Remastering can be misleading. The labels have to work with the original masters and if they are poorly engineered so will the remaster be.
I think is is necessary to evaluate not only album by album, but within an album, track by track. They often vary widely sonically and even the engineering can be inconsistent.
The point being, even though some labels do a better job than others generally, like those mentioned, and Rhino, Telarc, and Concord, etc., it still is not safe to assume the label means any given album is sonically acceptable, let alone superior.
There is a list of tested well produced and engineered sonically superior reference quality CD's in a variety of genres (and of course labels) at the MUSIC link on http://www.linkwitzlab.com ...not that you will be able to find them all, though I believe they are all in print.
I have many of them, which make up my 'A' list, but I have yet to find any on my own that make it past the 'B' list, and I do a lot of trading (on Amazon, and Half.com).
For what its worth :-)
I think is is necessary to evaluate not only album by album, but within an album, track by track. They often vary widely sonically and even the engineering can be inconsistent.
The point being, even though some labels do a better job than others generally, like those mentioned, and Rhino, Telarc, and Concord, etc., it still is not safe to assume the label means any given album is sonically acceptable, let alone superior.
There is a list of tested well produced and engineered sonically superior reference quality CD's in a variety of genres (and of course labels) at the MUSIC link on http://www.linkwitzlab.com ...not that you will be able to find them all, though I believe they are all in print.
I have many of them, which make up my 'A' list, but I have yet to find any on my own that make it past the 'B' list, and I do a lot of trading (on Amazon, and Half.com).
For what its worth :-)