It’s probably a partially that mastering engineers these days are taught to use a mastering limiter way too aggressively to make everything “louder.”

I love the Lunch with Paul format. Keep them coming

Please don't discount the likelihood that present day remastering 'engineers' are accustomed to working to the current music industry techniques of compression, limiting, and re-equalization. Essentially, the producers prefer sound attributes designed for cars, Wave radios, and cellphone earbuds. There is little reason to believe that "remastering" means "higher fidelity." Worse, every economic pressure is against higher fidelity. Marketing pays the bills.... sad to say.

I'm surprised there was no mention of the loudness wars.

So glad I got to meet you both last year, and what an experience to have Gus demonstrate his skills for me and see what goes in to all you do! I cant wait until all this is over and visit you all again... there is just so much to take in and so much I missed. The older I get, the more I realize that quality, care, and craftsmanship never go out of style.

It’s a true bummer when great masters are not carefully preserved. Perhaps it’s the biggest reason for still using vinyl when listening to music from decades ago.

Record companies are making vinyl records again because they sell for $30 per vs $11 per CD.

I have thought that the introduction of digital recording brought on some learning curves and changed the boundary limitations of analog processes that seem inherent to our physiology. In that, I mean that we organic creatures respond well to the analog parameters of putting audio into records or tapes. Remember the first CD issue of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon", where the levels were not calibrated down to 'digital zero'? The clipping distortion was awful. Somewhere leading up to the year 2000, I noticed a CD change... There had been this 'thing' where CDs seemed to be pushing the loudness limits and upping track compression. There was an industry idea that jukebox CDs needed to sound louder to stand out, but I never really dug into if that was the reason. It was almost like the individual tracks were compressed, then mixed, and compressed some more, then run through something like Sonic Maximizer. . From about 2000 to around 2010, or so, I mostly stopped buying popular music CDs. I started digitizing my old vinyl, and going through the painstaking process of cleaning up the surface noise, balancing and equalizing them. I figured it took 4 to 5 minutes of 'refurbishing' time for every minute of material I recorded, but it gave me a decade of something to do and time to hone out a process that worked for me. Some of the "Half Speed Master" (HSM) and "Direct To Disc" (D2D) converts are absolutely awesome. As mentioned in this video, there seems to be a sonic quality of playing the vinyl captured in the digital recording. . I have heard some of the newer vinyl being produced, and I think there are some new recording engineers learning the art of recording for analog, BEFORE transferring to digital. I personally think this is an advantageous process for the discerning audiophile consumer market... current nightclub music genres notwithstanding. They are a totally different music format that tends to benefit from exaggerated EQ, dynamics and compression. Just some old man thoughts from the consumer audio enthusiast side...

For one (and only one) recent example, I agree with Michael Fremer about the the Abbey Road remaster by Giles Martin: 'The remaster does certain things that the original doesn't and the original does certain things that the remaster doesn't. It's good to have both.' Not an exact quotation, but words to that effect.

Would love to hear Paul's thoughts on the Universal Masters Fire! Will we ever get a true list of what was lost? and whether it matters? if they are/were deteriorating anyhow?

It's great to hear someone mention the deterioration of the quality of 50 or 60 year-old tapes. I suspect that that is the worst aspect of many re-masters, though there are plenty of other ways to mess them up. Even in the late 1970s, there was concern that the Nixon Watergate tapes, one of the most inadvertently honest records of that period of time, would not survive unless much more care was put into their storage. They were supposed to rewind them on a regular basis to reduce the effects of stray magnetic fields, though that alone would eventually wear them out. We've seen how awful sports videos from the 1990s look; it's hard to imagine any way to restore audio that's been similarly damaged.

Many Remasters suck because In *my opinion frankly alot of modern “remastering engineers” are inept, & do not respect the original mix when they’re blowing up the old analog mixes to fit the digital format.. then they boost the bass- boost the treble- put a four dollar plug-in on the tape hiss, and send it on its way... They are guys in their 20s and 30s that did not grow up with the original vinyl mixes of these albums... so they don’t really care to match it during the normalization process..Maintaining the “openness” of the original mix when transferring to digital is a careful and lengthy process using very expensive compressors limiters and other sonic tools in the right proportions...the whole thing needs to be respected when remastering an old recording to digital... Sorry, trying to squeeze 1000 page rant into a few paragraphs there are so many more factors involved.. too much that I care to get into... * 2003 Graduate of the *Institute of Audio Research NYC*

Didn't Ry Cooder do one of the first digital recordings on vinyl? Bop Til You Drop? in the late 70's, early 80's? It sounded pretty good to me.

I hate to tell you guys, but I used to do some of this work back in the 1970’s. Compressors and limiters weren’t invented for digital. They were invented for tape and particularly vinyl. Back then, vinyl was considered to be a lower quality format. Nobody listened to vinyl if they could avoid it. Even with the noise, tape was the way to go. Most everything had to be compressed somewhat, at least, to get it on vinyl. Limiters were needed as well to not overload the tape, and afterwards, the vinyl. A lot of compression was done so that listening to music over the radio in the noisy cars of the day was mandatory. Car noise was an overreaching problem for mastering. Since few people listened to classical in a car, it wasn’t as much of an imperative. But for rock it was necessary. That, and the fact that most rock didn’t have much dynamic range anyway. But also because stations found that people would go to those that were loudest. Since they couldn’t turn it up to high because of modulation, they brought the bottom up to meet it. Digital really reversed a lot of that thinking, as CDs have a far greater dynamic range and frequency range than vinyl, which usually can be accommodated with just 13 bits. And indeed, many digital recorders had a setting for vinyl which was 13 bits, 32k sampling.

More vinyl talk love listening to experts on the matter

A lot of tapes were lost in the 2008 Universal Studios fire. The Wikipedia article on it includes a list of artists but you have to click on 'show' on the right hand side. Universal disputes the list.

poor pressings, high prices will equal poor vinyl sales. They had better get it together soon

CD's as well. The use of filters to reduce noise takes the life out of the recordings.

And of course the question becomes "remastered for what?" In the 80s when a lot of analog material was being re-issued on CD, the CDs sounded horrible because they took masters that were intended for either pressing plants or cassettes and just dumped them over to a CD. Nowadays when somebody remasters, they're usually doing it for a digital format and some limited run of vinyl pressings is rarely what they are mastering for. So you wind up with something that has too much dynamic range for an LP, and at the last minute they wind up sticking a compressor on it.

+1 for the Classic Traffic Paul. Love him or hate him, Mr. Fremer is THEE authority on everything vinyl and which version is of the highest quality between original, reissue, remaster, compilation etc etc. Analog Planet is the channel that I have relied upon for plenty of what I consider to be crucial vinyl purchases. In other news I found a 50 year old album by Wynder K Frog "Into The Fire" still in the shrink, sealed up tight and sounding very good compared to the goodwill 50¢ scuffy special I'd been spinning. What a great record. UA vinyl will never be on par with certain Columbia 6 eye, Mercury, Deutsche Grammophon, RCA Shady Nipper etc etc. And unfortunately, "highly resolving" systems only amplify the short comings of the plastic! Wynder K is on Tidal. Lots of keys and horns and harmonica and MOAR cowbell! Session dudes cutting albums. Comparisons to the Muscle Shoals Swampers have been made. Just saying, to find out if she's ticklish, give 'er a test tickle. 😉

I know it's not vinyl, but I bought a remastered copy of Robin Trower "Bridge Of Sighs" one of my all time favorite albums on CD. It was awful. There were all kinds of high frequency warbles and artifacts that made it unlistenable. I got rid of it. I listen to my original CD and will never cheat on it again.

Well, think he pretty much said the essential right there Paul ! Master tape deterioration over the years and mediocre remastering engineers that just have a bad ear for that kind of work. I think you have to love the music you're remastering also, to do a good job in the end. Thank God for digital. If you have a good digital sound take , you've got everything , plus it's virtually deterioration free ! Right ?

Valid and relevant question. And. With about 50 dB usable dynamic range, to me, vinyl is like racing a Ferrari with a handbrake on. Musicians play fff sections softer and ppp louder - even on a 0.5M stereo set. That's dynamic compression without technology. When I "get wind of" that compression, it annoys me. And, the "air" in analog at least in part is an analog artifact: from the cutter scratching the groove in the master record overshooting before sharp turns - this doesn't happen in the digital domain. So, part of the notion that you like the older thing was better, is nostalgia. Compare with a simple tube amp with tube warmth that actually is bad distortion but can cover up all sorts of limitations. Like the dynamic compression in analog will stress less in louder sections and hence you get less driver or cabinet coloration. But, cheap digital signal processing (or older and less advanced than the best of today) may justify another remaster. Now the average DA converter can be pretty good already.

Some of the remastered MP3 albums I have heard have the bass and low end boosted to sound better on phones, tablets and earbuds. To me this makes the music seem farther away and more muddy.

I also like Traffic. I have the four albums follow The Low Spark of High Heel Boys but I never bought it back in the day. I listened to it with Tidal through Audirvana (Mac mini) as you have advised and the sound was not so terrible. I have a fairly above average system and it is very revealing. I found the dynamics and spacial quality to be good. Would you say this source is possibly better than the new vinyl version you bought. My system is PrimaLuna preamp with PrimaLuna mono blocks plus Denafrips Terminator for the DAC and Tannoy Turnberry GR speakers. It actually sounded quite good.

Outstanding video. Some thoughts here from an old analog engineer ( worked for Ampex during a summer break ), (worked with digital tapes in computers). If you have in hand an original many years old 1/2in tape, be that analog or digital, when you play that back your not going to get what was originally put down on that tape. The tape changes with time. The heads change with time ( gap scatter ). On digital content if there's ECC then you can probably get back exactly what was on the tape. But analog unless your playing it back on the same drive and the same head it's not going to be the same. The famous moon landing tapes a lot of the data was lost there due to the above problems.

I wish everyone who complains about compression in recordings, whether analog or digital, could go back in time and visit a recording studio of, say, the late 1950s or early 1960s and witness the entire process from before the first note was played to the final product coming out of the record press. (Come on, let's see those colour-drained faces. Don't worry... The pink will come back in a couple of hours.) Compression, either by a dedicated component or by pushing the recording level --- or both --- was and still is routinely applied to all or nearly all signals before they ever get to the Master Tape! And then the number of steps involved and the losses incurred in processing for grooved discs was and is incredible. Digital isn't necessarily better, nor is it necessarily worse, for similar reasons. It is a fact well known to experienced recording engineers, but few others, that the vast majority of recordings made without any compression at all sound flat, dull, and lifeless. Only the most careful and dedicated efforts humanly possible will result in good unprocessed recordings. (Thank you, Kavi Alexander and one or two others, for proving it Can be done!) Sometime, if you can, all of you who hate compression should get permission to make a recording of a live performance. Use only a basic stereo recorder with manual level controls and two good microphones. Later, compare the raw results to a copy you make with judicious compression added, then ask others which sounds better. I won't predict the outcome, but I think You can predict it from what I have said here.

PS audio is currently on my shortlist for amplification. Does anyone who owns a Stellar S300 really know what 2 ohm stable means? I have B&W 702 S2 speakers and they drop down to 3 ohms for low frequencies and my current amplification gets put off by that request.

The remaster sucks, because it's remastered poorly. It has much, much less to do with the fact that some used a digital copy of the master tapes. Remember, studios use digital masters for a loooong time now. But the actual mastering has a huge impact on the sound; that's why they do it! And most likely the re-master will be commissioned by the label, not the artist. I bet that original masters were approved by the studio, in conjunction with the artist. But, the artist has (probably) no involvement in these re-masters. Unless specifically mentioned.

The band Gongs “radio gnome invisible trilogy” was remastered by the man who originally mixed the albums. I’m no audiophile, but they sound incredible to me. In the case of the first record, flying teapot, I think they did a better job than originally.

I sure wish Gus would have said PCM instead of "digital" because DSD is also obviously digital.

It is akin to what happened with copies of silent movies...the copies were made from film that had already deteriorated and so the 'new' copy looked like junk. You can now get remastered copies that show how crisp and clear the film looked the first time around.

The problem is loudness wars! Heavy use of Digital Compressors have become ubiquitous in modern mastering to make digital music “hot” by limiting dynamic range. Many loud digital files have flat tops (maxes out in many sections). This is the reason that many remasters don’t sound good. “Hot” remastering sounds louder at lower volumes - ever notice how a commercial on TV sounds louder - it is the same manipulation of the audio applied to make advertising sound loud.

The vinyl release of Nirvana Unplugged is a good example of this. It was not released originally on vinyl, and you can definitely tell. I knew it was a digital transfer when I bought it, and am still happy to have and play it over the CD because of that little bit of vinyl character. Also, you could always use a different, warmer cartridge if you wanted to enhance that character.

Lee hulko mastered the original traffic low heel album mentioned in the video. That’s why it sounds so fantastic. Look for lh in the deadwax

I haven't heard a remaster that I have liked.

This is Brian Keenan. Record collectors guide had an article on collecting. They said that most vinyl releases you buy on new lp' s now are merely just recorded to vinyl directly from a simple store bought CD. I can't understand why someone would want the vinyl over the cd in knowing this.

Queensryche "Rage for Order" remaster is great. I always loved the album but thought it had a over filtered sound too it. It's like they cleaned it up, but didn't change it.

Isn't it the dynamic compression, lack of stereo separation, over bassed and general "it all sounds alike" that has driven the resurgence of old vinyl and to some degree cassettes.

The best is disc for archiving that's why they sent into space, especially if it's laser cut and could be laser read analogue or digital format on a disc, not talking about compact disc. Digital etched in same as analogue.

If there's anything from Universal Music the analog masters don't exist any more, because they all got burned in the Universal Studios fire in 2008. And only digital copies remain apparently. He mentioned Traffic, who were on Island Records. That became part of Universal Music, and so their analog masters were probably all burned.

Great question and segment here. Both vinyl and CD have a ton of shitty remasters. Best remasters I’ve heard are Peter Gabriel’s except SO, which was done in 2012 for a 25th ann edition.

Some recordings can never be remastered from the original tapes due to the fire at Universal Studios Hollywood in 2008, where 500,000 song titles were destroyed. I'm sure that I'm not alone in owning several recordings on CD and vinyl that are horrendously remastered from digital recordings, some to the point of being almost unlistenable.

And nowadays try to find a studio that still has an all analog mastering console... Even when they mention "Remastered for analog master tapes" doesn't me it isn't fed into a digital mastering console. The thing is that it is really hit or miss, some remaster are really nicely done and sound great others just sound flat like a CD (Blur - Leisure is a flagrant example). Some remasters it's like the just took the CD master, applied the RIAA curve (reversed) (and that is when they don't forget to do it!) and off you go. Apparently, some people still manage to keep it all analog on some pressings. Michael Fremer made a video on it. Some other youtubers did too (can't remember the names right not, but you can search on YT). And then, if you have a nice all analog remaster, here's hoping the pressing factory won't screw it up. Remember to clean your records especially brand new ones! 90% of the times they're terrible. A good clean up and static removal and they're good to go. People tend to think Oh it's new I don't need to clean it... yep you do because they come very dirty from the press in the sealed package. And don't buy the 180g audiophile thing. Yes, it's nice, yes the record is heavy but I have listened to the same album from 70s that was on a vinyl so thin it is nearly ridiculous but that one sounded so much better that the remaster 180g version. So much punchier and room filling. As I said, they are not all bad, some are very nice sounding. You need to check review, see if you can give a listen at your favorite record store (yes, go there that's what they are here for , ask them questions, they will usually be happy to help and tell you which one is worth it or not). Can't get everything from Amazon.. just saying. And to finish, forget Record Store Day..(unless you really want something that is released,but do you really need a one sided Pink Floyd 45 that costs $15!!) it's now more marketing than anything and I'm sure most of the store don't get so much money from it. Just go there and buy things you like and ask help to find the best records for you. You'll save money and they will make more money and who know you might make some new friends out of it.

Engineers of old had to get it right there were no digital bandaids to apply.

I suspected this heavily with the Chili Peppers “remastered” catalog on Tidal

CCR’s latest half speed master at Abbey Road studio of their self titled debut is pretty amazing. While not as commercial I think it’s their best album. Chet Baker’s My Funny Valentine is another new record you gotta hear, mid 50’s but like you’re there sound quality. Play it while you and your wife are having dinner. It’s definitely a crap shoot with new or used albums.

Vinyl to DSD recordings is many times not good. Because a lot of people download on Torrent sites, and get these versions from private people, that use a really cheap LP-PC converting setup. But sometimes, the legal stuff you buy does sound really good, but this also varies a hell of a lot. But again, everything is relative, because in order to hear everything that goes on in a recording, you need a pretty good system.

Yup. It is probably because the auto limiter is used somewhere in the chain, so inhibiting the dynamic range which can reach unbelievable depths on a vinyl disc. I guess we who have lived with it and still cherish it are the lucky ones. More often these days it is such a shame that we are prevented from sharing the experience.

How do you know that any given record was pressed from a digital or analog source? Is it that almost everything (made recently) is assumed to be pressed from digital unless stated it's from analog?

I picked up the remastered Craft Recordings copies of Isaac Hayes Hot Buttered Soul & Black Moses on vinyl.. Both sound much better than the CD's that I have. So some remastering can sound better than original. But the main difference is I think. When you listen to music recorded & engineered specially in the 70's. It had a much fuller warm sound.. While in the 80's & 90's the sound was much colder & sterile.. Maybe that goes back to either the equipment used or the engineer's ear. But music from the 70's. To me, just sounded better.. Also good luck to anyone that wants to remaster anything from Steely Dan.. Impossible I say..

Much of my 20's were spent around the music scene in Brooklyn. Hung out with many many bands/artists. Some who have become well known even, and I have bared witness to their Tracking/Mixing/Mastering methods. I can attest that 99% of them all send DIGITAL masters to the pressing plant. The only house that went all analog was Daptone records. In my personal life experience that is.....

they sound worse because they're done with the input of the aging deaf rock star artists

I have only listened to digital since the 1990's and I always seek out the remastered versions In most cases they sound much better because they get rid of the EQ and compression on the master required for vinyl If you want to hear the how much better a remaster can sound listen to Simple Minds New Gold Dream Deluxe edition and Supertramp Breakfast in America 2010 compared to the original versions they are holographic both original albums are flat and lacking dynamics

To think of all those who has spent many, many years and $100's of thousands of dollars to enjoy that perfect recreation of "being there" with these artists only to find out the sound has been remastered by a butcher. That's like going to see Pink Floyd in concert and a cover band comes out.

We all know about the remaster problems in the late 90's thru the 2000s loudness war. But I think they have learned their lesson because some of the remasters now actually sound very good. I can only reference a few metal releases that sound much better on CD or LP. The latest run of Metallica remasters sound fantastic along with Anthrax's latest remasters. The volume is raised on them but not to the point like before and the guitars and other parts of the music sound more aggressive. It can be done if they take the time and care to make sure they are ruining it. Then there is the problem that no matter what they do, you might just like the original more because that's what your ears are used to. No mastering can fix that.

Everything in remastered albums sounds too clean like all the different frequencies have been separated and no longer fit together. The vocals usually sounds weird and too loud. The quiet subtle parts in songs have been all turned up, so now there's no ups and downs. Its all loud especially the high end frequencies.

Many remasters sound ''brighter'' and ''fresher'' i've found,seemingly lacking in ''body'' and ''substance'' to their sound.I have a Nick Cave album (The boatman's call) which sounds very natural though despite being a remaster.It goes to show how different engineers can apply their craft. There's often ''the loudness war'' to contend with too,sadly.

One of the reasons "remastered" comes out like crap is it may have been crap to begin with. One of the things I do remember back in the day when CD and Albums were coming out at the same time is how many artists would not release their older stuff on CD even though it meant new sales for older stuff, The Rolling Stones come to mind. IMHO it was because they didn't want people to hear their mistakes that you could hear on CD that may have been "covered up" on a album. So the Stones spent months and months in the studio "remastering" everything they released. Again imho I think they were re-recording a lot of stuff not remastering. I really do think the sweet spot for CD's is when they recorded for Albums and yet still printed CD's from it. Last there was that big fire and most analog recording were lost a few years ago so they have nothing better to remaster from but digital. Them not being able to produce the master does bring up a major copyright issue for them.

Loss of dynamics and compression are the biggest culprits of remasters. They are not better. 8/10 times they suck, but that is just my experience.

A lot of remasters compress the shit out recordings. There is a site that shows the compression of different albums and you can compare original to remasters and see it

What is meant by doing a needle drop?

In my experience nothing can beat the first pressing of a vinyl record. I have a first pressing of Emerson Lake and Palmer's first album on Cotillion label . I have since gotten a new Atlantic vinyl pressing a CD when CD's first came out and a 24 bit /192 KHZ remastered CD , while the remastered CD sounds better than the original CD it is still not as good as the first pressing vinyl if you excuse the clicks and pops.

There is a lot of cash grab going on with reissues on vinyl. You have to be careful and check the details. Blue Note Tone Poet Series seems to be doing a good job at a reasonable price. After botching the 75 series with poor pressing.

I think back on how that lady "remastered" (well, tried to restore) the oil painting of Jesus and made him look like a brown bear ;-)

It's been my contention that vinyl acts as the best filter there is for a digital format. It mechanically forces proper integration.

Essentially a great many remasters not only lose the Mojo of the original, but it seems the engineers never understood the track to begin with. Take the Traffic cut, that was loved on the stereos of the time, just like a Beatles hit was loved from the AM radio in the car, point being, you have to understand that gestalt, that resultant sound from back in the day, what ever day, because when you redo it to some notion of current hifi standards it results in a more or less completely different piece, usually lacking the originals hook. Anyhows, the crappy remaster thing is why I hate Tidal and Spotify, seems their collections are made up about 75% of that stuff. You end up questioning your sanity because stuff you really know often sounds completely off on those services...

...and too many "modern" re-mastering engineers have a very different idea of what "good sound" really sounds like, having been spoiled by poor digital tracks - especially "MP3" stuff. What they "re-master" for seems to be San Andreas level bass and highs sharp enough to cause one's ears to bleed.

Blaming the technology instead of the real problem which is the subjective decisions made by the person remastering the recording.

the original record is closer to the original master tapes that's why it may have a lot to do with sounding better

Yes sir.

The key message here is buy the original pressing. At the very least you'll have a definitive reference copy to compare newer vinyl.

"all that correctness of the tape", really? which is? saturation, hiss, dropouts, limited dynamics, auto-copying...analog tape technology hit its limits in the '80s, I had enough of it. Same goes to vinyls. But that's just me, a crazy old man with still sensitive ears.

The Mastering techniques of years ago have been somehow forgot and new mastering engineers obviously don’t know or care. Seems like most mastering engineers are not even trying. Also all the vinyl cutting equipment has been modified therefore not able to produce the same sound it use to years ago no matter what format is fed into it. All the new vinyl sounds dead lifeless to me. I have a lot more luck finding music with life using CD, SACD as my source. The Direct Stream Transport and DAC really helps a lot with that. Even just ok mastered recording still are enjoyable in my system.

You guys should try getting yourself a copy from master/production tape and compare to anything commercially released: CD, SACD, Hi-Res, Vinyl and you will be surprised that your tape copy will sound MILES better. Saying from experience.

I pretty much stay away from anything in any format that says remastered.

Compression and brickwalling plus often its from a digital source.

I've heard somewhere, that a lot of vinyl records were mastered in 80's with help of digital delays (so mastering engineer knew ahead of time when song ends). Moreover, most of these digital delays were only 12bit!!! if that's true, most of vinyl records in 80's went through so bad digitization during mastering process, yet somehow they sounds great. I think two reasons, why remastered albums sounds like crap today, are clueless mastering engineers and pressing plants.

Remastered does not always mean better. The fire at universal studios was a disaster , destroying thousands of analogue master tapes. The studios response that other copies were easily available was Ridiculous. It was like the mona lisa being destroyed and the gallery saying it's ok because we have copies and prints of it.

people used to listen low quality and distortion so your brain make a auto adjustment. like listen to a telephone

Yeah Paul Low Spark great album

I think if you're going to buy vinyl records in a turntable there is no point at all unless it's analog signal if you want digital then you go digital if you want analog you go analog so vinyl is analog MP4 is digital and everything else enjoy original music. I think that is best if you're going to go with a turntable or just listen to music digitally on a digital system don't cross match one thing one thing and the other thing the other way and that is best,

I heard in 'HiFi News' that there was a fire in one of the main storage archives of analog masters, destroying many of the original master tapes. What are you going to pay for?

I wish you miked your interviewees with something that didn't pick up all the other sounds and conversations in the plaza. It makes the interview harder to hear and can be distracting.

I don’t think he/anyone could tell a digital master from analog master in a blind test.

Pink Floyd. Even their remasters have lost a lot.

Re-mastering vintage albums is a scam. Old analog recordings made originally to magnetic tape, although good for the day, were seriously compromised. Re-mastering cannot recover detail lost in the original recording. Just like an old black and white photo cannot be turned into a hi-res colour photo by copying by a modern photocopier.

you know they say, nothing is permanent but one 🤣

i have a Bonnie Raitt CD produced from the Analog tapes (AAD) and it sounds great! Another Bonnie Raitt CD is all digital and sucks in comparison.

Simple solution: Don't buy vinyl unless it clearly states something like, "Remastered to the standards of 19xx", and let the buyers demonstrate what "xx" must be to earn the buyer's dollars.

Digital Remastered Music does not suck unless the Master Engineer did not know what he was doing. Transfer digital file to a medium like Compact Disc or Record has always been an Art not many can master. Due to its physical limitations, Records will always suck because the people who helped overcome their imperfections are no longer with us. Just listen straight to the digital audio files via a DAC (even the newly remastered ones) and forget about those overdue, should-have-been-abandoned-a long-time-ago Records.

NO WONDER!! my depeche mode remastered vinyl sounds like crap.

The Steve Miller Bands Remasters sounds worse than the original. (Apple Music) On the other hand, The Beatles Apple Digital (re)Masters sound superior to the original CD releases. Abbey Road sounds amazing. What about “remixed vs remastered?” Bowie’s Space Oddity was remastered, then remixed a few of years later.

I'm looking forward to when my grandkids in 30 years pull out my CD's and play it on my Technics 5 Disc player and comment on how much warmer the sound is.

Like a fool I bought The Beatles big box remastered vinyl. From the first thing I played It was terrible, to this day I've only l payed half of the set. I just can't take it, horrible and ruined. . Z.K.

We all getting screwed look prices we have pay some theses remastered albums are worse than the original they are robbing us blind

I can’t speak about vinyl, but almost all of my remastered rock cd’s sound much better than the originals.

I bought a vinyl remastered version of pink floyd's the wall to replace a rather noisy original version. It's awful. God knows what they did to it , but all the life been taken out of it. It's worse than my CD copy. no

What I found is in a number remastered recordings is everything is turned up too loud and you lose all the dynamics the music once had throwing off the balance between instruments. An example is the song "Magnet And Steel". The remastered version is too compressed. The regular version sounds more like the vinyl record I used to own. You can find both versions here on KZfaq so can check for yourselves.

Unless Jimmy page is remastering his original tape, most suck.