Why is most everything remastered?

It's becoming more and more difficult to find what sound signature was originally meant by the artist. I have examples that sound terrible after remastering. I understand why it has to be this way, If and only it improves the original, if not... leave it alone!


had to go box searching for some megadeth Japanese cds and scorpions on mercury, not remastered.

they sound so much better.


 not a fan of this remixing, changing time, adding?removing riffs, a fill added or taken away. LEAVE THE DAMN MUSIC ALONE !!!!!!


I just love reading all the pre release publicity on a lot of these remasters telling us how the originals have been enhanced in so many ways, followed by the gushing reviews from the you know who neophytes,  It‘s just one big publicity machine in action getting us to buy something twice.

Do remasters count as a new work ?

Could be a way for record companies to extend copyright.



My experience has been extremely varied-- some remasters sound better to me and some sound worse. I made the mistake of buying the version of Layla most favored on the Steve Hoffman site (a Japanese SHM) and found it unlistenably bright. My system was quite warm and I failed to comprehend why the Hoffmanites liked it so much, given its (for me) fatiguing sonics. On the other hand, my Japanese DSD mastering of Blow By Blow sounds fuller and warmer than the generic domestic version. I prefer the Virgin remasters of Sticky Fingers. Let It Bleed and Exile On Main Street as well. These are just a few examples. 

Everyone hears differently but my experience has definitely not been that all remasters have consistent sonics. Unfortunately, some albums were simply not well recorded to begin with. 









Do remasters count as a new work ?

Could be a way for record companies to extend copyright.

Record labels do get a new copyright on a remaster.