Why is most everything remastered?

voodoolounge

Good thread. No doubt that there is a cash-grab aspect to this business. On the flipside, probably not a bad idea to have a modern back-up on file. I tend to collect 1st pressing CD and SACD discs. As above, some Remasters sound better while others do not. I do not mind a little tape hiss on those flat transfers from the 80's.

Yes, I do own many variations of the CD/SACD except MQA coded titles.

New is not always better.

Happy Listening!

Great question - I used to think along the same lines.  There are legal reasons, however. It's a method for artists to get the ownership of their work back - if it is remastered, it counts as an original copyright.  Otherwise all the music belongs to the record companies. 

emaillists

this from your post is why I make my remarks about RIAA:

" the tapes used for the cutting were very often a copy with bass rolled of so the phono carts of the time could track it. New vinyl masters don’t require that since cartridges are better today"

that's just wrong, it was about 'long play'

I don't have a lot of re-masters or re-mixes (mostly Beatles) but I haven't heard one yet that I didn't like.  I'm sure there are some out there.

I much prefer the Beatles in stereo.  I know the stories about the mono vs. stereo mixes.  For me, listening to something in mono when I could be hearing it in stereo is like watching a movie with one eye closed.  YMMV.

i have a "remastering" of a 1957 recording, "a lovely afternoon" that sounds to my ears like it came off of a somewhat worn LP specimen copy. a disappointment considering that the original stereo master tape still exists somewhere [MCA studios?] in SoCal. OTOH, recent long-belated remasterings/reissues of selections from the stereo mix of the Phil Spector Christmas Album, are sonic revelations compared to the original mono release.