Author Topic: Remastered.What does this mean exactly and why not done right the first time?  (Read 9971 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JTBaby

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,286
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'll put a 320 mp3 up against a .wav any day and dare you to hear a difference.

I'll take that bet and win every time

As long as I'm playing on my stereo system and not on mp3 player or laptop speakers or some other crap

Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22,131
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Do you need the original source tape to remaster a record?

The Boy, October, and War remasters are louder than TJT and TUF remasters.

Offline Mercurial

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 550
Some very good answers here.

I always saw it like this....

The original recording was obviously mastered and mixed using the equipment available at the time. Going back to the original recording, it is remastered and possibly remixed using modern day equipment. The overall effect is that the remaster sounds louder, cleaner and not as muffled. You have to figure that 20+ years of technology should help right? Sometimes.

Ever play song from a ripped CD from the 80's on your iPod versus a newer one? Sometimes I have to crank the volume considerably just to hear it, if I switch albums, I have to lower it or blow out the windows.

I remember thinking that UF was incredibly dull sounding (not the music, but audio quality) and almost muffled. The remix of UF definitely made it louder and more distinct. Compare that to newer albums, like NLOTH and you can hear a difference, especially in Larry's playing and other little production flourishes that get put in.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 01:44:43 PM by Mercurial »

Offline Thunder Peel

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,549
Vinyl definitely sounds the best and it's a warmer and more intimate sound. I still prefer to buy CDs simply because they sound better than MP3s but I listen to my iPod quite a bit simply because it's convenient. I'm a bit of an audiophile and although my stereo is nothing fancy I can hear a major difference between older albums and their remasters.

I agree that the loudness war is destroying modern music. I love the music of bands like The Flaming Lips, MGMT, and Keane but their latest records have been compressed WAY too hot and it pains my ears even on the lowest volume. I really appreciate the way that U2 has handled their remasters; they sound clearer and crisper without sacrificing dynamic range.


  • Guest
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't know, my original Joshua Tree cassette still sounds great on the $2 Uber Plastic Walkman I got at the thrift store in spite of all the technical shortcomings listed... 

That's because sound is relative.


  • Guest
I have felt pretty let down by all the u2 remasters i have (ie: them all) This going to use my spectrum analyser to compare the different frequencies on like for like tracks on the orginal cd vs remastered. I was expecting vibrant and alive recordings (as i have always felt u2 recordings, when compared to others around at the same time, are rather two dimensional and flat sounding). I expect any differences to be minimal when i get round to experimenting