"Remastered" Music.

[Silence Dogood]

I listen to lots of older music online.  In fact, online is about the only way I listen to music anymore (via Tidal, a paid streaming service).  I do still have a CD player in my garage that I'll fire up from time to time, but that's rare.  Even then, most times I'll use the Bluetooth feature of the player and hook up my phone to it. 

Anyway... I notice lots of albums being "remastered" online.  The other day I did an experiment and would listen to an original recording, and with it fresh in my ears would go click over to the remastered version.  I couldn't hear any difference on any of the songs.  I mean, zero.  As an example, I did this on some Beach Boys stuff from the early 60s. 

It made me wonder if all this remastering stuff is just to re-sell old music?  Is it legit at all?  Marketing?  Hype?  A last-ditch effort for a dying industry to make money off old music? 

Maybe someone can post some examples via YouTube where the difference can be heard?  Might be a fun and entertaining experiment.  I would actually enjoy hearing the differences, if there are any. 

It all also got me wondering something else: why bother with all this remastering anyway?  I hear talk from vinyl-lovers about the warmth and purity of the old sounds, etc. Why change or upgrade that? 

I'm no genuine audiophile, but I do love the sound of the recordings from the 50s.  I wouldn't want it to sound any different.  Just this week I was listening to lots of Roy Orbison and really loved the way the recordings sounded, not to mention his talent.  Many of the old recordings are so crisp with none of the modern compression sounds, etc.  It just sounds "clear" to me. 

Anyway, maybe I'm missing something in all this?  Thoughts?

[William2]

This is interesting. I think I have some recordings on CD and some of the same recordings on CD that have been remastered. I'll have to see if I can hear any difference. I wonder how much speakers affect the sound. I came across this recording the other day of a recording where the guy is playing the CD through baffle speakers and recording the results. I wish he had compared the baffle speakers to something else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx0A5j2Ziq4

[B0WIE]

 This is a good subject. Remasters are very involved and completely transform a recording. Remasters also do nothing. Figuring out which remasters fall into which category is the trick.

 I went down this rabbit hole a few years ago and got a lot of different "HD" remasters from various musicians. Joni, Waylon, some Jazz, and the ultimate audio test; Steely Dan. I was baffled how we could have Toni Visconti remastering some David Bowie albums, completely transforming them, and unnamed people "remastering" others by just opening up the sample rate to 96k without actually touching anything in terms of processing. Yet, both are the same price. This is a common issue with HD music and remasters in general, be they HD or not. Some will be actually RE-mastered, meaning a completed mix gets final EQ, compression, etc as a 2-track. The reason this is meaningful is that many older digital transfers were done on early analog-to-digital converters, and often done without much finesse. If you listen to early Police CDs they sound strangely thin. The remasters are fuller and sound (mostly) the way the songs were intended to sound by the original engineers.

 I contacted HD Tracks, one of the biggest vendors of such music, and they advised that they try to only carry quality transfers, but that not all are going to be of the same quality because there is no standard for re-mastering. Personally speaking, I recommend looking up who was involved. If you see some big industry names, it may be worthwhile. If there is no attention drawn to who re-mastered it, it may just be a re-master in name only (or just dithered). Also, don't expect to hear big differences on YouTube. YouTube audio is often pretty bad even though the video side keeps improving. Also, bluetooth is not a consistent format in terms of quality. Some bluetooth is excellent, some is very low grade. Also, the converters in bluetooth headphones can sometimes be pretty miserable, ruining even a good bluetooth signal.

When listening for what makes something remastered, here are some of the biggest clues;
-Bigger bass
-Compression (low-level details come forward, loud parts are less impactful)
-High frequencies that are less sizzly and more "airy"

 One of the most outstanding remasters I've heard is actually the somewhat old "Frank Sinatra, His Greatest Performances 1953-1960" CD. The horns are bright but never harsh. Strings are silky. When the music fades, you still hear all the little details. Gorgeous remaster that allows the music to emotionally hit you in a way that the early digital transfers just don't. It's not even HD, just a really well-mastered CD that slays some of the HD Sinatra I have.

Unfortunately, many remasters that are done by reputable engineers have been mastered for the "loudness wars" so they are over-compressed, and the bass and treble are unnaturally boosted for modern tastes, losing the vibe of the original. In these cases I actually prefer a thin, early digital transfer that has more dynamic range, and bass that isn't pumping hard.

[Silence Dogood]

This is a good subject. Remasters are very involved and completely transform a recording. Remasters also do nothing. Figuring out which remasters fall into which category is the trick.

 I went down this rabbit hole a few years ago and got a lot of different "HD" remasters from various musicians. Joni, Waylon, some Jazz, and the ultimate audio test; Steely Dan. I was baffled how we could have Toni Visconti remastering some David Bowie albums, completely transforming them, and unnamed people "remastering" others by just opening up the sample rate to 96k without actually touching anything in terms of processing. Yet, both are the same price. This is a common issue with HD music and remasters in general, be they HD or not. Some will be actually RE-mastered, meaning a completed mix gets final EQ, compression, etc as a 2-track. The reason this is meaningful is that many older digital transfers were done on early analog-to-digital converters, and often done without much finesse. If you listen to early Police CDs they sound strangely thin. The remasters are fuller and sound (mostly) the way the songs were intended to sound by the original engineers.

 I contacted HD Tracks, one of the biggest vendors of such music, and they advised that they try to only carry quality transfers, but that not all are going to be of the same quality because there is no standard for re-mastering. Personally speaking, I recommend looking up who was involved. If you see some big industry names, it may be worthwhile. If there is no attention drawn to who re-mastered it, it may just be a re-master in name only (or just dithered). Also, don't expect to hear big differences on YouTube. YouTube audio is often pretty bad even though the video side keeps improving. Also, bluetooth is not a consistent format in terms of quality. Some bluetooth is excellent, some is very low grade. Also, the converters in bluetooth headphones can sometimes be pretty miserable, ruining even a good bluetooth signal.

When listening for what makes something remastered, here are some of the biggest clues;
-Bigger bass
-Compression (low-level details come forward, loud parts are less impactful)
-High frequencies that are less sizzly and more "airy"

 One of the most outstanding remasters I've heard is actually the somewhat old "Frank Sinatra, His Greatest Performances 1953-1960" CD. The horns are bright but never harsh. Strings are silky. When the music fades, you still hear all the little details. Gorgeous remaster that allows the music to emotionally hit you in a way that the early digital transfers just don't. It's not even HD, just a really well-mastered CD that slays some of the HD Sinatra I have.

Unfortunately, many remasters that are done by reputable engineers have been mastered for the "loudness wars" so they are over-compressed, and the bass and treble are unnaturally boosted for modern tastes, losing the vibe of the original. In these cases I actually prefer a thin, early digital transfer that has more dynamic range, and bass that isn't pumping hard.

Wow, that's some pretty amazing insight!  I had no idea this topic was so involved and complex.  I listen to music on Tidal (like Spotify) and will keep my ears peeled for some of these things in the future. I'm not sure I've seen credits for who remixed/remastered but I'll start paying attn to that.

The example that got me thinking of all this was the Surfer Girl album by the Beach Boys.  I was going back and forth from the "original" to the "remastered" and could literally hear zero difference.  It seems like I also did this a while back with some Whitensnake stuff I was listening to when an 80s phase grabbed me.  I just wasn't hearing what the big deal was. 

For a while now I've been more interested in the way music was/is recorded and would like to learn more.  Maybe a lot of this comes down to where the music was recorded, by whom, etc.  I know there are serious nuances with producers and engineers.   For example, I'm a big Jeff Lynne fan and over the years have been able to spot his sound when he was producer.  It's easy to spot on the Petty albums he produced.  Not long ago I was listening to a song by George Harrison when my ear latched onto that dreamy "thing" Lynne does, and sure enough when I looked up the credits, he was producer.  Same thing happened this week when I was listening to Roy Orbison: it was easy to tell which tracks were produced by Lynne since they all have that swirling, dreamy soundscape and those cascading notes he is known for. 

Speaking of Roy, his old recordings in particular sound just fantastic.  Maybe there was some kind of magic in the old Sun Studio.  Wasn't that Sam Phillips himself running the sessions and working the equipment?  It all sounds so clear, clean, and crisp, like you are actually in the room with them.  It's actually quite amazing to think that stuff was happening around 70 years ago and it sounds better than most of what came after it.  It must be a combination of things: the old mics, cables, the room itself, the TAPE, the controls, and most of all, the man running them.  It's all quite fascinating and something I'd like to learn more about.  I'm going to see if there are any good books or documentaries about this.  You've given me a lot to think about. 

[Queequeg]

Growing up with popular music of the 1960s, I listened to a lot of Beatles of course. This coincided with the advent of stereophonic recordings offered in popular music. The first Beatles albums released in stereo were far inferior to the same records in mono. Terrible stereo mixes. Fortunately we had a choice until around 1970 when mono recordings were discontinued and by then studios had "worked the bugs out" with stereo.
So the remastered releases in stereo of these '60s vintage pop music are most welcome.

Conversely, one of my top favorite recordings is David Grisman's exquisite 1977 release, 'The David Grisman Quintet' which was remastered years later for compact disc, and it pales in comparison to the original, with some lovely solos pushed back in the mix.

[jazzereh]

Bowie's response gives lots of great info about remastering.  It really does matter who does it and where the remastering comes from in terms of original recordings.  If the original was done well and those tapes [going that far back] are used, remastered music can make a big difference. 

But, two things.  If your ears are as old as mine are now, you may not get the full benefit of the remastered sound.  And, it depends through what speakers you are listening. 

If you listen mostly on a phone or laptop kind of device, you will not benefit from the new sound. I'm not an audiophile by any means but I have very good quality studio monitors for my desk top computer and for CDs and LPs, a 'decent' stereo system as well.  On good remasters I do hear a real difference. 

However, for me, if I have the original recording that is of good quality, for the most part I don't bother with remasters.  In part 'cause I've already paid for a good recording and some remasters are priced ridiculously high.  I have digitized many items in my music library so I can listen while working on my computer [as now] and I digitize at high rates.

Nice topic Silence, thanks.

[skyline]

technically "Mastering" is the final stage of album production where the track order is chosen, tracks are EQ'd,
 Levelled, Limited, and Compressed so they match each other well, and so they play back optimally on which-ever medium they are/were headed for.

Sometimes a "re-master" is just to change output bit rate (moving to a higher quality of compression) or optimizing for a different formats as Bowie said.

Some modern re-masters actually go deeper - back to the mix stage. For instance Steven Wilson (Porcupine Tree) has "Re-mastered" dozens of Progressive Rock classics and goes as deep as using alternate takes of various tracks, or re-mixing tracks that were very low so they can be heard more clearly. It can be a bit jarring but with his work - it is generally at least interesting.

Steven Wilson: Remixing Classic Albums - Sound On Sound

[Gill]

A guitar friend of mine has an amazing collection of vinyl,he started out amassing LP's back in the early 60's,everything from Beatles,Beach Boys,Johnny Cash, Elvis,Stevie Wonder.the list is long,hundreds of Albums,all preserved in meticulous condition,though how he managed that,is a mystery,as he moved around the country so many times,it's a treat to listen to some of it when I visit,played through his Bose sound system.