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

[semente]

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.

 

This is an interesting question.

If the original recording was made with a 16bit A/D converter is it possible that a HighRes remaster of that recording will sound better when downrezed to Redbook when compared to the original CD edition?

My guess is that one would get better results with EQ and editing at higher resolutions and that more modern equipment will produce less artifacts.

I wonder if there are any other technical reasons...

 

R

[sandyk]

This is an interesting question.

If the original recording was made with a 16bit A/D converter is it possible that a HighRes remaster of that recording will sound better when downrezed to Redbook when compared to the original CD edition?

My guess is that one would get better results with EQ and editing at higher resolutions and that more modern equipment will produce less artifacts.

I wonder if there are any other technical reasons...

 

R

 

At least one company believes so. I have a couple of their CDs that sound fine, but I haven't heard the original versions to compare them

Alex.

 

CDHut Online Singapore

[sandyk]

I managed to find the original CD recording and the new processed version. The original was from "Jheena Lodwick-Feelings Vol.2" and the up and down converted track from "Best Audiophile Voices-Vol.2"

No prizes for guessing which version is which, so it's much harder to decide if the remastering was worth it or not. Personally, as is usually the case, I prefer the original version.

 

Alex

 

[Solstice380]

There have also been major advances in the equipment and processes used to make CDs

 

I'm familiar with the improvements that this aspect can make. I have a couple titles in both standard CD and Blu-spec CD from Japan that used the same "ready for transfer" digital master. (The Japanese are pretty good about providing provenance of their issues.) the Blu-spec is noticeably better!

 

The Blu-spec uses Blu-ray tech/equipment to form the pits on the "mother master" which is used to make the stampers for making the actual CDs. The pits are more precisely formed and the spiral is more precisely aligned. That makes it easier for the player to read them so the player doesn't make as much electrical noise. It's like the REGEN and some other USB signal "improvers" make a DAC sound better by reducing the work the receiver circuits have to do. Then manufacturing process is tightly controlled so the final product is as "perfect" as possible. Add in SHM (super high material) with better and more consistent optical properties and you have the package. Oh yeah, they have even issued CDs and SACDs with platinum instead of aluminum and gold reflective layer and use a blue backing layer with minimal printing for read consistency.

[semente]

I used to have my CD player placed on a turntable wall shelf and could easily hear when the mechanism was having a hard time reading a particular(ly bad) CD; I assume this was due to the stamping quality because all my CDs are clean and scratch-free...

 

R

[sandyk]

I'm familiar with the improvements that this aspect can make. I have a couple titles in both standard CD and Blu-spec CD from Japan that used the same "ready for transfer" digital master. (The Japanese are pretty good about providing provenance of their issues.) the Blu-spec is noticeably better!

 

Agreed.

I have 3 BluSpec CD comparison albums which contain both the standard version and the BluSpec version using an improved polymer formula.

The BluSpec versions do sound better, despite both having IDENTICAL binary content.

 

Alex

[semente]

Agreed.

I have 3 BluSpec CD comparison albums which contain both the standard version and the BluSpec version using an improved polymer formula.

The BluSpec versions do sound better, despite both having IDENTICAL binary content.

 

Alex

 

What do you mean: that the BluSpec CD sounds better than the normal CD, or are you talking about the ripped files?

 

R

[Solstice380]

Not to speak for Alex, but I think he means the physical CD. The improvement is in the medium not the data.

 

Jay

[sandyk]

Not to speak for Alex, but I think he means the physical CD. The improvement is in the medium not the data.

 

Jay

 

Jay

Sorry to disappoint you, but although direct play reveals quite obvious differences, the differences are still there, but to a much lesser extent after being ripped to HDD/SSD again, even though the .md5 checksums remain the same. This issue has been done to death in this forum already, so I won't be discussing it further in open forum.

However, a comparison CD (1 track is from Bob Dylan on a BluSpec Comparison CD) is presently on route to the USA for ONLY those who have a better than average CD player and system to try for themselves if interested. esldude will be handling distribution in the U.S.A. This CD (there are 3 copies) contains pairs of tracks with identical check sums that sound different to myself and friends in Sydney. We are able to identify which version is which under non sighted conditions, but our systems are well above average.

Alex

 

[Solstice380]

Thanks for clarifying that, Alex!

 

I've followed the threads on the audible differences between ripping, file type, power supplies for drive (my ripper drive has a LPS) and would be interested in hearing the test tracks. Does my system qualify (see sig) ? If so, should I contact esldude directly to get on the list? (Oh no, what if I don't qualify? I'll be crushed! LOL just poking fun, I've heard differences in my own testing.)

[Solstice380]

Oh, listening room is important too!

[sandyk]

Thanks for clarifying that, Alex!

 

I've followed the threads on the audible differences between ripping, file type, power supplies for drive (my ripper drive has a LPS) and would be interested in hearing the test tracks. Does my system qualify (see sig) ? If so, should I contact esldude directly to get on the list? (Oh no, what if I don't qualify? I'll be crushed! LOL just poking fun, I've heard differences in my own testing.)

 

I am leaving that side to Dennis. Please send Dennis a PM if you are interested.

For most people with very good systems, the Classical track will be the most obvious initially.

I have also sent Dennis a few suggestions on some of the differences to listen for without any indications as to which version is which. The order varies through the CD so there is no give away information as to which version is which.

Actually, you shouldn't need to choose the better version. You should be able to repeatedly select under non sighted conditions the version that you prefer.

Alex

[PopPop]

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

 

Quoted for the truth.

[17629]

Quoted for the truth.

 

 

No argument there. Unless the original recording really needs to be fixed in some way, I almost never prefer a remaster. They sound like someone fooled with them, for lack of a better term. Personally, I'd rather live with a higher noise floor (within reason), of an otherwise well done analog recording, than a remaster. The music just never sounds natural.

[PopPop]

I am almost always disappointed when I buy a recent release of an oldie/goldie vinyl or a CD. In all fairness to the engineers, it may simply be my problem and not their failure. If something doesn't sound like I remember, I have no emotional connection to it and it will wind up on a shelf at the thrift store. First world problem

[RunHomeSlow]

Some are good some are bad... most everything done in the 2000-2016 in rock music are compressed and Dynamic Range reduced to altered badly knowned recordings... you can't do anything with that was recorded new in for those years, but remasters of old stuff in those years, usually s**ks. It's funny because at first you can think that they are sounding more clear and bigger punch... but when you reallly listen... they are all at the same levels.... loud is louder, low is loud... made for new kids who listen with cheap ear plugs... not for good sound system...

[Keyser Söze]

I tend to avoid remasters unless I can find favorable reviews regarding the sound quality. Most tend to be brickwalled sonic disasters.

 

But more often than not, remastering is supposed to be about getting a better transfer from the source.

[Rainer]

Something almost never remarked on when it comes to "remasters";

 

Older, analogue 2-track [ETA >>or mono] masters (particularly if they're generational copies) will typically have tape-noise at -60dB or higher.

 

If they were simply compressed to give "modern" RMS levels, that noise floor could end up being raised to levels similar to cassette (without Dolby, at that).

 

Hence they first have to be aggressively 'de-noised'.

 

The DSP's used to accomplish this have doubtlessly improved since early ones (like the first Sonic No Noise), but they're still VERY destructive, sucking the 'life' out of recordings by removing ambience/acoustics cues and delicate harmonics along with the hiss [ETA >> hence what's often described as a "sterile" sound].

 

If de-noising wasn't used so profligately, many such compressed re-masters would sound a LOT better, despite the tape noise, but as often as not the operators seem to want to make them sound as quiet as digital, which probably requires well over 20dB of attenuation.

[sandyk]

Older, analogue 2-track [ETA >>or mono] masters (particularly if they're generational copies) will typically have tape-noise at -60dB or higher.

 

With some recordings you can actually see remnants of the Tape Bias signature in a sound editor.

[Rainer]

With some recordings you can actually see remnants of the Tape Bias signature in a sound editor.

 

I've noticed that - seen it some 'needle-drops' I've done, but even more clearly in some hi-res digital transfers. It's even being used by Plangent Systems as a datum to de-wow/flutter recordings - fascinating stuff.

 

But heavy-handed use of de-noising within the audio-band is the issue with many remasters. When I said "20 dB or more", that's probably a conservative guess. OK, so the "pumping" that used to be so obvious is a thing of the past, but in the end such use of DSP's is only ever going to be destructive, in every sense of the word.

[Rainer]

I've noticed that - seen it some 'needle-drops' I've done, but even more clearly in some hi-res digital transfers. It's even being used by Plangent Systems as a datum to de-wow/flutter recordings - fascinating stuff.

 

 

Sorry, the company is actually called Plangent Processes, for anyone wanting to search for info.

[gmgraves]

Something almost never remarked on when it comes to "remasters";

 

Older, analogue 2-track [ETA >>or mono] masters (particularly if they're generational copies) will typically have tape-noise at -60dB or higher.

 

If they were simply compressed to give "modern" RMS levels, that noise floor could end up being raised to levels similar to cassette (without Dolby, at that).

 

Hence they first have to be aggressively 'de-noised'.

 

The DSP's used to accomplish this have doubtlessly improved since early ones (like the first Sonic No Noise), but they're still VERY destructive, sucking the 'life' out of recordings by removing ambience/acoustics cues and delicate harmonics along with the hiss [ETA >> hence what's often described as a "sterile" sound].

 

If de-noising wasn't used so profligately, many such compressed re-masters would sound a LOT better, despite the tape noise, but as often as not the operators seem to want to make them sound as quiet as digital, which probably requires well over 20dB of attenuation.

 

Yes, today's auto-correlaters are much better than the early ones. Most of the time you can't tell one was even used, and essentially all digital re-issues of analog recordings from the 50's, 60's and 70's have been run through a de-hissing algorithm. Just compare almost any digital reissue from RCA, Mercury, Riverside, etc. with the LP of the same performance to hear how much less tape-hiss is on the digital than is on the vinyl. In fact, even vinyl re-masters of these older titles have been cleaned-up with digital auto-correlation.

[wkhanna]

remasters were invented many years ago by the labels and helped by one of their other "gifts", the digital format, in another of their charlatan style efforts to extract your hard-earned $ from your wallet by incising you to re-purchase music you already own.

 

many in my experiance are poorly engineered & sound like crap.

 

these days, not too much has changed, but there are some who are engineering 'better' sounding music.

[r_w]

Well put, reflects my experience of the industry 100%.

 

Some are done for the right reason and are better, most however are done as a cynical reselling exercise and are very poorly mastered (in terms of musical enjoyment) compared to the originals.

 

 

remasters were invented many years ago by the labels and helped by one of their other "gifts", the digital format, in another of their charlatan style efforts to extract your hard-earned $ from your wallet by incising you to re-purchase music you already own.

 

many in my experiance are poorly engineered & sound like crap.

 

these days, not too much has changed, but there are some who are engineering 'better' sounding music.

[rrwwss52]

remasters were invented many years ago by the labels and helped by one of their other "gifts", the digital format, in another of their charlatan style efforts to extract your hard-earned $ from your wallet by incising you to re-purchase music you already own.

 

many in my experiance are poorly engineered & sound like crap.

 

these days, not too much has changed, but there are some who are engineering 'better' sounding music.

 

It really varies, but bad results can happen even with expensive remasters. Audio Fidelity has put out a couple of duds on gold CD. I've had good luck with Japan SHMs and blu-spec.