On a different note, share the artists you own that DON'T sound good

@rbgator94  Agreed on U2's earlier stuff, Though I love Joshua Tree so much I'm willing to tweak it with EQ to make it a little more palatable. I think Achtung Baby and All That You Can't Leave Behind are pretty decent or at least better recordings.

Rush Vapor Trails sounded so bad that I threw the CD in the garbage. About 10 years later they remastered the CD and it is one of their best releases.

@orthomead 

Not all remasters are bad.

Imagine any other industry having that reputation.

-- Not all Nissans are bad.

-- Not all Pioneer receivers are bad.

"Come to Bob's service station  Not all repairs are bad."

"Rent an apartment from World Wide realtors.  Not all apartments are bad."

"Bring your children to Big Kid medial services.  Not all of our doctors are bad."

Every re-master should have outstanding sound quality.  That the public has to hope that their re-master has good sound quality is shameful of the record companies.

Record companies should make their motto "Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.

@seymour-krelborn I can't argue with your logic.  I think that first pressings usually sound best, but not always.  Many of the AP remasters are superlative and are the definitive version.  Kind of Blue as an example. But the reality is most tape has lost its luster and original vinyl first presses are hard to find in great condition.  The other thing about remasters is they usually sound sonically different than the OG depending on who is pushing the faders.  Some are cleaner with more pronounced upper end details.  One might argue this isn't what the bands musical vision was, but most likely they were given the final product and didn't have a whole lot of input anyhow. So, remasters aren't all perfect, but there is a place for them.  And, by the way I'm referring to vinyl in my post, but the loudness wars in CD's also benefit from remastering IMHO.

@orthomead 

Many of the AP remasters are superlative

I am not familiar with that record label.

What popular bands / albums have they re-mastered.  What would your recommend?

You mentioned "Kind of Blue".  Is Jazz AP's focus?  I know nearly nothing about jazz.  I wish I knew more.

The other thing about remasters is they usually sound sonically different than the OG depending on who is pushing the faders.

You got that right.

The personnel in the studios tend to do "pay attention to me" mixes, where they have some instrument in-your-face (in a manner of speaking).  Rather than letting you hear the band, as if you have a front row seat, the studio's personnel do not let you forget that you are listening to a reproduction.

It kind of reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGezoUQbsA4

...that they want you to be in awe of what they did with the mix.  Like adding their signature to the mix.

My highest complement to those personnel is when they do such a good job, that I forget that they were a part of the process.

Sort of like a great stereo, that gets out of the way.  Whereas some stereos try to show off, and there is no mistaking that you are hearing an artificial creation.

For comparison, consider movies or shows that shake the camera, and zoom in and out repeatedly, and zoom in too close, and have angle changes every 2 seconds.  Those are produced by "Look what I can do" amateurs.

Watch this clip, from a 1942 movie, "Ship Ahoy"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R8InADno6o

The camera work is so good, that you never notice that it is so good.  You just get a front row seat to an outstanding performance.  The action gets better at the 1:25 time mark.

That is how mixing and mastering music should be.