Generally Remastering in many cases means two things at the same time: 1) Decreasing the Dynamic Range of the music (Achieved by using software). 2) Amplifying the Sound How is Dynamic Range Decreased? The software will try to make all the frequencies come close to the same volume. So for example if the original music has loud vocals and a low volume of piano, the software will boost the volume of the Piano and decrease the volume of the vocals making the volumes much closer to each other. By decreasing the dynamic range now the software can be used to amplify the total volume generally crossing the Clipping Limits (and subsequently losing some of the audio information). This at first leaves a good impression ! Somebody might confuse a higher sounding piano (For example) for enhanced sound quality. Of course, you can do this on your own using a Software like the freely available Audacity. You don't need to pay money and buy the "Remastered" CD. However, many charlatans in the audio industry and recording industry have no problem scamming their clients. The major problem with this kind of "Remastering" is that it causes Ear Fatigue as the uniform loudness of the sound very rapidly induces a headache despite the music sounding "better". That being said it is important to mention that in some cases, as Paul mentioned, the Remaster is a new Digital Transfer of an Original Tape Recording. My Experience with such transfers has been astounding especially if the transfer was done to the DSD format. So in my experience if it is a Remaster of a digital recording (Music Recorded after 1980), it is very likely that it is the scam I mentioned above. If it's a New Digital Transfer of a Tape Master (For music recorded before 1980) then it is likely that it is worth it especially if the Transfer has been done to DSD.

Depends on the quality of the remastering...😇

I'm in 8th grade and my teacher and I (physics teacher) talked about this were both audiophiles. He talked I would rather have the original file rather than a remastered tape.

My experience is a lot of remasters simply squash the dynamics and sound louder. Louder is easily perceived as ‘better’ to the ear at the expense of dynamic range. Check out Loudness War for further reading.

I prefer original masters to remasters, but if I have to get a remaster I tend to stay away from those made after the year 2000. Dynamic range seems to disappear on those remasters. :\

I would've liked to have seen a mention of older albums having the dynamics crushed out of them to make them louder and newer sounding. Those usually sound like crap.

It’s like the auto industry, every 8 years there’s a new model.

Good post Paul. Thanks! Happy 2020 too.

Steve Guttenberg the audiophiliac indicated that the re-release of The Beatles Abbey Road on CD sounded so analog that he was shocked. I do therefore believe that in some cases remastering is worth doing.

I have found remasters to vary somewhat,but more often than not they seem to try too hard to clean things up to the extend that the warmth of the originals get lost,which i've often found somewhat distracting.The aforementioned ''Loudness wars'' too is a worthwhile contributor to the perceived quality,being dynamically compressed.

Remastered is not to make the cd sound better but sound more commercial appealing for nowadays.

I would like to hear more recent recordings remastered with little or no compression. This may take re-balancing to get things sounding right.

Well presented. The mastering engineer and the original source material used is of vital importance to the quality of the end product. Especially with classic material that is being presented to us at higher sampling rates in digital form from analog masters. Then even the generation of the original master tapes being used as source material have an effect on the end product.

Not sure why there was a rant about the provenance of source material for hi-res files at the beginning. I think the inquisitor may have wanted your feelings on remastering as it relates to the loudness wars.

It's more about the process used in terms of Remastering from the original source, in terms if it was 16 bit or 24 bit, plus allowing more human intervention than letting software do it for you. Sometimes recording levels were maybe inadequate on instruments too.

For what it's worth, I am a Chicago fan and a member of several band-related boards. Specifically as it relates to the latest remaster of the CTA album, some on the boards have claimed the early vinyl pressings of the latest remaster had some sort of manufacturing problem rather than an actual "bad" remastering.

Had great luck with remaster CD, will buy any great CD if it is a new remaster. Can't understand why the Eagles do not have any superb remasters of their intricate music. On another note the Led Zeppelin remasters are very nice, especially #3.

Can upsampling a low res audio file make it more suitable for editing or adding an effect to it? To me it it seems it would give the file more space to work with within its resolution timeline.

I used to base my record buying on Harry Pearson's super disc list. I bought 3 copies of Casino Royal which is really about as good as HP said. On my system I can not only hear that Dusty Springfield is singing in a booth but I can hear that she is not singing straight in to the microphone. Her head is turned. I now try to just buy Analog Production or Mobile Fidelity LPs. I just got the Boz Scaggs Dig but I think they may have cut back on that low bass note. I hear something but not much of it. You should be able to see separated grooves for low bass but I don't see much. I got the James Taylor Hourglass which has a lot of bass on Gaia but the next cut has something embedded in the vinyl which sounds like a bad scratch. Neither of these are Analog Production or Mobile Fidelity which may explain the defects.

The worst thing is when "remastered" albums have only been made louder, reducing the dynamics even further than the original album making it sound worse to the point of excessive clipping. What I hate most is when streaming services then go and replace those original albums with the poorer remastered copies, possibly to save on licensing fees, leaving you with trash to listen to.

I never allow remastered music in my library. I'm a little bit of a perfectionist about tagging so having everything point to the original release and then use a "2023 Remaster" feels pretty wrong. Also I can never shake the feeling like whoever did the remaster messed with equalization and the dynamic range resulting in a much different sound than the original (John Lennon's Imagine sounds much different as a remaster.) It can be like listening to music or the tv at a friends house and they messed with the equalizer settings trying to achieve a fuller sound but just ending up with audio that nearly clips out. Given the choice between a sub-160kbps of the original release and a FLAC remaster I'll take the lower quality one any day.

At one time CD's themselves have a bad rap because once it became clear CD's were the big new thing record companies started just dumping their libraries on to the new format. The problems is that the old recordings were mastered to compensate for the shortcomings of the older media (tape and vinyl) and the new CD medium didn't have those shortcomings. Indeed, the very high dynamic rage required it's own special attention. So pretty much any old recording desperately needs remastering for the digital version. In addition to adjusting for the superior format, there are new technological methods for cleaning up recordings and restoring lost analog information that can further improve the final product. All that said, mastering is an art form and something a matter of taste. It is possible to have inferior mastering depending on who (or what) is doing the remastering. That is really where the difference is. (There are, for instance, on-line mastering services that are basically an algorithm. If someone runs a older recording through those and relabels the package as "Remastered!" then that's a scam. so, who and what is what matters.)

I quite agree with Paul's citing of Steve Hoffman. For example, on the Audio Fidelity hybrid SACD AFZ 147 "Close to the Edge" by Yes [Aughhhh! A prog rock aficionado! Run away! Run for your lives and sanity!] the big pipe organ during III. "I Get Up I Get Down" of the title track finally sounds 'right'. This is one of those rare air SACDs that show a clean pair of heels to Red Book, even on a relatively modest system such as mine. To quote from Ken Kessler's review (H-FN&RR, v.59, no. 04): "You know how I feel about this musical equivalent of Tourette's [agree to disagree], and I miss the Yes of the first few albums. But, damn, the sound is spectacular!"

I solved this problem for many many recordings by streaming mostly MQA certified MASTERS from TIDAL HiFi. Bluetooth 5.0 through a good bluetooth reciever/DAC approximates or equals my high end SACD. Heaven!

You forgot the second "remastering sin" by compressing the sound. There are a lot of remastered CD's which have been seriously remastered but have now a dramaticly reduced dynamic range. This is a shame by audiophile standards but has also advatntages on very cheap systems and in noisy environment, like the car or at a workplace. What has been done is silent passages have been more amplified and loud ones have been silenced. This compression might be an advantage for the everyday consumption of music and even be nesseccary for broadcasting, but it is a loss for thoses who really like to listen to the music. There is no way of knowing without hearing or even comparing, which kind of remastering was applied. I am not that optimistic but with my very limited overview of the market i hope i am wrong.

I just got a very bad case of outlet-strip envy. What brand and model IS that thing???

It depends on who does it. I swear by my mobile fidelity dsd remasters of classic jazz recordings. They sound amazing through my psaudio dac and are the treasures of my collection. I also have some fraudulent ones as Paul mentions.

You need to distinguish between the various ways in which an original tape recording is converted into a CD. At one level, the original master tape is simply recorded digitally in 16 bit/ 41 kHz and then a CD is pressed from that, The next level involves creating a digital recording at a higher resolution and then doing remastering including EQ, and then pressing a CD from that source. But we have to keep in mind that any master tape was compressed and EQ'd for an LP, and so just making a CD from the original master tape is convoluted on many levels. The best way to created a digital CD from an old tape recording is to go back to the original tracks, if they are not lost or damaged, and make high resolution recording of all of the individual tracks. Now you have raw tracks to work with in the digital domain, and each track now must be compressed, EQ'd, etc, and these are then mixed down to a new two track master mix that then will need to be mastered via compression and EQ to create a final master recording that the CD is made from. And the final product may not sound exactly like the original since it has been remixed. And obviously that is a great deal more trouble to go to, and not many folks want to put the time and effort into such a project without some assured return on investment in the form of high sales numbers. I have bought many digital recordings of old LP's that got worn out over the years, and the EQ on most of them is terrible. They tend to be a bit bright and often there is no bass to balance out the sound. I have to EQ them when I listen to them. The best alternative is to purchase new LP's of old analogue recordings. I bought Dark Side of the Moon on vinyl, and it sounds EXACTLY like it did in the 70's, pops and all.

Hi Paul! I'm moving to the UK next year for a couple years, would it be worth buying UK specific components or stick with the US type and purchase a separate power conditioner? Mainly curious about the Stellar Gaincell pre-amp. Thanks! Ray

First answer should have been short: remaster simply means somebody had another go at presenting the recording. How it will subjectively compare depends on what they did and what you like.

The first Chicago Transit Authority LP is as good as it gets!!!( Its only the beginning) Don't f... with a masterpiece. Sometimes they did it right back then !!!!! Happy New year Paul

when i 1st heard a remaster it was not as clear as the original it sounded muffled a bit

Sadly, all of the excellent mastering engineers that I like of the CDs I currently own have already passed away. 😣

Madonna, borderline, the first 10 seconds lots of background noise no amount of re mixing or re mastering can seem to get rid of that on several versions I have tried , if it is a poor master you are stuck with it.

the Beatles remasters are a third variety, actual back to isolated original tracks remixed ?

A few weeks ago I bought the Mike and the Mechanics Hits remastered (2005) and it sounded horrible as compared to the original albums from the '80s. It was compressed, less dynamic range, and lifeless. I compared 30 second clips of "Silent Running" from the original album and the Hits album on the same system back to back and the original was so much smoother and more enjoyable. As others have said on here, if the remaster comes from a reputable audiophile label then it is probably better sounding. If the music is mainstream music on a mainstream label then the remaster is likely compressed and edited to sound louder, not better.

The question is a non-sequitur on the level of “do you walk to school or carry your lunch?”

The old Gong recordings were just re mastered by the guy who mixed the original albums, and holy moly are they excellent.

I have a strong bias against true remasters. I'm open minded about "enhanced" versions that started out with the original vinyl, but many of the recordings I've heard from big names like UMG that were designated as "remastered" sounded indescribably horrible. I'd listen to a song I knew I liked and just got tired of it halfway through, then I'd find a version someone posted from original vinyl or listen to my own vinyl copy, and it sounded good again. One of my favorite examples is the Rolling Stones' "That's How Strong My Love Is". My theory is that the tapes, having sat around for 50 years, will simply never sound good again; we see every day how bad sports video clips, even from the 1990s, look now, even ones that looked OK back then. It's a good thing that nearly any music that was recorded before the 1990s is lying around on a record somewhere. Records simply don't age the way tapes do; even the Watergate tapes were loosing their resolution and had to be subjected to a special care regimen to slow their deterioration. Records will probably outlast CDs and will be around long after the internet we know today, which usually does a perfect job of preserving anything digitized, has collapsed.

Even though I didn't get a chance to own CD's back in the 1980s as they were first released, but until the 90s that's when I started owning CD's so I still stick to the regular CDs and not much of the remastered editions

many thanks

Jon Astley's 'remastered' Who albums - Who by Numbers and Who are You particularly - ruined these albums. Various guitar, vocal, strings and brass parts were scrubbed or at least muted. I've been searching for the original CDs, to find the original masters/mixes. As someone who's known the original vinyl inside out, these 'remaster' CDs were horrifying.

IMO, the most reliable sound is found on the medium that was most prevalent at the time the recording was made. A record that was originally made during the "vinyl era" will likely sound the best ON vinyl, compared to subsequent versions/pressings, remastered or not. An album originally made during the CD era will likely sound great on digital in its original form, because they knew that was where it ended up, and mastered it accordingly. In both cases, subsequent remastered versions are a "win-some, lose-some" crap shoot. They may or may not be better than the original.

There’s new remastered CDs of Mariya Takeuchi’s RCA albums, they’re compressed with poor dynamic range, i would personally recommend looking for the older CD releases instead.

"Check the heritage of the album"_ Ok, *how?* Is that a website where we can check the *real* quality of remasters? (and if not, does anyone knows one?)

hi,being a fan of supertramp even though i had the last re master on cd ,i thought i would buy the 40 year anniversary crime of the century cd,very nice packaging,but i found the bass very heavy and the vocals to quiet,i was surprised that the older copy sounded so much better,on my amp i dont have loudness or tone controls,so there you go.ps,most of the reviews were true,thanks.

I though this video was going to be about 're-mastered' meaning that the original music or CD was going to be re-mastered or re-mixed to a different sounding music, not re-sampling .. nevermind .. you hit the rest after I got near the end of the video.. :)

One needs to be very careful when it comes to remastered CDs (and LPs for that matter as well). Remasters are not easy to do correctly! For example: Rush (RIP Neil Peart) has I think, 3 different remastered CD discographies and at least one remastered LP discography. Sticking with CDs, the first Rush remastered CD discography was done in the 90's, around the mid 90's if I'm not mistaken. Then in 2000-2001 there was another set of remastered CDs released in special packaging and then again in 2010 I believe, yet again another remastered set. It turns out (having heard them all) that the 90's remastered CDs are the best. In fact, the 90's remasters will sonically outperform the vinyl and all later CD remasters hands down. It also turns out, that the next best is just the regular CD releases for that band. In fact, unless you have a revealing system, it is highly unlikely that you will hear the difference between the regular CD and the 90's remasters. However, no special system is required to hear the difference between the regular CD versions and the later remasters from 2000 and 2010, they are horrid. Now as for Chicago or any group with LPs from the late 60's or early 70's, etc. For the best sonics, you'll want to stick to LP, no question about it. I bought a bunch of Jethro Tull on regular CD and Remaster and compared those to the vinyl versions and there is no contest, the vinyl outperformed the CD all the way across in dynamics, tone, etc. So even regular CD versions of older LPs can easily sound awful or lifeless. If you aren't into having an analog front end or source then I suggest perhaps getting a good outboard DAC, but that won't fix a poorly done recording or remaster unfortunately.

And why are the originals so hard to get AFTER a disc has been remastered?

The original Huey Lewis and The News, Sports CD, sounds great! The remaster is bunk!

Seems like you hit the nail on the head, there is no clear definition of what it means to "remaster" so you have to look at each case to know if it is worth buying the music again.

So many remasters just seem lazy from whoever mixed it. It looks like most of the time they turn the bass up and then add some limiting on it to increase the loudness and leave it at that.

Remixed and remastered can be excellent. It all depends on who did it.

Mobile Fidelity is the bomb their vinyl is second to none.Their Robart Shaw and the Altanta Orchestra record Stravinskys Firebird is astounding. Fuse your speakers though it has a 100+ decibel dynamic range you'll blow your speakers if you dont have a great system the best reference recording I've heard to date..

It's a crap shoot, some remasters sound good, some sound rubbish. I am turned off by 'remasters' that fail to maintain the aesthetic/vibe of the original sound mix. Music of, say, the 60s pop hits category, became pop hits on -not hifi- car radios, a device which makes a very reduced 'composite' sound out of the original, and when that stuff is remastered in such a way that that the car radio/pop hit gestalt is mixed out of prominence, rendering the song as a whole new and different beast. If that is your bag, cool, for some stuff I've come across the remastering people mixed everything I liked right out of existence, some folks et it rightr and make a swell remaster. IM(not so)HO it's a crap shoot. Seemed to me like almost everything on Tidal is a remaster, became insufferable, I felt spiritually bleak after 6 months of that service.... The previous is just some thoughts and observations long rattling around in my vacant cabeza, your mileage will vary.

@4:34 "Just check the heritage" How? There are endless remasters, and re-remasters, etc. Do we send them to ancestry.com (just kidding). It has been my experience that remasters are, almost without exception, a gimmick or rip-off. Why? Remasters will sound different. But they rarely sound better. And even the ones that do sound better, well... they also sound worse in some way. It is like eating at a restaurant, and one day the chef changes the ingredients for your favorite dish. You sort of like it, except there is some new spice that you do not care for. The folks that do these remasters do not have an ear for realism. They do not have an ear for soundstaging or imaging or transparency, etc. They tend to tinker with the sound. If there is a knob or lever on their equipment, they feel compelled to turn or slide it. They over-process, like it is a drug; like they have something to prove. The master tapes sound glorious. Then the knuckleheads in the studio get aroused and start salivating at the thought of their next love making session with their compressors. They focus on processing, and more processing, rather than the purity of the sound. For them, too much processing is never enough. There are countless songs that are available as an original release, remaster, re-remaster, re-re-remaster, greatest hits, best of, anthology, and endless compilations. And almost without exception, they all sound different for the exact same song from the exact same recording session. The only explanation is that the folks doing this either have no ear for sound quality (just sound gimmickry), or they know that X% of the public will buy the new release (making it a scam). Either way, it is pathetic. If they were a restaurant, they would go out of business. But if you want your favorite songs, you have no choice but to patronize these companies. Note that sampling rates above CD quality (Redbook) is, almost without exception, meaningless. It is another scam. A CD (44.1 kHz / 16 bit) done right will sound better than a 176.4 kHz / 24 bit .flac file that the studio over processed. High sampling rates only mean that the container that is holding the Pulse Code Modulating signal is capable of holding more information. So it has more potential. Unfortunately, the studios fill those high resolution containers with poo. It is like using a state of the art camera, and taking a photo at the highest resolution, but not holding the camera still, and not setting the focus correctly, and not setting the shutter speed correctly, etc. Every CD and digital download should feature the name (and a photo) of the person that created the final release. They should get credit for doing a great job, and get criticized and held accountable for doing a lousy job. These folks, when interviewed, talk like they are god's gift to the music industry. So you would think that they would want their names and photos associated with their work (not where you have to dig for it -- but right there in the credits). The names and photos of the members of the band are front and center. The names and photos of the engineers should be right next to them. They should own their work, and not hide behind a curtain of anonymity. If they are so good at their work, then let them have some of the spotlight. We know the names when it involves producing movies. Music production should be the same. Cheers!

Of the artist is not involved it is not a quality remaster in my opinion because they should have a say in it not just suits. I love music just not the music industry or business.

Major fail! He did not mention compressors or compression once. Paul, where have you been the last 20 years? Not listening to the remastered crap versions of what I listened to in my youth (60s/70s). A few do it right, most do it wrong. Mr. Hoffman will be over soon to spank you for saying he remixes..

Sometimes original CDs can sound better with higher fidelity and be very close to the master tape

Great information Thank you

Some remasters have been mildly autotuned. If not many.

How can any CD be “upsampled” with a higher sample rate if it’s still a 44.1kHz Red Book CD? Or he means “upsampling” from 44.1kHz PCM to SACD? Main issue I see is when tracks get compressed not allowing the original dynamic range.

People equate remastered with improved. Remastered simply means changed form the original master. Imagine a room full of furniture that you are used to using, someone comes and rearranges the furniture; some people like the change some don't Simplzz.

Some remastered CD's sound great, most - in my experience - do not. The Beatles remastered have lost all the bottom end, a lot of punk sounds grimly 'sanitised' and that goes for some metal, too. Other 'remastered' recordings sound the same! I have made the mistake of buying some, but with the hi-res Tidal, I can check out which ones are any good. I am mostly disappointed and stick to originals.

If you have a 20-year-old CD, and a new, remastered CD, the new one might sound better, worse, or the same. I've had it go all 3 ways.

Remastering original 60s and 70s music is bad news generally for me. Tweaking frequencies with a modern ear brings the wrong type of sound to art created in the 60s. Possibly reducing dynamics and boosting bass and treble to suit modern trends can be detrimental to music that sounds fantastic already. My opinion only.

I think the remastering process has much say to it....... the end can only justify the mean.

It varies. The first release of Bitches Brew on Columbia sounded god awful. Recent remastering sounds better, more detail, some bass compromised but they began WAY TOO MUDDY. Remasters of Hendrix material by Kramer ...mmmm. ..not sure... Beatles remaster and remixing...fun and interesting Better than the first generation...more details. But from second to third, different not sure if better per se. I wish Giles Martin woild remix or remaster the Hendrix catalog for fun. Not so sure that I am in love with Kramer. Say the same thing about Page's remastering of Zeppelin. Doesn't sound that much better imho.

In my opinion remaster really suck balls, the more and more remasters I hear via streaming, the less and less I choose to listen to older music that I like, they completely ruin it, ruin what makes the music from the day. FOR THE LOVE OF MUSIC STOP FUCKING UP OUR MUSIC!! and claiming its 'better'

I love Remastered CDs. As long as its done properly. Rising the volume on them is what i love.

They can take their remasters available on digital streaming or CD and put them in a dark place. I find that the remasters I have listened to hide the separation between instruments and vocals in the interest of making everything equal volume to make the loudness trick your brain into thinking the music is better. What you lose is the original intent of the music which is to be in the room with performers. Modern remastering throws this out the window. It is however getting harder and harder to find those original versions Because the music industry are a bunch of thieves and lairs.

They are bad. Every remasterd CD I own has less realistic tonal color of instruments than the early originals. Same goes for vinyl remasterd. Whatever there doing these days it's cheap and taking shortcuts of how they used to do it many years ago

Any music that is put on CD has to be "digitally remastered" other than that its all marketing mumbo jumbo...

Most of the times they are crap. Just squashed dynamic, everything is made louder. But sometimes they are better than original masterings.

great video paul and happy holidays and i would like to invite you and all of your fans to my group on facebook called cds & stereos unlimited my group can be found under groups on the facebook page thanks a lot and happy 2020 paul

It appears to still be a thing.. Even Billy Idols new music sounds like shit in dynamics. Look at the website dr.loudness-war.info/ and all the new releases..

Remastering 101: • Nothing will ever sound better than the original recording (aka the "master tape"). Any copy you make from it will always be in some way inferior. (Just like photocopying a photocopy.) • An old-school "red book" audio CD will always be 44100 samples per second, 16-bits per sample, 2 channels. That works out to a bit-rate of 1.4112 Mbit/sec. No type of remastering will ever be able to stuff more resolution than that, into an old-school audio CD. • What remastering *can* do, is use better equipment to read the analog audio off the master tape, than was used the first time around. • I also kind of doubt that the master tape was shipped to the original CD factory. It's more likely that a tape copy was made of the master, and then the CD was pressed from that copy. But during a remastering process, maybe the remaster-er-er has physical access to the actual OG master tape, which will remove the loss of quality caused by digitizing a CD from a copy. • Maybe the master tape is multi-track, and during the original CD mastering process, someone made an EQ decision that in hindsight everyone regrets __ . During the remastering process, if the remaster-ess has physical access to the actual multi-track master tape, she could choose to make a better decision than that first bonehead, so that parts of the recording that were muted before stand out better on the remastered version. • 44100 samples per second was chosen for audio CDs, because that is the bare minimum to capture all frequencies from 0 to ~20kHz. If someone runs a CD through a DAC, then re-samples it at a higher rate, and then tries to sell it to you as a higher-quality recording, that is snake oil. Once you've reduced infinity samples/sec down to 44.1k samples/sec, you have thrown away all that extra quality, and resampling it afterwards cannot bring it back. The ONLY way to resample higher is to resample from the master tape (and at that point, it won't fit on an old-school CD anymore. Maybe SACD, DVD-Audio, or FLAC files.)

The Sony & Philips Compact Disc Digital Audio Standard was published in 1980. So lets put the first A to D Converters that created content for that media in the late 1970’s. Lets put that at 1978. The first ones were Ca Ca at best. That would be creating digital content from Analog Tape or a Live Capture. “Perfect Sound” forever as it was promoted. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio The Sony & Philips “Blue Book” Compact Disc Digital Audio Plus Standard was published in 1995. By then the A to D Converters had gotten better, not as good as they are today, but better. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Book_(CD_standard) So there’s your window. 1980 to 1995. The quality of Digital Audio, whatever media it’s on, created in that time frame varied widely in quality. Trying to remix a Ca Ca digital capture from 1985 may result in a Ca Ca remix.

비정한 세상.. 피 토하는 음악..tt

CD remaster bad . Manipulation original sound recording. The original sound recording it s better quality Source Master tape

Rip- off, in the audio industry, surely this cannot be true.😂😂

Standard cds sound good as is it is now.

first veiwer

I would like to say one thing and one thing only about the so-called controversial remastered version of music and movies and classic video games thing. And for that i would like to say that nobody freaking Care's. This is why geek culture never caught on and officially dead on arrival since the 50's. 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅