I really enjoy your videos and I really felt you hit the nail on the head with this one. I tend to prefer the remasters of any album that was released on CD in the 80s or early 90s as long as they aren't just made loud for the sake of being loud without improving equalization, separation and clarity. This was a massive problem throughout the 2000s but labels and artists seem to be more conscientious of this problem today thanks feedback from fans and the fact that streaming services usually normalize volumes by default. I would also like to see more bands from the 60s and early 70s use today's technology to create new stereo mixes since many of those recordings suffer from poor stereo separation. With the success of the Beatles recent releases I anticipate more estates/labels will do the same.
Great discussion topic Brendan. Fantastic to here some comments and knowledgable opinions on this. I buy a lot of 2nd hand stuff online, noting that people are possibly replacing their older discs for the remasters? I also like "Remixes", as its a fun way to hear extra twists. Todd Rundgren is a good example of this. I also want "extra bonus tracks" if im shelling out more cash. The CD Army seems to be alive, linked, and highly intelligent. Cheers from Australia!
I’ve always thought the whole “remaster” thing was all record label marketing to get people to re-buy the same album again, or to entice record stores to keep old albums in stock (this was actually said by one of the guys who runs one of the bigger metal labels).
Interesting video. I generally have found that I prefer the original versions of the albums I grew up with. Like you say in the video, too many remasters have a very different sound from the albums we are used to, and it’s almost more like a remix. The remastered albums I do prefer include: Van Halen 1, Slippery When Wet, and the three Whitesnake albums you mentioned. They sound better to my ears without changing the original mix.
The 3 vendors that reissues had to find Christian Rock, Hard Rock and Metal albums and some mainstream, Boones Overstock (Matt Hunt), Girder Music (Greg Hayes) and Roxx Records (Bill Bafford) does an excellent job. Those Bloodgood CDs you picked up was done by Boones Overstock on the Retroactive label. I will usually sell off my originals and get the reissues unless the original has something the reissue don't have then I'll keep both. The 3 vendors also have the dream team that assist the reissues - Scott Waters of No Life Til Metal does the inlay that usually involves thicker booklets and more artwork and Rob Colwell on the remastering. The owners of these vendors and Scott and Rob are all music fans and collectors themselves so they are fans and know what collectors want.
I am largely in favor of original mastering. Most modern remasters are simply too loud for my liking even if it undoes some of the muddiness in the original. The only time a remaster is considered would be to get the album without pre-emphasis if applicable. Even then, any example I have of that is a remaster from the late 80's which still kept the volume levels in check.
Whatever sounds better to you. That's all that should matter. Not the FOMO. I often prefer OG masters only because I am used to hearing them for, literally, decades. Sometimes a remaster (or remix) is long overdue or can breathe new life into something that was not so great originally. It's up to your ear, and avoid the "audiophile" BS.
artwork i hated was when ozzy re released his early solo stuff in the 90s. because he shrunk the artwork down on each album, just so he could put his name on it a 2nd time.
I agree with most of your points. I generally will go for the original CD since that's what the band intended and how I remember the recording. If I'm really into the band, I'll pick up the remaster if there are additional songs. I love it loud, so I just turn up the volume on the older CDs. Also, I absolutely hate Digipaks and will even pay more for the jewel case version if I can get it.
You'll only here the difference if you have a high end hifi.. ours is Naim Audio amps and Cyrus Signature transport/Dac /PSXR2.. Buy good cables to squeeze out the music.. It makes a huge difference. Spend 20k GBP and you'll get a decent system. 😅.. Then you'll hear what's on offer from different cds.🤘 Plus some people's hearing is better than others depending on age and lifestyle.
Also, with Whitesnakes Slide It In album, the Uk mix has Mickey Moody and the US mix has John Sykes. Also the US mix has Neil Murray and the UK mix has Colin Hodgkinson
But as for the comparison of the original master and the remaster both are the version with John Sykes. Otherwise it would be silly to compare two albums that were recorded by different line-ups. Clearly that is not something equal.
I don’t buy any remastered albums on cd anymore that I have original cd copies of unless they are part of a bigger set with bonus content I want. They remaster music for ear buds then throw it on a disc as an afterthought because they want to save money and know CD’s are a tiny part of music consumption now.
Great video Brendon. All cases are different, some situations there better but I have found in most cases for me, the original is the best. Now I don’t go past the 70’s, but I still find original recordings usually are what I gravitate too.but there are exceptions. Thanks! Joe
Remasters are a mixed bag it really does depend. Some are amazing some not so much. Album art wise I like it when they keep to the original but i appreciate it when, if the do want to change it they do it as a slip case with the CD underneath keeping the original. Deep Purple did this with a few of their remasters, Fireball comes to mind. Or reversible like some of the early Deep Purple where you could change the booklet around to restore the original cover art. I'm like you now though a lot of it has to do with the bonus material for me. I was so happy with the last lot of Doors releases although still a bit disappointed they didn't do the Strange Days one!
I generally like remasters as long as they are done right. With the loudness wars thankfully behind us, this is the case most of the time. A good remaster will mske almost any recording sound better. However, some remasters sound as if barely anything was changed. In these cases, I feel like I'm being asked as a fan to buy the same thing multiple times with nothing new and no added value. A good example of doing remasters well was the 2015 Iron Maiden catalog remasters that came out on CD a few years back. I repurchased my entire Maiden collection and it was worth every penny. Sounds amazing. But even then, there were no bonus tracks, necessitating the keeping of multiple copies to make sure I had all the songs.
Some of the best remasters I've ever heard are performed by 3 UK companies - Rock Candy & BGO records & Cherry Red records. The only thing I dislike about these 3 companies is that they'll give you new write-ups on the band with the insert, but they never include the lyrics anymore. For example - the original Loverboy CDs had the lyrics reprinted. With the Rock Candy remasters - you get a great write-up on the band & the album, but no lyrics. One of the only companies that will do a great remaster with the lyrics & a write-up (even though the write-up is in Japanese) is UMG music group. Their Japanese remasters of the Yngwie Malmsteen CDs are awesome!
I have the Police 1995 remasters and they sound amazing. Much like the Pink Floyd remasters (both from the 90s and 00s), they retained the dynamics and space of the original recordings. On average though, I prefer the original masters. I find most remasters of the past 20 - 25 years to be loudness war causalities. I'd rather have the original quieter masters and just turn them up louder.
I think the Hagar years sound remixed as well but, I actually really appreciate the sound of them and have been listening to them a lot since it was released.
Toss some of those tracks into a waveform viewer and see which ones are amplified past the point of no return and are brickwalled. Nine times out of ten the "remaster" is a product of just that.
If I see the word "remix" I'm immediately walking away, but the Black Sabbath Anno Domini set open my eyes/ears to what a responsible remix with the artist in charge who wants to "clean" up a album can be. What Tony Iommi did for the album Forbidden is nothing short of miraculous. But I will still always be wary of a remix vs a remaster.
Interesting…because if I see the word “remix” I’m more inclined to get it because it will be different. If I already own the album, I hate buying a new copy for the remaster and getting nothing new. But if they issue a “remix” then it’s different, whether good or bad, it’s a different way to hear the album. Then I can always go back to the original album later.
I completely agree with your bonus on separate disc thought. I think in the early era of CDs the music industry was more conscious about material: tried to fit everything on one disc, the least amount of printed pages. I really hate how bonus tracks ruin "the end of the album" experience. And we were used to that. Now that we are spoiled with multi disc reissues we start to demand the original album and nothing else on one disc. There are so many reissues with editorial decisions I can't stand, that some times I make my own CDr-s from the bonus. I compiled all the Yes rarities found on remasters, compilations that are more than just demo and runthrough versions on a triple CDr collection of my own. Another example is the recordings found on Captain Beefheart's Safe as Milk and Mirror Man reissues. These should belong together. Many times when bonuses are at the end of the disc, I program the playback to omit those. I'm thinking of buying a CD player that remembers my custom programs, so that when I pop the disc in next time, I don't have do that again. I'm not sure they make players like that anymore, but Sony and Philips had some in 90s, 00s.
Anything released before, say, 1984ish benefits from remastering as those early cd pressings were a little weak sounding to me. The expanded liner notes and photos are also half the fun when it comes to remasters as well.
The Pink Floyd remasters from 1994 were phenomenal especially the US versions of the 1975-87 catalog which was remastered in June 1994 for the short lived Mini Disc format and when Sony Music released the Pink Floyd remasters in late 1997, they sounded ten times better than the UK EMI issues which were not remastered but transfers of the 1980s UK CDs with new artwork. Capitol Records and EMI reissued the 1994 remasters in 2000 but luckily had the Sony mastering (look for Nimbus and other things in the Matrix) to see it was the 1994 remastering with the UK/EU 1994 packaging. The 2011 remasters were analog according to James Guthrie as they planned on a vinyl reissue campaign which came to fruition in 2016/17/18. The Rush Remasters in 1997 were phenomenal. The 2011 for Sector were too harsh and the 2014/15/16 were worse. Queen remasters I go with the Crown Jewels box from 1998 which were done by Peter Mew at Abbey Road and the 2011 were victims of the loudness wars. The newest Zeppelin was supervised by Jimmy Page himself and oversaw the remastering which was from original tapes to the different formats.
It really depends on the artist and the label. The original Billy Joel CD's especially early on up till about Storm front all sounded horrible, low, etc... Some Prince albums like "LoveSexy" and "Sign o the times" also sound horrible "original" quality. Some of the John Mellencamp stuff def needs it, some artists also need it that don't have it. It also depends on time between "mastering" Joel and Prince and Mellencamp are basically 70's and 80's artists when this was new, some get remastered in 2000's for an anniversary then they get done again for another anniversary, to me it then comes down to what extra thing are you giving me, the art the book the bonus tracks etc... so I think its a little of both the older artists I mentioned clearly needed it on some albums for sure. I recently listened to Prince's Purple Rain which I have as an original and then when the estate redid it with a bonus disc, but a recent 40th anniversary dolby atmos mix, I cant believe the stuff I never heard on this album as a kid.
I was not a fan of The Who or Genesis remix remasters. Now I have all of the catalog with original mixes on vinyl and they sound better anyway. The lone modification I made was slowing Guitar and Pen from A Flat to G and the song was recorded in G but tape issues sped it up to A Flat. On Abacab Man on the Corner sounded a little sharp so I slowed it to concert pitch and how it was recorded because in playback in mastering the tape speed would go haywire.
I am 100% with you on both issues. Spotify has awful sound, at least the free one. I rather listen it from RUclips. Even just cd rips sounds better than Spotify. If I want an album I buy it. I wanna own it, hold it in my hands and read liner notes. 10 years ago I would have said that remasters are way to go too, but what drove me away from them was those horrible Megadeth remasters/remix/guitar parts added whatever they did to ruin those albums. I bought original cd's and gave them away. I'm a huge Ratt fan too and I was about to get those Rock Candy releases, but I think I keep my original cd's and lp's. I am very satisfied how they sound already so I get something else with that money. I have been collecting my favorite artists and bands original lp's and been very lucky. With patience I have done great deals. I'm sure you have had too. Thanks again for the video and I really appreciate the work you put behind these videos. Funny thing is that I'm a punk rocker, but I just love people who love music. I watch Jazz channels, metal, yours and so many others. Haha long one. Sorry about that. Cheers from Finland!
At the end of the day it's going to boil down to what sounds better to your ear, nostalgia can play a big part if you have lived with an album for many years, astetics will play a part alongside what bonuses the remasters offer. How many albums do you reckon you own multiple copies of due to this issue.
There are a ton of albums that are screaming and pleading for a remix: Kiss - Hotter Than Hell, Babylon AD - their newest, Sabbath - Born Again, Metallica - St Anger, Maiden - Dance Of Death.
My pet peeves are 2 things. 1. I like the original Cover Art to be close to to the Original 2. the worst is when the track listing has been altered. The recent Sammy VH reissues OU812 and the little feet cover removed and put with the rarities. I don't remember a CD version of OU812 that didn't have that tracks as a bonus Track. Also I collect The Number One Billboard albums and have every one since 1963. For those I don't like additional discs of material as that's is not the way they album came out back in the day, one case in point. was the reissue in 2010 of Double Fantasy =by John Lennon with a disc of stripped versions. for that I chose to keep the first 1 disc reissue as the Stripped versions did not hit #1. I did buy the 2010 version but did not put it with my number one albums
All of the Whitesnake remixes have been fantastic. Even the three compilation discs (Red, White, and Blues) feature unique remixes. All have breathed new life into classic songs.
I think some remastered albums, most people like myself, may not have a choice because they are a bit young to remember the originals, and only got the remasters because they were available, like Bon Jovi, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Saxon etc, but the only originals you could get is every new album they release, and that's just my opinion of course.
Some of are great, say the Van Halen 2015, Van Hagar 2023, Metallica Blackened Records, remasters. For example the Van Hagar remasters are phenomenal, the albums are louder, less compressed, I can hear Mikey's bass and little nuances... the artwork was only slightly changed (I think color shading. They all seem a bit darker), and tbh I agree, my first thought was that it got remixed. As someone who never liked the original Hagar mixes, I like these a ton more. Some bad ones though, I mean atrocious, are the Megadeth 2004 "remaster" which isn't eveb a remaster, but a remix wrongfully titled. Iron Maiden's 2015 remasters are abysmal as well, I honestly haven't listened to a Maiden album since they became the only available option. Way too compressed and just nothing feels punchy anymore.
For me, it depends. Generally, I'd prefer a remaster over an 80s release, particularly the older ones. Those were imo mastered way too quiet. On the other hand, I'd prefer a 90s particularly around '94 release over a remaster. Around the 2000s, mastering was and still is too loud depending on the labels. But then, it's usually the 2000s where we started seeing more and more bonus tracks, so it's not real cut and dried for me.
Great video Brendon. I completely agree with the Sammy Van Halen remasters. They are absolute junk, when compared to the Dave remasters. OU812 was one of the worst sounding albums in my collection and I couldn't WAIT to get the CD remasters, especially after how well the Dave remasters sounded. I heard it and thought, it's a noticeable difference but hardly much better. How could they screw this up so badly? And Carnal and Balance sound WORSE than the originals, to my ears. Ugh. I also just found a copy of the Police 2018 CD set this week and comparing to the 2007 The Police compilation, there isn't much of a difference. Highly disappointing. So I'm sure it depends on the band, the record company, the amount of money they all want to put into it, and the cognitive abilities of the remasterer.
Sometimes it can be a remaster too far, like you say they just push up the audio level, but that can get very treblely sometimes. I preferred the Dio originals to the remasters..the remasters sounded too hot.
i prefer the remasters simply because some of the original versions were released at such a low volume that you need to crank your stereo to get it loud enough. perfect example of this is the second Lynch Mob Album.. stereo fully cranked and its still not loud enough at all !!
@@BrendonSnyder I understand you on that point is this that somebody mentioned brick wall in another comment and it got me thinking about that particular CD I wish they would go back and remastered that would be good
i hvn’t bought the Sammy’s era VH yet.. honestly the only albums that nd to be remastered are 5150 & 0U812…. the rest seems very good as the way they are… yup.. i hate when bands do remasters for the first time of their classic n out of print album with additional different mix … diff edit.. instrumental.. etc… c’mon .. what am i supposed to do with all that ‘useless’ tracks.. i mean.. when i play the disc.. u want me to press ‘skip’ or ‘stop’ after i listen to the original tracks..? some things the band or recording company shd keep to themselves.. i prefer live tracks frm a rare performance that is remastered as bonus tracks… btw.. did u purchase Lionsheart’s heart of the lion - 5 discs set ..? love all the 4 studio albums bt hate the live album, rising sons…. the gig sounded awesome with good participation of the crowd.. i know it was taken frm a soundboard… but c’mon.. they could actually beefed up the sound n do away with the miserable edits… i mean they chopped off each tracks leaving sudden start or end to the tracks.. even the album cover was horrible.. looks more like made for a reggae album…. anyways.. did enjoy watching today’s topic… 😅
The Judas Priest 2001 Remasters were mostly amazing, esp. their 1970s CDs! A few, however, sounded the same only a bit louder, like British Steel. What really ruined Remastered CDs was the horrible Loudness War that started in 1996; it was a total travesty: the loudness absolutely ruined any dynamic range. You could barely turn up those CDs and the sound would be instantly muddy & muffled! I got rid of those duds ASAP and kept the originals as they sounded way better. Overall, my experience has been that perhaps 60% to maximum 70% of Remastered CDs do actually sound better than the originals, as the sound is clearer, more dynamic and the stereo seperation was improved on. Sometimes you also get cool Bonus tracks on Remasters, like the Judas Priest 2001 Remasters.
I remember getting the Michael Jackson Off The Wall Special Edition that was released in 2001 but there's one thing that they did with the album cover and album art is that they did not use the original album cover they instead used a different album cover for it but however on the 2015 remastered version of it they put the original album cover back but with slight deviations and I also do have an original early to mid-90s European release of the album with the original album cover as intended but I actually do prefer the originals over the remastered and the other thing that bothers me is that is they took the original spoken word intro from I just can't stop loving you from the 2001 digitally remastered version of Michael Jackson's bad out of the song but on the original version which I recently acquired it has the original spoken word intro to I just can't stop loving you on it
I usually seek remixes as many are fantastic (Forbidden, Flotsam’s “Doomsday”, Steven Wilson’s remixes of classic prog, Deep Purple’s “Machine Head, etc). But then there are truly bad examples: see Megadeth.
Most albums benefit from Remastering, mostly ones before the early 90s, with some exceptions like Iron Maiden Somewhere in time, that to my taste, sound saturated, uglier.
The most remasters are very good, example warner does a good job by original van halen, rod stewart....But the remasters from jon astley - judas priest, level 42, rock candy reissues.... so horrible, no dynamic, too loud - bullshit!
I have lots of Rock Candy reissues, they sound fantastic. Rock Candy CDs and Japanese imports are the best sounding CDs I have, no doubt whatsoever about that.
I disagree about remixes. They’re different and new, can’t be a money grab if something is unique. Plus they often breathe new life into an old record that has been way overplayed and worn out. It’s like hearing it new for the first time. You really should give them a try.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Bonus tracks are the main attraction for me to repurchase an album again & again. Then, upgrade of sound quality. Finally, new or additional artwork.
I really enjoy your videos and I really felt you hit the nail on the head with this one. I tend to prefer the remasters of any album that was released on CD in the 80s or early 90s as long as they aren't just made loud for the sake of being loud without improving equalization, separation and clarity. This was a massive problem throughout the 2000s but labels and artists seem to be more conscientious of this problem today thanks feedback from fans and the fact that streaming services usually normalize volumes by default. I would also like to see more bands from the 60s and early 70s use today's technology to create new stereo mixes since many of those recordings suffer from poor stereo separation. With the success of the Beatles recent releases I anticipate more estates/labels will do the same.
Great discussion topic Brendan. Fantastic to here some comments and knowledgable opinions on this. I buy a lot of 2nd hand stuff online, noting that people are possibly replacing their older discs for the remasters? I also like "Remixes", as its a fun way to hear extra twists. Todd Rundgren is a good example of this. I also want "extra bonus tracks" if im shelling out more cash. The CD Army seems to be alive, linked, and highly intelligent. Cheers from Australia!
I’ve always thought the whole “remaster” thing was all record label marketing to get people to re-buy the same album again, or to entice record stores to keep old albums in stock (this was actually said by one of the guys who runs one of the bigger metal labels).
It’s not, remasters are legit. You’re missing out if that’s what you think is going on.
Whitesnake 1987 UK release is a DDD recording and sounds fantastic!
Yes I have a copy of that it is indeed ddd
I can never really tell the difference between them to be honest remaster just a fancy way of saying buy it again to me
Interesting video. I generally have found that I prefer the original versions of the albums I grew up with. Like you say in the video, too many remasters have a very different sound from the albums we are used to, and it’s almost more like a remix. The remastered albums I do prefer include: Van Halen 1, Slippery When Wet, and the three Whitesnake albums you mentioned. They sound better to my ears without changing the original mix.
The 3 vendors that reissues had to find Christian Rock, Hard Rock and Metal albums and some mainstream, Boones Overstock (Matt Hunt), Girder Music (Greg Hayes) and Roxx Records (Bill Bafford) does an excellent job. Those Bloodgood CDs you picked up was done by Boones Overstock on the Retroactive label. I will usually sell off my originals and get the reissues unless the original has something the reissue don't have then I'll keep both. The 3 vendors also have the dream team that assist the reissues - Scott Waters of No Life Til Metal does the inlay that usually involves thicker booklets and more artwork and Rob Colwell on the remastering. The owners of these vendors and Scott and Rob are all music fans and collectors themselves so they are fans and know what collectors want.
I am largely in favor of original mastering. Most modern remasters are simply too loud for my liking even if it undoes some of the muddiness in the original. The only time a remaster is considered would be to get the album without pre-emphasis if applicable. Even then, any example I have of that is a remaster from the late 80's which still kept the volume levels in check.
Whatever sounds better to you. That's all that should matter. Not the FOMO. I often prefer OG masters only because I am used to hearing them for, literally, decades. Sometimes a remaster (or remix) is long overdue or can breathe new life into something that was not so great originally. It's up to your ear, and avoid the "audiophile" BS.
The van Halen remasters are remarkable in my opinion
Different strokes for different folks!
artwork i hated was when ozzy re released his early solo stuff in the 90s. because he shrunk the artwork down on each album, just so he could put his name on it a 2nd time.
Worse, were his 2001 cd rereleases that replaced the guitar entirely
@@dawnpatrol700 worst part of that is how those versions were even used on essential ozzy. and they never changed it back.
I agree with most of your points. I generally will go for the original CD since that's what the band intended and how I remember the recording. If I'm really into the band, I'll pick up the remaster if there are additional songs. I love it loud, so I just turn up the volume on the older CDs. Also, I absolutely hate Digipaks and will even pay more for the jewel case version if I can get it.
Great vid Brendon
Black Sabbaths Born Again needs remixing, Metallicas St Anger too, but most others I'd say keep it original
Tony Iommi says he is working on a remix for Born Again.
You'll only here the difference if you have a high end hifi.. ours is Naim Audio amps and Cyrus Signature transport/Dac /PSXR2.. Buy good cables to squeeze out the music.. It makes a huge difference. Spend 20k GBP and you'll get a decent system. 😅.. Then you'll hear what's on offer from different cds.🤘
Plus some people's hearing is better than others depending on age and lifestyle.
Also, with Whitesnakes Slide It In album, the Uk mix has Mickey Moody and the US mix has John Sykes. Also the US mix has Neil Murray and the UK mix has Colin Hodgkinson
But as for the comparison of the original master and the remaster both are the version with John Sykes. Otherwise it would be silly to compare two albums that were recorded by different line-ups. Clearly that is not something equal.
I don’t buy any remastered albums on cd anymore that I have original cd copies of unless they are part of a bigger set with bonus content I want. They remaster music for ear buds then throw it on a disc as an afterthought because they want to save money and know CD’s are a tiny part of music consumption now.
Great video Brendon. All cases are different, some situations there better but I have found in most cases for me, the original is the best. Now I don’t go past the 70’s, but I still find original recordings usually are what I gravitate too.but there are exceptions. Thanks! Joe
I really enjoyed the Kiss remasters from 1997
They were good too.
I wish Styx would remaster they’re cd catalog, all of there albums don’t sound loud enough
Remasters are a mixed bag it really does depend. Some are amazing some not so much.
Album art wise I like it when they keep to the original but i appreciate it when, if the do want to change it they do it as a slip case with the CD underneath keeping the original. Deep Purple did this with a few of their remasters, Fireball comes to mind. Or reversible like some of the early Deep Purple where you could change the booklet around to restore the original cover art.
I'm like you now though a lot of it has to do with the bonus material for me. I was so happy with the last lot of Doors releases although still a bit disappointed they didn't do the Strange Days one!
I generally like remasters as long as they are done right. With the loudness wars thankfully behind us, this is the case most of the time. A good remaster will mske almost any recording sound better. However, some remasters sound as if barely anything was changed. In these cases, I feel like I'm being asked as a fan to buy the same thing multiple times with nothing new and no added value. A good example of doing remasters well was the 2015 Iron Maiden catalog remasters that came out on CD a few years back. I repurchased my entire Maiden collection and it was worth every penny. Sounds amazing. But even then, there were no bonus tracks, necessitating the keeping of multiple copies to make sure I had all the songs.
Some of the best remasters I've ever heard are performed by 3 UK companies - Rock Candy & BGO records & Cherry Red records. The only thing I dislike about these 3 companies is that they'll give you new write-ups on the band with the insert, but they never include the lyrics anymore. For example - the original Loverboy CDs had the lyrics reprinted. With the Rock Candy remasters - you get a great write-up on the band & the album, but no lyrics. One of the only companies that will do a great remaster with the lyrics & a write-up (even though the write-up is in Japanese) is UMG music group. Their Japanese remasters of the Yngwie Malmsteen CDs are awesome!
I have the Police 1995 remasters and they sound amazing. Much like the Pink Floyd remasters (both from the 90s and 00s), they retained the dynamics and space of the original recordings. On average though, I prefer the original masters. I find most remasters of the past 20 - 25 years to be loudness war causalities. I'd rather have the original quieter masters and just turn them up louder.
I've got the original GW Hooked CD and the gal was naked on the UK release.. I also bought the re master and it's fantastic!
I think the Hagar years sound remixed as well but, I actually really appreciate the sound of them and have been listening to them a lot since it was released.
Toss some of those tracks into a waveform viewer and see which ones are amplified past the point of no return and are brickwalled. Nine times out of ten the "remaster" is a product of just that.
The spars code can also make a difference AAD , ADD , or DDD . But that's another story
If I see the word "remix" I'm immediately walking away, but the Black Sabbath Anno Domini set open my eyes/ears to what a responsible remix with the artist in charge who wants to "clean" up a album can be. What Tony Iommi did for the album Forbidden is nothing short of miraculous. But I will still always be wary of a remix vs a remaster.
Interesting…because if I see the word “remix” I’m more inclined to get it because it will be different. If I already own the album, I hate buying a new copy for the remaster and getting nothing new. But if they issue a “remix” then it’s different, whether good or bad, it’s a different way to hear the album. Then I can always go back to the original album later.
The 2018 Remix of Pink Floyd's Animals is widely agreed to be an example of a remix done right.
@@9dewittkindeed. A significant upgrade, to be sure.
Great White is one of our favourite bands..seen then live 20 years ago ❤
The Badlands remastered Cds sound better.. More balance and you can hear more timber is Jake's guitar.. Well done Rock Candy❤
I completely agree with your bonus on separate disc thought. I think in the early era of CDs the music industry was more conscious about material: tried to fit everything on one disc, the least amount of printed pages. I really hate how bonus tracks ruin "the end of the album" experience. And we were used to that. Now that we are spoiled with multi disc reissues we start to demand the original album and nothing else on one disc.
There are so many reissues with editorial decisions I can't stand, that some times I make my own CDr-s from the bonus. I compiled all the Yes rarities found on remasters, compilations that are more than just demo and runthrough versions on a triple CDr collection of my own. Another example is the recordings found on Captain Beefheart's Safe as Milk and Mirror Man reissues. These should belong together.
Many times when bonuses are at the end of the disc, I program the playback to omit those. I'm thinking of buying a CD player that remembers my custom programs, so that when I pop the disc in next time, I don't have do that again. I'm not sure they make players like that anymore, but Sony and Philips had some in 90s, 00s.
Anything released before, say, 1984ish benefits from remastering as those early cd pressings were a little weak sounding to me. The expanded liner notes and photos are also half the fun when it comes to remasters as well.
We've got the original Hurricane cds and the remastered.. The latter is brilliant.
great topic Brendon! I find myself favoring originals....
The Pink Floyd remasters from 1994 were phenomenal especially the US versions of the 1975-87 catalog which was remastered in June 1994 for the short lived Mini Disc format and when Sony Music released the Pink Floyd remasters in late 1997, they sounded ten times better than the UK EMI issues which were not remastered but transfers of the 1980s UK CDs with new artwork.
Capitol Records and EMI reissued the 1994 remasters in 2000 but luckily had the Sony mastering (look for Nimbus and other things in the Matrix) to see it was the 1994 remastering with the UK/EU 1994 packaging. The 2011 remasters were analog according to James Guthrie as they planned on a vinyl reissue campaign which came to fruition in 2016/17/18.
The Rush Remasters in 1997 were phenomenal. The 2011 for Sector were too harsh and the 2014/15/16 were worse.
Queen remasters I go with the Crown Jewels box from 1998 which were done by Peter Mew at Abbey Road and the 2011 were victims of the loudness wars.
The newest Zeppelin was supervised by Jimmy Page himself and oversaw the remastering which was from original tapes to the different formats.
The Ratt remasters were good. The bass shakes the walls! The KISS remasters didn’t do much for me.
I agree. Changing track listing is so wrong!!
It really depends on the artist and the label. The original Billy Joel CD's especially early on up till about Storm front all sounded horrible, low, etc... Some Prince albums like "LoveSexy" and "Sign o the times" also sound horrible "original" quality. Some of the John Mellencamp stuff def needs it, some artists also need it that don't have it. It also depends on time between "mastering" Joel and Prince and Mellencamp are basically 70's and 80's artists when this was new, some get remastered in 2000's for an anniversary then they get done again for another anniversary, to me it then comes down to what extra thing are you giving me, the art the book the bonus tracks etc... so I think its a little of both the older artists I mentioned clearly needed it on some albums for sure. I recently listened to Prince's Purple Rain which I have as an original and then when the estate redid it with a bonus disc, but a recent 40th anniversary dolby atmos mix, I cant believe the stuff I never heard on this album as a kid.
I was not a fan of The Who or Genesis remix remasters. Now I have all of the catalog with original mixes on vinyl and they sound better anyway. The lone modification I made was slowing Guitar and Pen from A Flat to G and the song was recorded in G but tape issues sped it up to A Flat. On Abacab Man on the Corner sounded a little sharp so I slowed it to concert pitch and how it was recorded because in playback in mastering the tape speed would go haywire.
I am 100% with you on both issues. Spotify has awful sound, at least the free one. I rather listen it from RUclips. Even just cd rips sounds better than Spotify. If I want an album I buy it. I wanna own it, hold it in my hands and read liner notes. 10 years ago I would have said that remasters are way to go too, but what drove me away from them was those horrible Megadeth remasters/remix/guitar parts added whatever they did to ruin those albums. I bought original cd's and gave them away. I'm a huge Ratt fan too and I was about to get those Rock Candy releases, but I think I keep my original cd's and lp's. I am very satisfied how they sound already so I get something else with that money. I have been collecting my favorite artists and bands original lp's and been very lucky. With patience I have done great deals. I'm sure you have had too. Thanks again for the video and I really appreciate the work you put behind these videos. Funny thing is that I'm a punk rocker, but I just love people who love music. I watch Jazz channels, metal, yours and so many others. Haha long one. Sorry about that. Cheers from Finland!
At the end of the day it's going to boil down to what sounds better to your ear, nostalgia can play a big part if you have lived with an album for many years, astetics will play a part alongside what bonuses the remasters offer. How many albums do you reckon you own multiple copies of due to this issue.
For me, it just depends on the album
There are a ton of albums that are screaming and pleading for a remix: Kiss - Hotter Than Hell, Babylon AD - their newest, Sabbath - Born Again, Metallica - St Anger, Maiden - Dance Of Death.
Dear friend. There is a simple answer. It depends on the person and the technik used for doing this.
Coverdale is the master of re re re re re re re re masters.. 😂
Remaster usually screams "brickwalled" to me. There are exceptions like Steve Hoffman remasters. I usually try to stick to the original master.
My pet peeves are 2 things.
1. I like the original Cover Art to be close to to the Original
2. the worst is when the track listing has been altered. The recent Sammy VH reissues OU812 and the little feet cover removed and put with the rarities. I don't remember a CD version of OU812 that didn't have that tracks as a bonus Track.
Also I collect The Number One Billboard albums and have every one since 1963. For those I don't like additional discs of material as that's is not the way they album came out back in the day, one case in point. was the reissue in 2010 of Double Fantasy =by John Lennon with a disc of stripped versions. for that I chose to keep the first 1 disc reissue as the Stripped versions did not hit #1. I did buy the 2010 version but did not put it with my number one albums
whitesnake originals are well, but
slide it in remaster and remix, they
did a good job 😎✌️👍👏
All of the Whitesnake remixes have been fantastic. Even the three compilation discs (Red, White, and Blues) feature unique remixes. All have breathed new life into classic songs.
The Hurricane original art had the girl and they changed it so more retailers would carry it.
I like remasters for the most part but love a lot of these new remixes
I think some remastered albums, most people like myself, may not have a choice because they are a bit young to remember the originals, and only got the remasters because they were available, like Bon Jovi, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Saxon etc, but the only originals you could get is every new album they release, and that's just my opinion of course.
Iron Maiden 'No Prayer For The Dying'.... (album cover)
If only Megadeth albums had just been remastered and not remixed I'd say they would be evidence of remastered being decent.
I agree. I just like the original version only too. For example 10 songs only.
I Guess He's Never Seen A Waveform For A Remaster Compared To The Original That Tells The Whole Story
🤷♂️
Some of are great, say the Van Halen 2015, Van Hagar 2023, Metallica Blackened Records, remasters. For example the Van Hagar remasters are phenomenal, the albums are louder, less compressed, I can hear Mikey's bass and little nuances... the artwork was only slightly changed (I think color shading. They all seem a bit darker), and tbh I agree, my first thought was that it got remixed. As someone who never liked the original Hagar mixes, I like these a ton more.
Some bad ones though, I mean atrocious, are the Megadeth 2004 "remaster" which isn't eveb a remaster, but a remix wrongfully titled. Iron Maiden's 2015 remasters are abysmal as well, I honestly haven't listened to a Maiden album since they became the only available option. Way too compressed and just nothing feels punchy anymore.
For me, it depends. Generally, I'd prefer a remaster over an 80s release, particularly the older ones. Those were imo mastered way too quiet. On the other hand, I'd prefer a 90s particularly around '94 release over a remaster. Around the 2000s, mastering was and still is too loud depending on the labels. But then, it's usually the 2000s where we started seeing more and more bonus tracks, so it's not real cut and dried for me.
I'll take remastered 9 times out of 10. It's very rare that the old masters sound better.
Queen put out some good remastered cds removing some unwanted noise
Great video Brendon. I completely agree with the Sammy Van Halen remasters. They are absolute junk, when compared to the Dave remasters. OU812 was one of the worst sounding albums in my collection and I couldn't WAIT to get the CD remasters, especially after how well the Dave remasters sounded. I heard it and thought, it's a noticeable difference but hardly much better. How could they screw this up so badly? And Carnal and Balance sound WORSE than the originals, to my ears. Ugh. I also just found a copy of the Police 2018 CD set this week and comparing to the 2007 The Police compilation, there isn't much of a difference. Highly disappointing. So I'm sure it depends on the band, the record company, the amount of money they all want to put into it, and the cognitive abilities of the remasterer.
Sometimes it can be a remaster too far, like you say they just push up the audio level, but that can get very treblely sometimes. I preferred the Dio originals to the remasters..the remasters sounded too hot.
i prefer the remasters simply because some of the original versions were released at such a low volume that you need to crank your stereo to get it loud enough. perfect example of this is the second Lynch Mob Album.. stereo fully cranked and its still not loud enough at all !!
The original is pretty loud
@@dang75790 i meant the second record..oops
@@johnnyc5583 I agree
Get a better stereo
Hey Brendan, maybe you can do a video on the worst brick walled albums here’s one to start Californication by Red Hot Chili Peppers
I tend to stay away from anything that is negative. I don’t like to waste my time on it. Think positive….Best things only! 👍👊🙂
@@BrendonSnyder I understand you on that point is this that somebody mentioned brick wall in another comment and it got me thinking about that particular CD I wish they would go back and remastered that would be good
My answer: it depends.
Then you have the Remixed Remasters (looks directly at Pete Townshend and Jon Astley)…
i hvn’t bought the Sammy’s era VH yet.. honestly the only albums that nd to be remastered are 5150 & 0U812…. the rest seems very good as the way they are…
yup.. i hate when bands do remasters for the first time of their classic n out of print album with additional different mix … diff edit.. instrumental.. etc… c’mon .. what am i supposed to do with all that ‘useless’ tracks.. i mean.. when i play the disc.. u want me to press ‘skip’ or ‘stop’ after i listen to the original tracks..? some things the band or recording company shd keep to themselves.. i prefer live tracks frm a rare performance that is remastered as bonus tracks… btw.. did u purchase Lionsheart’s heart of the lion - 5 discs set ..? love all the 4 studio albums bt hate the live album, rising sons…. the gig sounded awesome with good participation of the crowd.. i know it was taken frm a soundboard… but c’mon.. they could actually beefed up the sound n do away with the miserable edits… i mean they chopped off each tracks leaving sudden start or end to the tracks.. even the album cover was horrible.. looks more like made for a reggae album…. anyways.. did enjoy watching today’s topic… 😅
😎👍
The Judas Priest 2001 Remasters were mostly amazing, esp. their 1970s CDs! A few, however, sounded the same only a bit louder, like British Steel.
What really ruined Remastered CDs was the horrible Loudness War that started in 1996; it was a total travesty: the loudness absolutely ruined any dynamic range. You could barely turn up those CDs and the sound would be instantly muddy & muffled! I got rid of those duds ASAP and kept the originals as they sounded way better.
Overall, my experience has been that perhaps 60% to maximum 70% of Remastered CDs do actually sound better than the originals, as the sound is clearer, more dynamic and the stereo seperation was improved on. Sometimes you also get cool Bonus tracks on Remasters, like the Judas Priest 2001 Remasters.
I remember getting the Michael Jackson Off The Wall Special Edition that was released in 2001 but there's one thing that they did with the album cover and album art is that they did not use the original album cover they instead used a different album cover for it but however on the 2015 remastered version of it they put the original album cover back but with slight deviations and I also do have an original early to mid-90s European release of the album with the original album cover as intended but I actually do prefer the originals over the remastered and the other thing that bothers me is that is they took the original spoken word intro from I just can't stop loving you from the 2001 digitally remastered version of Michael Jackson's bad out of the song but on the original version which I recently acquired it has the original spoken word intro to I just can't stop loving you on it
The megadeth remixed albms are terrible. I have all the original only.dave changed the music etc.
I usually seek remixes as many are fantastic (Forbidden, Flotsam’s “Doomsday”, Steven Wilson’s remixes of classic prog, Deep Purple’s “Machine Head, etc). But then there are truly bad examples: see Megadeth.
Most albums benefit from Remastering, mostly ones before the early 90s, with some exceptions like Iron Maiden Somewhere in time, that to my taste, sound saturated, uglier.
The most remasters are very good, example warner does a good job by original van halen, rod stewart....But the remasters from jon astley - judas priest, level 42, rock candy reissues.... so horrible, no dynamic, too loud - bullshit!
I have lots of Rock Candy reissues, they sound fantastic. Rock Candy CDs and Japanese imports are the best sounding CDs I have, no doubt whatsoever about that.
@@jimmycampbell78 That´s right, i have a lot of rock candy reissues too they have a great sound, but they remastered by Andy Pearce not by Jon Astley.
@@noahseifried6495 ah ok, that's interesting. I'll check if I have any remastered by Astley.
Remaster or remix. Just a money grab. I'll stick with the original masters
I disagree about remixes. They’re different and new, can’t be a money grab if something is unique. Plus they often breathe new life into an old record that has been way overplayed and worn out. It’s like hearing it new for the first time. You really should give them a try.
No it's for us new fans to get introduced to the music. Not for you cry babies.