Streaming: Remastered vs. General/Original recordings…

Was updating some of my Spotify Playlists at the weekend and noticed a small difference between general/original recordings vs. remastered. These were the tracks I specifically noted:

The Doors
Riders on the Storm (1971 Album “L.A. Woman” vs. 2021 Album “L.A. Woman [50th Anniversary Deluxe Edition]”)

Pink Floyd
Wish You Were Here (1981 Album “A Collection of Great Dance songs” vs. 2011 Album “Wish You Were Here [Remastered Version]”)

George Harrison
My Sweet Lord (2018 Album “Eric Clapton: Life in 12 bars [Original Motion Picture Soundtrack]” vs. 2014 Album “All Things Must Pass [Remastered 2014]”)

To my ears, in my system/room, the general/original recordings sounded “better” than the newer remastered versions which I wasn’t expecting. Slightly more dynamic/analogue sounding. Might simply be the tracks I chose but was wondering if anyone else had examples of streaming general/original tracks sounding better than remastered versions. The great thing about streaming is you can compare back-to-back very quickly from your armchair!

(P.S. Streaming using Spotify via Bluesound NODE 2i)

 

I agree. Have a look at dr.loudness-war.info/

 

Interesting website...

 

Not surprised the original sounds better. Remastering can't add any information that wasn't in the original it can only mess with it.

 

Well perhaps. If the original mastering 'messed with' what is on the original, then remastering to undo that, is a good thing, surely?

 

I guess it is possible if there is actually an original recording to revert to. However I wonder if that is usually the case or if "remastering" is just marketing spin and the process starts with the first master.

 

To me re mastering means add lots of compression typically, ie ruin it

 

Yes, no further information. However, my experience of re-mastered releases of reasonably recent vintage classical music recordings (e.g., 1950s-1960s opera) is that sensitive modern re-mastering techniques can remove annoying defects from the time without introducing too much of their own signature; and can reveal remarkable elements hidden in the original recording.

I have, however, heard recent re-masters of 1950s classical music that IMHO go too far and either introduce their own signature or reveal defects that might better be left submerged within a benign noise floor.

But in non-classical music the DR database reveals a lot of level compression that to my ears is highly undesirable. So, IMHO it depends. You have to pick your sources carefully.

 

I basically stopped listening to new “pop” music with the advent of Oasis and Blur in the 1990s. Probably not because I was getting older, but because that was when compression really seemed to kick in. Their songs sounded better on a cheap radio than they did on my hi-fi. Just a wonder wall of sound with no dynamics.

The problem with streaming on (say) Qobuz is that you only seem to get the latest remaster and not the original. Recordings which sounded good in the 1970s are remixed into a wall of noise. The band Genesis is one example of this. However, some remasters can be better e.g. Jethro Tull, but that’s just a matter of luck. Classical music was never subjected to compression fortunately, though some can be e.g. the Philip Glass Ensemble. Streaming companies I would guess have no say in the matter.

When I’ve demonstrated this to people, if they care I may hear “I prefer the remix, because I can hear the background instruments better” i.e. everything has been brought up to the same level.

So there’s no pleasing everyone, especially me.

 

If you are only using Spotify then you're maxing out at 320 kbps so I don't think there's necessarily much relevance to full hd quality

 

My understanding is that the record companies are releasing pseudo masters to the steaming services to ensure their market segregation when they charge high premiums for hard copies

 

As in a guy down the pub told you, or the MD of Sony/Columbia told Bob Dylan and he told you ?

.sjb

 

Quite.

 

Agreed.
In the past I’d simply assumed remastered versions would always sound better and added them to Playlists without checking the difference. As you say, obviously pays to pick your sources carefully. Thank you.

 

Basically agree with you. But. In the 1960's Barry Gordy of Motown listened to every record (at least the singles) before release via a cheap transistor radio. That was what the buyers had. So, we are back to that sad state...

 

No not quite, check out the Tidal controvacy.

 

Remastering can't technically add anything but it can improve EQ balance. If there is no point in remastering then there's also no point in mastering at all.

 

I have heard better and worse remasters.

An historic album that was a part of my childhood was Nancy and Lee by Nancy Sinatra and Lee Hazelwood. I bought the CD, which was poor. The new HiRes version which became available on Qobuz a year or so ago is better .....BUT, my parents very old, much mis-used LP is just SOOOOO much better, despite the surface noise.

 

I agree with you. Most chart music these days is just 'brickwalled' no dynamics, everything is maxed out. Sounds just great on the car radio, but very dissapointing when brought to the hifi. I think that was true of a lot of 7" singles back in the day too, so it's being going on forever.

 

Interestingly a friend of mine was involved in the remastering process of that album. He said that firstly that it felt like absolute sacrilege to be doing such things, but ultimately his mortgage wasn't going to pay itself. And secondly that at the end of the project, no matter how much love they put into it the team still thought the original was significantly better. But what the record company is paying for, the record company gets...