Classic rock: best remasters

The first three Led Zep remasters are superior to the original mass produced Atlantic vinyl releases. (LZ IV has just been released).

Pink Floyd 2011 CD remasters; "DSOTM", "Animals", "WYWH" are far superior to the original releases.

Siouxsie & the Banshees 2014 CD remasters are superior to originals.

King Crimson "In the Court," "Red," "Thrak" CDs.

These are cases where a band member was involved in the project.

Mapman, I can agree with you in this way...
The DR Database on some of these new remasters may measure lower DR (or increased compression if you prefer) than their older counterparts.
BUT the new release has been remixed and "opened up" with more air in the recording. There is less noise, better imaging and the advantage of using inline compression to tighten up the drums, for example. Then a new master is made using today's digital specs.

So these disks sound much better overall and dynamic to me. The DR scale is not telling the whole story on a remaster. Of course this only applies when remastering is being done to improve the sound quality, and not when a disk is compressed louder for your Sony earbuds.

it's the overall undeniable conclusion one scan easily see in the data - that the life has been slowly squeezed out of the music going back to at least twenty years ago.

Yes, all recordings today are using more compression when mastering, but there are two subsets of the remasters being released. All of the Pop/Rock/Hip-Hop are going to be measured way into the Red (bad) area of the DR Scale. That's the result of the Loudness Wars.

The 2nd Group of remasters is what the OP asked about; are there better quality CDs/vinyl than the original releases?
The originals will most likely measure in the Green area (Good); but do they sound good? They might have more dynamic range, but original CD SQ sucked (since we are talking about Rock music).

It's only in recent years, the remaster SQ has increased, partly due to new vinyl, also due to the premium Artists knowing they have the tools to release a better product to their fans.
These recordings will also have more compression than the early releases, but they will still not measure as Bad.

As I stated earlier, the studio remix can open up the sound and make it sound dynamic. These albums are in the minority, and great care is taken during the mastering process. Notice that the Mastering Engineer's name is now prominently written into the credits.

Very true, Phasecorrect. And add to that the CDs that were released with the wrong mastering specs.
Eventually corrected and released but i wonder how long the consumer thought this was the new SOTA.

Czarivey...As much as i'm enjoying the LZ's, lower noise,
better imaging, there is something i notice as well; the
album doesn't sound as organic as original.

Anybody who has the chance to compare the remasters on KC's "In the Court of the Crimson King, I urge you you to do so. It's the 2 CD version with disk one containing a new mix (2009) drawn from the original analogue tapes.
Disk 2 contains the 2004 remastered original album.

The remaster is a good effort, but spoiled with compression and lacking dynamic range.

I'm blown away by the new production of the album on disk one. Vocals are crystal clear, the imaging and realism between the flute, Fripp's guitar and keyboards is astounding and kick drum and cymbals are so pure. The soundstage is spread across my entire room and and it sounds like I'm in the studio. The DR is so wide and clean and I feel the bass thru my floor, but in a very good way.

The only way we will get remasters of this caliber is if the artist has the integrity of a Robert Fripp and backing of the label (or if he owns it). If only Zappa were alive today.

Zd, you have a point. I always use Jeff Beck as an example of good SQ in the CD era. During the 80s and 90s, he recorded in AAD or ADD. Then in the 2000s, his digital releases were as loud and compressed as the rest of the industry. It may have been out of his control by then.