Why do I keep torturing myself with remasters?

dgarretson: I think you'll be hard-pressed to make any meaningful distinctions without very specific information about the particular copies involved. A "reissue" could mean a remaster, but leaving that aside, it also includes different lacquers, pressing plants, vinyl formulations, apart from different source material -tape copies- depending on the country of origin and the country of pressing. And country of origin- band or mastering? I have records with precisely the same information in the deadwax that I know are earlier and sound better than later copies (within the same year) but that is not always the case. At the extreme, this takes you down the path of copy to copy variations, but without going that far into the weeds, is a certain lacquer number better than another even though cut at the same time- which leads to pressing plant variations. I know of no holistic way to do this on a general rule basis. There are "known" good cuts for specific rock records that are pretty easy to find with a search where there is some consensus on the sound. Otherwise, you are left with doing it yourself or relying on reviews. One last example in this vein- the early Sabbath on UK Vertigo is not only entirely different than the US pressings, but even when the same metal parts were used for later pressings when Sabbath changed labels from Vertigo to WWA, the WWAs- while bargains and "good" don't have the same immediacy as the Vertigos. On the other hand, my Neil Young "After the Gold Rush" is an RE-1. As I understand it, that's a re-cut, but it is a very early copy and usually the one I prefer. I could go on, but you get the point.....

Bitches Brew by Miles Davis reissue from Mo-Fi is no good. I have original American 2 eye Columbia and original Japanese. You can't compare. Besides, vinyl itself looks like it's hundred years old.
Comparing original American and Japanese, Japanese is quieter and more refined, American is somewhat more raw. Overall dynamics is about equal. I like them both, they just sound a little different.

I was born in 1960, so I was buying records when I was a kid. The whole industry has changed so much over time! I had 45s just to hear your favorites; gave you the essence of the song. The "HiFi" industry was growing and getting better too. Quality control was very much a problem then? Mastering, Pressing, Virgin/recyle vinyl all of that was very subjective? I loved Japanese imports starting about 1980. I loved the Original Master MFSL pressing mid to late 70s. I love the Brand new Beatles Mono "Remaster" same as New "Pet Sounds" 200 gram stereo. IMHO; Early on, I believe that the original mix was to have LP records sound good. When CDs came out they were "Remastered" for CDs to sound good?? Now you have two schools of "Remastering". Different tools, different ears and different accountants are all involved with "Remastering" now? I try everything and make my own evaluations. I have spent a lot of time, effort and money in finding THE record I want to keep for my personal collection. Forums like this are helpful. There just seems to be no set standard to insure you get a record that is truly great? That has always been the Record seeking problem; in my quest for vinyl bliss in the sweet spot on my couch.

Two best remasters on cd that I heard were original MFSL 'Inner Mounting Flame' by Mahavishnu Orchestra and JVC XRCD Getz/Gilberto. I am sure there are many more especially Japanese. That MFSL is in fact the most analog-like sounding cd I ever heard, actually better in most aspects than original American LP pressed on recycled vinyl. If they could manage one recording, most or all recordings could be managed as well. And I am quite certain there are still people in the know who know how to do it. But almost everything is mass-market now, often even so-called high end. Who wants to go extra mile let alone two?