CD mastering a lost art?

I'd argue that there's nothing at all lost in terms of capability or artistry in
mixing / mastering. Nothing. That said, a great deal of software these
days is mixed for very different priorities than absolute fidelity on an
exacting system. In fact, quite the opposite. There's quite a bit of skill and
artistry behind being able to mix a track so that the vocals pop and it
sounds compelling played from a lossey mp3 over the car stereo with all
the windows down going 75mph. Said same track is going to be damn
near unlistenable on a reasonably accurate system with someone looking
for fidelity in the listening chair, however. It's about choices. Can't say I
like many of the choices behind the mass-market stuff these days -- but I
think it would be a mistake to ignore that they are deliberate choices
grounded in perfectly legitimate economic goals. The lowest common
denominator is a bitch if your preferences trend towards the top of the
curve, but it doesn't change the fact that there are various economic
realities (e.g. most common format(s) and installed equipment platforms
among the consuming public) that are driving this bus, not some arcane
lost art. Agreed, the direction the bus is headed stinks, think we're just
quibbling over who is driving....

I prefer original CDs by quite a margin - those made in Japan or West Germany in the period 1982 - 1990.

Most non-specialist mainstream remastered CDs reduce the dynamic range and increase the level which has a bigger downside than the marginal increase in fidelity that comes from better ADCs and techniques in use today.

This is not true for many of the audiophile labels - listen to the Audio Fidelity remaster of "Sweet Baby James" as an example.

I cannot think of any remasters in my collection that I prefer over the original "first pressing".

Regards,

Vegasears and Mezmo have expressed well the informed opinion. Audiophiles most definitely aren't driving this bus or influencing those who are. A few concerned artists have publicly expressed criticisms we can all relate to, but few of these have the clout to do much beyond influencing a limited release of something better, in what typically stands more as a symbolic gesture than as a commercially attractive entity in itself. The Beatles, of course, get their clout from simply having existed.

For more on this, Bob Katz's book, 'Mastering Audio' (2nd ed.), is a worthwhile read even if you aren't involved in a studio environment. You might get another perspective here on 24/96K releases vs. 24/192K that you probably won't get from audiophile sources, just as an example.

There in article over at Stereomojo.com where a recording engineer lays down the sad truth. It seems that most artists want to be the loudest in order to stand out amongst the rest while audiophiles want dynamics to better appreciate the recording. That, and the mediums dominating the market nowadays don't take into consideration the serious listener.

There is no doubt that the technology is available in the here and now and wonderful recordings can be made but it all boils down to the intended audience.

No amount of technology can save a bad recording so one must look for the better ones to fully appreciate this hobby. The results can be very rewarding.

Siding with what Nonoise says, it's my experience that most of my older CD's sound better than my newer... compressed CD's.

Off the "cdbaby" website, I just ordered two CD's by the New Orleans Jazz Vipers that I'm hoping were mastered uncompressed by some esoteric lab. I mention this only because Amazon wanted $41.00 for one of them, but the "cdbaby" website is selling them for $15.95.