I agree. Giles Martin remastered Beatle records his father mastered as intended. What I hear is cranked up bass and accentuating vocals or instruments. I guess Giles needs the money.
- ...
- 56 posts total
Remasters were initially done to improve the early digital transfers to CDs. In the 1990s when digital technology improved there was often an improvement to the CD. Loudness Wars ruined the intended sound of recordings, the only concern was to pump up the sound for playback in cars and iPods using earbuds. |
You are right Voodoo....I bought the Ebbetts MFSL to CD box set and I bought 3 of the new Giles Martin remasters. I compared the same 3 CDs of each version over a period of time and conclude that the "redbox" (I guess that term means regular everyday CDs?) is overall just as good as....if not better. (and I lean towards better heavily) Ebbetts is going back on ebay tomorrow night. MFSL Floyd....I agree with E_S.....not impressed with it either. Think they were made to sound good on the radio of a basic factory car stereo.
|
That’s why I buy original analog from the 50s to the early 80s. Many times, once digitized, the tiny details that give music its nuance and soul are lost forever. Sat in on an Acoustic Sounds demo with Chad Kassem of original vs remastered vinyl. Apart from some cleaning up of the recording, the music lost its blackness and took on a grey hash and fine detail was smoothed over. They all thought this was great. I wasn’t convinced. |
for many remastered is a marketing bait. that’s why. otherwise it’s literally nothing unless the original mastering is crap, but regardless, for some reason, the crappy original mastering is often more desirable than remastered and so on... og triangle issue of DSOM sounds better than any audiophile remastered versions including UHQR. |
- 56 posts total