what CDs are most in need of remastering?


A number of threads discuss merits of various remastered albums. I'm generally a fan of remastering. After many years of colleting dust (the CD, not me) I hauled out Genesis's "Invisible Touch" yesterday... yecchh! Talk about a CD in desperate need of remaster, there you go. It's mastered onto the CD at relatively low level even though it uses a tremendous amount of compression to give extremely poor dynamics. Santana's "Supernatural" suffers the same way -- sounds great on a boombox, lousy on a high rez system. The problem is too much compression. Instead of natural excitement from the dynamics, the sound is constantly "in your face", because one of the effects of compression is to increase perceived loudness. Ditto for Paul McCartney's latest, "Back in the US Live 2002". I couldn't stand it after 5 minutes and had to eject the disk. Maybe compression had a place when we all listened to Top 40 on AM radio, but it has no place in modern digital recording. Give us full resolution disks! (Here's a shudder: why would you use compression in mastering an SACD disk? The horror... the horror...) If need be, boombox makers can add a digital compression circuit that is effective during playback, making their boxes sound better.

But I digress. Which disks do you nominate as most in need of remastering?
1439bhr

Showing 1 response by zaikesman

A lot of the compression on pop recordings is built into the original mastertapes (whether digital or analog), and so is not just a CD-mastering issue. As Marakanetz (I think) alludes to, every vintage analog recording is actually 'remastered' when transferred to CD format, but of course at this point, many originally digitally-recorded and -issued recordings could also stand to be better-(re)mastered. But back to compression for a moment: Many, many analog-recorded and originally-issued recordings contain liberal amounts of compression both within the mastertapes and in the original LP mastering - this is not a fault exclusive to or caused by the CD format in particular. Radio has always been radio, even before CD (and large dynamic range is even more difficult for the average analog playback system to cope with than it is for an inexpensive CD player, both in tracking the record and in maintaining a favorble signal-to-noise ratio). The irony is that pop radio (and TV video) broadcasters then *further* compress the signal before it hits your tuner.

I think one insidious result of all this (and it's not just compression, but all kinds of digitally-synthesized harmonic 'enhancements', 'ambience'-creating phase-manipulations, response-tailoring, etc.) is that the public at large has been conditioned to accept and expect this type of sound, and consequently to consume their music only via tabletop mini-stacks, boomboxes, computers, TV's, and one-carton HT setups, not to mention the types of car systems young males like to install these days (is egregiously distorted LF thumping considered to be a mating call or territorial proclamation among these hormone-addled cruisers?). I think high fidelity actually sounds odd (and maybe even repulses) listeners raised on this numbingly processed sound, which lends itself so easily to background relegation at any volume. It helps explain why so few younger people today are interested in hobbyist hi-fi: it's not a sound they recognize or want. But when music itself becomes more of a commercialized product than an art form, what else can we reasonably anticipate happening?