. But I'm not into any of these two actually. Even the first one. So does any remaster, whichever it is, always has this one feature, sounding noticeably cleaner than the original release?

 

Thanks

No. Some of them are "improved" so much that they sound like crap.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: RPi 3B+ running RoPieee to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Some of them are "improved" so much that they sound like crap.

 

But what I mean is you WILL always hear a difference between an original and any remaster, whether it's an actual improvement, or a worsening. Or are there cases where the remaster keeps the exact same sound, and you don't hear any difference at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what I mean is you WILL always hear a difference between an original and any remaster, whether it's an actual improvement, or a worsening. Or are there cases where the remaster keeps the exact same sound, and you don't hear any difference at all?

 

You will normally hear a difference between the original and remastered versions. Many remasters push the high level recording limits more, often to clipping.

It would seem pointless for a remaster to sound exactly the same unless it was needed to extract a new version from a decaying old master tape etc. or removing say higher hiss levels due to the age of the recording and the technology used at the time of the original recording.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will normally hear a difference between the original and remastered versions. Many remasters push the high level recording limits more, often to clipping.

It would seem pointless for a remaster to sound exactly the same unless it was needed to extract a new version from a decaying old master tape etc. or removing say higher hiss levels due to the age of the recording and the technology used at the time of the original recording.

 

I see. That's what I wanted to know. It's because I'm more into the idea of hearing the original sound, the way it came out originally.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nothing is changed from the original then it is just "Reissued" using the prior master, not "Remastered". Remastered means they could have eq'd it, compressed it, converted it to 96/24 digital then back to 44/16 digital or LP. The whole range exists in "new" product. If you want the original sound buy the earlier issue from eBay. Most are cheap but the good ones can be expensive.

 

If you are talking CDs, those pressed in Germany and some other European countries and Japan seem to sound cleaner and more "original", and their pricing generally reflects that. You can find reviews of just about any pressing of any release by searching a little on the net.

 

As was said, not all remasters are good or bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nothing is changed from the original then it is just "Reissued" using the prior master, not "Remastered"

 

Many Reissues do not state that they have been Remastered. However in many cases there must have been SOME changes made, because the track checksums rarely match that of the original release.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what I mean is you WILL always hear a difference between an original and any remaster, whether it's an actual improvement, or a worsening. Or are there cases where the remaster keeps the exact same sound, and you don't hear any difference at all?

 

 

You should. That's the whole point in doing a remaster to begin with. But the problem with remasters is that just because they sound different, doesn't mean they sound better. One thing they always seem to do is add a lot of gain, so when you play the remaster its much louder. Most people equate louder with better sound. It pretty much guarantee’s that whoever buys the remaster will notice an immediate difference. The only way you'll get a real answer for yourself, is to go out and buy a few albums and compare them. If you list what kind of music you like, some of us will probably know some good CD's you may want to try for comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not going to read the thread, just throw my 2 cents out there.

 

common sense tells me that that engineering and technology "more often than not" improves with time.

today's modern recording equipment "should" be able to more accurately reproduce the analog recordings than older equipment.

 

of course there will be exceptions, but more often than not, remasters are better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chances are they will be worse, this is why I always try to find the oldest CD release possible.

 

Amazon can list results by 'Release Date' which can be very helpful.

 

A basic assumption is that anything mastered after 2000 is quite likely to be worse than before.

 

It has nothing to do with equipment, it's to do with the assholes that are using it.

Source:

*Aurender N100 (no internal disk : LAN optically isolated via FMC with *LPS) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch - split for *LPS) > Intona Industrial (injected *LPS / internally shielded with copper tape) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > W4S Recovery (*LPS) > DIY 2cm USB adaptor (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > *Auralic VEGA (EXACT : balanced)

 

Control:

*Jeff Rowland CAPRI S2 (balanced)

 

Playback:

2 x Revel B15a subs (balanced) > ATC SCM 50 ASL (balanced - 80Hz HPF from subs)

 

Misc:

*Via Power Inspired AG1500 AC Regenerator

LPS: 3 x Swagman Lab Audiophile Signature Edition (W4S, Intona & FMC)

Storage: QNAP TS-253Pro 2x 3Tb, 8Gb RAM

Cables: DIY heavy gauge solid silver (balanced)

Mains: dedicated distribution board with 5 x 2 socket ring mains, all mains cables: Mark Grant Black Series DSP 2.5 Dual Screen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many Reissues do not state that they have been Remastered. However in many cases there must have been SOME changes made, because the track checksums rarely match that of the original release.

 

The track checksums can be different with the same master source used to make CDs in different countries or different versions, even if the only difference in the CDs are some non-musical ones like exactly where the track numbering/splits are put or a second or two of more or less silence on a lead in or lead out. Or even if the metadata is different and everything else is the same.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: RPi 3B+ running RoPieee to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see. That's what I wanted to know. It's because I'm more into the idea of hearing the original sound, the way it came out originally.

 

Thanks

 

The best remasters try to use modern technology to improve the sound - less hiss, blacker backgrounds, more ability to hear detail - while keeping the same basic sound of the original. The hi-res remasters of "Kind of Blue" are a good example of this, but far from the only one. Pretty much everyone thinks these are better than the original, yet they still "sound the same", as it were.

 

In popular music, a good remaster would be the hi-res (uncompressed) of "Band on the Run" - pretty much every one thought it was a "better sounding" version of the original. "Same sound", only better.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: RPi 3B+ running RoPieee to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have replaced several of my first edition classical music CDs with the more recent remastered versions because they sounded better tonally (warm, fuller sound) even if a few had marginally narrower dynamic range.

A good example, in my opinion, is the DG Originals edition.

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to rock music, apart from those remastered by audiophile companies like Mobile Fidelity, too many have been released according to the loudness wars template and definitely sound worse.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to rock music, apart from those remastered by audiophile companies like Mobile Fidelity, too many have been released according to the loudness wars template and definitely sound worse.

 

That has become all to true, especially in the last couple of years. Before that it seems that some Rock remasters in hi-res were actually being produced to sound good on a good system.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: RPi 3B+ running RoPieee to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what I mean is you WILL always hear a difference between an original and any remaster, whether it's an actual improvement, or a worsening. Or are there cases where the remaster keeps the exact same sound, and you don't hear any difference at all?

 

I personally have never heard a remaster that sounded like the original - and this goes all the way back to vinyl days! RCA Victor used to remaster/reissue their Red Seal "Living Stereo" titles every few years. First it was their "Victrola" series with their tasteful covers, then it was other reissue formats and names. This went on even into the SACD era, when BMG remastered and re-released these titles once again. The remasters never sounded either the same or as good as the original LPs. I have an original RCA Red Seal pressing of Fritz Reiner conducting the Chicago Symphony in Respighi's "Pines" and "Fountains of Rome". Being more than 50 years old, of course, it's a bit noisy, so when the 45 RPM, two record, single-sided remaster came out on "Classic Records", I spent the roughly US$60 and bought one. Yeah, it's quiet, but that's about all I can say for it - in comparison to the original. It has less bottom end, the highs aren't as clean, and for some reason, the re-issue doesn't image as well as the original! I also have the BMG SACD remaster of the same title. Again, it's difficult to believe that all three versions were from the same performance and the same master tape.

 

There are exceptions, of course. I also have Reiner and the Chicago performing Prokofiev's "Lt. Kiji" on a JVC XRCD and the same performance on BMG's SACD and the original Red Seal LP from the late 50's. The XRCD actually sounds better than the original LP release and better than the SACD (remember, XRCDs are just regular red book CDs, not SACD, not Hi-Res DVD-A, or Blu-Ray, or anything fancy. They are just very carefully remastered and manufactured and they sold for around US$40 each!).

 

Then there is the "Classics" 45 RPM/2 record/single sided set of Stravinsky's "Firebird" ballet with Antal Dorati and the London Symphony. This original Mercury "Living Presence" recording was re-mastered by Mercury's legendary mastering engineer, Wilma Cozart Fine shortly before her death and is, without a doubt, the best sounding commercial recording - in ANY format - this audiophile and music lover has ever heard! But again, it doesn't sound at all like the CD reissue (also mastered by WCF) or the original vinyl release, for that matter.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have replaced several of my first edition classical music CDs with the more recent remastered versions because they sounded better tonally (warm, fuller sound) even if a few had marginally narrower dynamic range.

A good example, in my opinion, is the DG Originals edition.

 

R

There have also been major advances in the equipment and processes used to make CDs, which may explain some of the sonic improvements you hear. For example, bitstream conversion and the 1 bit D/A convertor came along in about 1990, with a great improvement in SQ over the prior generation that used 16 bit conversion. So simply remaking the CD with the newer technology will usually yield better sound from the same master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have also been major advances in the equipment and processes used to make CDs, which may explain some of the sonic improvements you hear. For example, bitstream conversion and the 1 bit D/A convertor came along in about 1990, with a great improvement in SQ over the prior generation that used 16 bit conversion. So simply remaking the CD with the newer technology will usually yield better sound from the same master.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The info on a CD is digital, so how would a dac , one bit or otherwise, be used? DA conversion should be done during playback, but not before. Also, CD's are pressed. I don't see how that can improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The info on a CD is digital, so how would a dac , one bit or otherwise, be used? DA conversion should be done during playback, but not before. Also, CD's are pressed. I don't see how that can improved.

 

I have been told by Alfe , who designed my LG GGW H20L Blu Ray writer, that the "write strategy" has a bearing on how a CD sounds too. I didn't ask for further information, as it would probably have gone right over my head ! There have also been major advances in the creation of the glass master, with I believe, Blue Lasers and Atomic clocks used too for ultra precision. Some manufacturers use improved polymer formulas too for improved reading of the contents.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IME:

 

You can only reap potential improvement from assumed better equipment if the mastering guy leaves the controls where they should be for perceived optimal SQ.

 

I guarantee you that a better job can pretty much always be done on older (supposed lesser) equipment in the right hands than the best (newest) gear in the hands of an idiot (or whilst the engineer is accommodating the requests of an idiot).

 

D/A conversion in this context ought to be irrelevant, A/D conversion is what creates digital files for distribution, D/A comes after that and is in the hands of the listener.

 

EQ and compression (inappropriately applied) are the primary culprits for degradation of musical enjoyment.

 

 

There have also been major advances in the equipment and processes used to make CDs, which may explain some of the sonic improvements you hear. For example, bitstream conversion and the 1 bit D/A convertor came along in about 1990, with a great improvement in SQ over the prior generation that used 16 bit conversion. So simply remaking the CD with the newer technology will usually yield better sound from the same master.

Source:

*Aurender N100 (no internal disk : LAN optically isolated via FMC with *LPS) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch - split for *LPS) > Intona Industrial (injected *LPS / internally shielded with copper tape) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > W4S Recovery (*LPS) > DIY 2cm USB adaptor (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > *Auralic VEGA (EXACT : balanced)

 

Control:

*Jeff Rowland CAPRI S2 (balanced)

 

Playback:

2 x Revel B15a subs (balanced) > ATC SCM 50 ASL (balanced - 80Hz HPF from subs)

 

Misc:

*Via Power Inspired AG1500 AC Regenerator

LPS: 3 x Swagman Lab Audiophile Signature Edition (W4S, Intona & FMC)

Storage: QNAP TS-253Pro 2x 3Tb, 8Gb RAM

Cables: DIY heavy gauge solid silver (balanced)

Mains: dedicated distribution board with 5 x 2 socket ring mains, all mains cables: Mark Grant Black Series DSP 2.5 Dual Screen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...