Do you know what year they were remastered? The engineer?
15 responses Add your response
My experience with remasters has been nothing but positive with regards to CDs only. In general, the latest releases I own always beat the originals on SQ. Better dynamics (less compression), better timbres, better clarity, air, bloom, tone, blacker backgrounds, even better PRaT. So, FWIW, my advice is to always purchase remasters, the latest date the better, especially if available in HDCD, SACD or Blueray. YMMV...
If you really like a pop/rock recording, I find its usually a good idea to invest in remasters. A good system can show significant differences, resulting in a fresh and different experience. I keep multiple remasters of my favorites on my music server. I tend to levitate towards the remasters overall but they all have their unique charms. I have had a few greatest hits type remasters that are done just very poorly, too loud with badly clipped dynamics, but those are the vast minority. Generally, when a popular title is remastered by reputable sources, the results are positive. I have four different digital versions of Sgt. Pepper, one of which I mastered myself from the 50th anniversary vinyl.
I understand why you want to have responses about the specific albums you're considering, but just look at the two widely dissimilar responses (mine and shadorne) out of only seven. The point being, it honestly wouldn't matter if all of us, or a multitude of "us" all owned the discs in question, you would still get all sorts of opinions. You would still be left with the dilemma of whether to purchase or not. And, if you did purchase, you would still have to listen for yourself, using your system, in your own space. And you would then form your own opinion.
I agree with @shadorne . Rock remasters compared to the originals typically provide less dynamic range due to compression, less extended bass, less separation of instruments. Then there are the remasters that have tipped-up highs.
Of course, many early CD's were of poor quality and needed remastering.
IME, a good Redbook setup can reveal high quality sound from original CD's. If tape hiss bothers you, then go with a remaster.
One need look no further than the Offical Dynamic Range Database to see the progressive onslaught of aggressive dynamic range compression that has been occurring for the last 20 years. This is true for not only CDs but also vinyl and even SACD and even the once proud SHD Japanese remastered AND hi res downloads. If one is not entirely happy with a particular remaster it is often due to overly aggressive compression. Music is dynamics. Thou shall not compress Zeppelin. Thou shall not compress Stones. Thou shall not compress Dylan or Beatles.
If things aren’t bad enough already they even overly compress the original releases. Stones, Dylan, Radiohead, what have you. ☹️
To answer my own question, no the remaster is not as good as the original CD - it is terribly apparent on "In the Air Tonight" when the drums kick in, it doesn't slam nearly like the original.
I've come up with a general assumption that's been helpful:
60s/70s records, get the remasters
80s/90s records, get the original CD