Remastered albums - not as good?
Discussion
Having picked up Pearl Jam’s “Ten – Legacy Edition” for a frankly ridiculous £4 last week, I’ve been listening and comparing the remastered version to the original. For the unfamiliar, there are two discs – the first is remastered, the second is remixed.
I’m not sure if this is the same with other remastered CDs, but it just doesn’t sound quite right. Sure, it’s brighter, and more amplified (Vedder’s mumbles are clearer, for example) and some of the slightly muddy guitar work is a lot cleaner.
It just doesn’t seem right. As a teenager of the grunge era I feel like it’s been artificially altered away from what I grew up listening too. Is it just that grunge was supposed to be lazy and muddy, or are these things best left alone?
I read recently that the Foo Fighters have gone back to recording in Grohl's garage, and even Oasis' first albums appeal is from its gritty production. I’ve noticed that soe of Mudhoney’s albums have been remastered, but I’m not sure I want to waste money on a superior product.
Am I alone on this?
I’m not sure if this is the same with other remastered CDs, but it just doesn’t sound quite right. Sure, it’s brighter, and more amplified (Vedder’s mumbles are clearer, for example) and some of the slightly muddy guitar work is a lot cleaner.
It just doesn’t seem right. As a teenager of the grunge era I feel like it’s been artificially altered away from what I grew up listening too. Is it just that grunge was supposed to be lazy and muddy, or are these things best left alone?
I read recently that the Foo Fighters have gone back to recording in Grohl's garage, and even Oasis' first albums appeal is from its gritty production. I’ve noticed that soe of Mudhoney’s albums have been remastered, but I’m not sure I want to waste money on a superior product.
Am I alone on this?
Hiya Podie! 
No, you're not alone. I'm not keen on remasters at all, especially of pre-CD stuff that was originally released on vinyl.
The remasters I've heard tend to be heavy on the dynamic compression and favour loudness over sound quality. There's an interesting article on the "loudness war" on Wikipedia, if you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
But many remasters also use lots of noise reduction (Jon Astley, step forward!), which also has a detrimental effect on sound quality.
Personally, I only listen to CD (and iPod, obviously) for convenience. For "proper" listening, I always use vinyl. Sad but true.
No, you're not alone. I'm not keen on remasters at all, especially of pre-CD stuff that was originally released on vinyl.
The remasters I've heard tend to be heavy on the dynamic compression and favour loudness over sound quality. There's an interesting article on the "loudness war" on Wikipedia, if you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
But many remasters also use lots of noise reduction (Jon Astley, step forward!), which also has a detrimental effect on sound quality.
Personally, I only listen to CD (and iPod, obviously) for convenience. For "proper" listening, I always use vinyl. Sad but true.
Yup, loudness sucks. If you do a bit of recording, you'll have seen the waveform of a song tends to have quiet bits and loud bits. If it's been mastered "properly" for popular radio, the waveform will appear to be a solid black bar roughly .5dB less than the volume that will cause it to clip. It completely kills the dynamics of any songs.
As an example, tune to Radio 2, listen to how loud that is, and then flick to Radio 3.
As an example, tune to Radio 2, listen to how loud that is, and then flick to Radio 3.
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff