jh901 wrote: > I would argue the opposite. I associate "remaster" with a product of > the loudness era. The initial mastering effort of the 80s produced some > outstanding results. The problem is that there was more than one CD > master created in the various markets drawn from various sources (2nd > generation tapes, etc). It is not easy in many cases to grab a random > used CD for a given album, assume that it is "pre-remaster" and further > conclude that it's "the one". I'm happy to help members here improve > their collection. > > The exception to the remaster rule is virtually exclusive to the > audiophile labels such as the old DCC (now Audio Fidelity), Analogue > Productions and MFSL. Not every MFSL Gold, for example, is definitive. > Many aren't very good and are easily bested by 1st issuances in the > Japan market. Some, however, are incredible (Elton John, for example). > > I really cannot tolerate the hi-rez file biz which advertises the hi-rez > part, but forgets to mention that the mastering stinks (HDTracks). A > shame.
All good points. However there is one more thing to consider with respect to reissues on the audiophile labels (who's remasters, I agree, usually offer something other than simple dynamic range compression) and that is the quality of the music. All too often the major labels only make available the second and third tier recordings of many artists and save top tier recordings for themselves. So we end up with a great remastering and reissue of a not so great recording and a terrible sounding reissue of a great recording. Damn! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98249 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
