The term "remastered" has become something of a marketing phrase similar to "director's cut". In most cases it means as close to an original master tape or file has been sourced and then possibly EQ'd, leveled and channel balanced. If there are previously unreleased tracks, then they may be "polished" to make them sound like the other finished tracks. Another important element of mastering, especially for vinyl releases, is track sequencing. How do you fit approximately equal amounts of playing time on each vinyl side? This can also be part of the remastering effort. Comparative listening is the only real way to tell what's been done. You can also contact the record company because they may provide you info on each release.
The meaning of “Remastered”
A lot of music I already have is being re-released and “remastered”. Some of those contain new tunes or printed material and I might buy (again) just to have that. Otherwise, what’s the value of a new master? I remember direct to disc vinyl was said to be limited to 10,000 copies because the “master” from which copies were pressed, wore out. Tape masters would have physically limited lifespans, too. But in the age of digital music, what is a remaster? I suppose a new release could have been “re-mixed” or “re-normalized”, so there may be real sonic differences which may or may not be an improvement. Does the use of the term mean there is some actual audible voodoo by an engineer rather than just procreation of an existing audio file?
- ...
- 16 posts total
Digital recording and digital editing are incredibly easy and cheap compared to the ’old way’. This is why it is so popular. Sure you get the usual spin about ’sound quality’ but cheap and easy are the cornerstone benefits. Producing a good quality (quit your quibbling, it’s a relative term!) digital recording is easy, so easy in fact the only thing easier is producing a bad digital recording! Digital editing is so cheap that except for your time it’s basically free. This is what is going on with so many of the reissues. Find some version of the analog originals hopefully the multi-track masters not the two-track ’masters’, digitize it then re-mix, edit, EQ re-order to your hearts content. Many believe that a simple A/D -- D/A guarantees a superior product and $1 bins are full of those. Fortunately there also exists a group who actually do what onhwy61 thinks ’most’ of them do and get as close to the original multi-tracks as possible and re-master them. Lots of objective fixes like channel balance, bandwidth roll-off corrections etc. Many of the changes are of the subjective or ’taste’ variety. Bring the drums and bass up a little during a guitar solo or position backup vocals around the vocalist instead of off to one side. Always the hope for the buyer is greater clarity and range, less hiss and noise more ’immediacy’ etc., some do a great job others make you wonder what they were thinking. Long winded answer to you question I know so to summarize; yes, the terms get thrown around like confetti so the meaning is kind of fluid. Information on how each was done is out there for the significant reissues with lots of clues as to the potential for success in each case. How successful they have been is up to your own ears. Check reviewers you trust but be aware of each’s biases. I have tried in several forums to get record buyers to talk about their experience with new re-issues focused on the physical record. I have owned or heard many super audiophile reissues that had incredible sound but very quickly (1 play sometimes) develop clicks or pops that are startling in an otherwise black soundscape. Some look so good you just know the sound will be a knock out then you learn the groves sound like a chain hanging off the back of a pickup truck on a gravel road. Any takers here? |
russashe ... I have owned or heard many super audiophile reissues that had incredible sound but very quickly (1 play sometimes) develop clicks or pops that are startling in an otherwise black soundscape ...Something is badly amiss if that happens. It could be dirt on the record, a defective stylus or improper setup. |
@cleeds Could be a lot of things and one of the things it could be is problems with vinyl formulations another could be a shortfall in the manufacturing. With the huge majority of records lasting and sounding well for ages the few that don't wouldn't make me jump to setup as the first cause. I could be wrong. Mostly thanks for commenting, you are the first in 10 years on numerous forums to do so. No even a "no all good here" response. |
- 16 posts total