Why is most everything remastered?

@audioguy85 You’re right.

There are bargains to be found but you need a bit of luck. A friend of mine picked up an original mono copy of Sgt Pepper for £5 at a charity shop. He also got a copy of the Beatles Oldies but Goldies for the same amount.

A few years back (pre-plandemic, 2017/8?) I managed to pick up a couple of Glen Campbell LPs for him that were part of a set for £1 each!

Even better, they were both in mint condition. I spent many, many hours browsing in record and comic shops/marts and I don’t regret any of them - but then came the internet...

Anyway, the best of luck in the future.

 

@mike_in_nc

Remastering is done for three reasons.

• The first is to boost the highs to make them irritating.
• The second is to compress out all the dynamics to get a modern sound.
• The third is to sell more CDs. NEW! IMPROVED! BUY NOW!

 

 

It’s all true!

Ok, not all remasters have irritating highs, but many do, and all are boosted.

Even worse, I have yet to hear ANY remaster that didn’t have some form of dynamic compression added, even if was just a hint.

Why oh why do they need to sound modern?

 

Oh hang on, your 3rd point explains it!

 

It might sound a bit cynical, but I should tell it like I see it.

I felt like a heretic when I compared the Steve Hoffman remastered Nat King Cole to the earlier Bear Family releases, and, shock horror, preferred some of the earlier transfers.

Steve did an excellent job on sourcing the original tapes no doubt, but even his ingenuity couldn’t quite replicate the famous Capitol Studios echo chamber.

 

https://www.acontinuouslean.com/2013/12/02/secret-capitol-studios-sound/

 

 

 

 

With two DAC's in place, a chip and an R2R, the A/B between is somewhat shocking. Remasters from Qobuz through Roon sound tuned for the chip DAC and when played through the R2R, the horror!

 

I keep the R2R in NOS mode and what is heard when 44.1 comes through is far more pleasing. My selections are now curated to the original 44.1 when I have the choice and wish the selection was available between the two when adding albums to my library.

So many reasons to remaster with many not being worth the time to chase down but many are well worth it. Depends on who is doing the remastering and why. Some of the older recordings are damaged to some degree and need remastering to rebuild what was there. Some were terribly mastered to begin with and maybe it is not totally correct to remaster it so it sounds better but I certainly appreciate that and some are butchered to sound like what they believe the masses are looking for, those I try to stay clear of. One begins to know who to chase down and look for their remastering.

I sure don't agree with the Giles Martin remixes not sounding good-I think they are fantastic.  Sgt Pepper sounds as though a veil is removed and Abbey Road has brought some buried parts forward that are nice to hear. 

I agree that Sgt. Pepper has a great amount of detail that has been revealed. It's more lively, noise-free with clarity, and a judicious use of compression. However, I find the overall timbre to be lean and thin in the highs. The type of tipped-up high-end found on earlier remasters. If these issues were addressed I would call this remaster a masterpiece.