Bands with the worst remastered catalogs. What do you think?

There are several artists that have had horrible remastering/remixing done to their catalogs. Some of the worst offenders are:

Ozzy Osbourne - The 2002 remasters and the recent Legacy editions of Diary and Blizzard are victims of the loudness wars. Worse than that, the 2002 remasters deleted titles (The Ultimate Sin, Just Say Ozzy) and then there was the whole re-recording/remixing done to Blizzard, Diary and Bark. Ugh. In my opinion, the 1995 Remasters are just fine sound-wise as they were pre-loudness wars. The original cds sound fine too.

Iron Maiden - Their current catalog sounds like crap. Terrible loud remastering. Also, no bonus material to speak of. The Castle 2 discs sound fine (not remastered) and have loads of bonus material. The original Japanese cds probably have the best sound, but they are difficult to find and spendy.

Megadeth - The 2004 Remix/Remasters suck out loud. Good lord Dave, what were you thinking? Loudness war victims, stupid remixing and actual re-recording of solos and other parts. I can also do without all the altered intros to many songs. Total crap. The recent reissues of Countdown and Peace Sells are not the remixes (thankfully) but they are LOUD. Also, the 2004 remasters missed tons of bonus tracks. Boo! Just get the plentiful original cd releases. The remaster of Killing Is My Business is great though. It really cleaned up that muddy album.

I saved the worst for last:

Judas Priest - my favorite band totally screwed the pooch with the 2001 remaster series. The sound is brickwalled and compressed like no other. They even screwed up Defenders by having the channels reversed somehow! The bonus material is stuck on each album with no thought as to when it was recorded - thus you get Turbo leftovers on Sin After Sin. Huh? Dumb. Painkiller is so loud you get fatigue listening to it. Also, don't be fooled into thinking the 2011/2012 Japanese remasters were any better. They use the same crappy Jon Astley remasters from 2001. Blargh! With Priest, stick to vinyl or the original cds. The original US cd versions sound great actually and they are cheap and plentiful. The Japanese Victor Records remastering of Rocka-Rolla and Sad Wings are top notch. Seek them out if you want the best sound.

Agree? Disagree? Other candidates?

I agree with all the examples you mentioned. The Priest and Maiden discs being the worst offenders.

I gotta throw RUSH into the mix as well, the 1997 remasters are overly-compressed and missing the dynamics these recordings really need. The best sounding reissues are the Japanese SHM-CD releases from a few years ago or the various Mofi/Audio Fidelity releases but as usual they are both very pricey and hard to find.

The loudness wars got started around 1996 and were in full-swing by '97 or '98. Remasters released after 1996 are really a crap shoot.

Any opinions on the AC/DC remasters (recent digipaks)? I have read that they weren't so good but I haven't listened to mine in a long time.

I have also read that the Led Zep "remasters" from the early 90s weren't actually remastered at all, and that the only change was in the liner notes. Anyone know?

So who's to blame here? Is it the people who remaster them that are incompetent? Who makes the decision to make them sound this way?

Quote :

Any opinions on the AC/DC remasters (recent digipaks)?

I only have a couple of 'em (High Voltage and Back In Black) but they sound fine to me. That said, I don't have a "trained ear" like some of y'all do (or I'm simply not as picky ) so to be honest I probably wouldn't notice much difference unless you played me an "original" copy and the remaster back to back with one another.

The best resource for comparing different masterings right now is the "Dynamic Range Database".

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

If you search AC/DC you will find information for all the different versions both LPs and CDs and the year they were released.

For a comparison let's look at Back In Black

Original 1986 CD - DR = 12db (same as the original LP)
1995 European remaster - DR = 9db
2003 Reissue - DR = 8db

8db or lower is considered brickwalled.

SpectreFate wrote:

So who's to blame here? Is it the people who remaster them that are incompetent? Who makes the decision to make them sound this way?

The record labels. In the mid 90s they started freaking out when someone played one of their albums side by side with an album from a different label that was "louder". The suits then ordered their mastering engineers to "make our albums the LOUDEST of anyone!".

Once new releases starting coming out that were so much louder than the older catalog titles they ordered remasters produced that were just as LOUD as their new titles. Thus a whole slew of remasters started showing up in the late 90s that were overly-compressed to compete with the loudness of their recent recordings.

We're still stuck in this hell now...the only reprieve are LPs, high-end audiophile CDs, SACDs and Hi-resolution downloads (HDTracks).

Quote :

overly-compressed

Can you explain to a dummy like me how compressing an audio file makes it louder? It seems like it should be the other way.

I have no problem with the volume turned up on most of the remasters mentioned. On the contrary, I always hated having to crank up old albums to get a decent volume. Not to mention, the bass frequency would usually suck... That said, I don't like the remaster of Nevermore's Politics Of Ecstasy album. That one is way too loud. And I also didn't care for the Megadeth remixes. I think the Queensryche, Tourniquet and Slayer remasters were done well. And the recent Legacy series Ozzy albums sound great too.

SpectreFate wrote:

Quote :

overly-compressed

Can you explain to a dummy like me how compressing an audio file makes it louder? It seems like it should be the other way.

Sure. First you have to understand dynamic range.

Dynamic Range = the difference between the quietest moment and the loudest moment in a recording. This is measured in decibels. LPs generally had a dynamic range of around 14db.

Compression - What compression actually does is squash the recording so the quietest parts and the loudest parts are closer together, reducing the overall dynamic range. This makes our ears perceive the entire recording as being "louder". The more intense the compression the louder the recording sounds.

Compression by itself is not a bad thing, used sparingly it can make a performance sound "punchier", but over-used it just creates sonic mud; removing the separation between instruments, obliterating the room sound inherent in the recording and makes the entire album sound harsh and fatiguing on the ear.

Dynamics are most easily perceived in classical music. Ever listen to a classical recording where it's going along fairly quiet for awhile and then all of a sudden gets very loud? That is natural dynamics and is written into the sheet music for the piece, the composer indicates how quietly or loudly to play a specific section. This creates drama and a natural tension/release to the music. If you took a recording of that piece and applied a ton of compression to it, the dramatic effect is lost because now the quiet parts and the loud parts are closer together, in essence you have destroyed the intention of the composer.

S.D. wrote:

SpectreFate wrote:

Quote :

overly-compressed

Can you explain to a dummy like me how compressing an audio file makes it louder? It seems like it should be the other way.

Sure. First you have to understand dynamic range.

Dynamic Range = the difference between the quietest moment and the loudest moment in a recording. This is measured in decibels. LPs generally had a dynamic range of around 14db.

Compression - What compression actually does is squash the recording so the quietest parts and the loudest parts are closer together, reducing the overall dynamic range. This makes our ears perceive the entire recording as being "louder". The more intense the compression the louder the recording sounds.

Compression by itself is not a bad thing, used sparingly it can make a performance sound "punchier", but over-used it just creates sonic mud; removing the separation between instruments, obliterating the room sound inherent in the recording and makes the entire album sound harsh and fatiguing on the ear.

Dynamics are most easily perceived in classical music. Ever listen to a classical recording where it's going along fairly quiet for awhile and then all of a sudden gets very loud? That is natural dynamics and is written into the sheet music for the piece, the composer indicates how quietly or loudly to play a specific section. This creates drama and a natural tension/release to the music. If you took a recording of that piece and applied a ton of compression to it, the dramatic effect is lost because now the quiet parts and the loud parts are closer together, in essence you have destroyed the intention of the composer.

Thank you. That makes a lot of sense now.

Here is a good visual example of what too much compression looks like and also how different the LP and CD releases of the same title often look like these days. The examples below are the song "Ghost Of Perdition" from Opeth's Ghost Reveries album.

The first picture is from the LP. If you look at the taller blocks you will notice lots of individual spikes, these are sections that are accented (drum hits, etc).



The second picture is the CD of the same song. You will notice in this picture that the taller blocks are now perfect squares (a natural sound wave is never a perfect square), there are no individual spikes any longer, they have been obliterated by the compression. This is where the term "brickwalled" comes from because the sound wav now looks like a brick. The quieter sections are also now much louder.



The dynamic range of the LP is 12db.
The dynamic range of the CD is 7db.

The CD ends up sounding like mush during these loud sections, a constant wall of sound with no variation and little definition between the instruments. The LP allows the recording to breathe and sound much more natural.

S.D. wrote:

The best resource for comparing different masterings right now is the "Dynamic Range Database".

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

If you search AC/DC you will find information for all the different versions both LPs and CDs and the year they were released.

For a comparison let's look at Back In Black

Original 1986 CD - DR = 12db (same as the original LP)
1995 European remaster - DR = 9db
2003 Reissue - DR = 8db

8db or lower is considered brickwalled.

Thanks for the link! Very interesting data there.

Wow! Peace Sells is 5 and 6 db. No wonder that sounds ridiculous!

Quote :

I have also read that the Led Zep "remasters" from the early 90s weren't actually remastered at all, and that the only change was in the liner notes. Anyone know?

Jimmy Page himself was involved in all the Zep remasters. Interesting thing is he has said multiple time (including recently on the release of celebration) that he recommends you don't buy Zeps music in CD or Digital download forum. He recommends Vinyl. In one interview I read about a year ago he said he personally would by a cassette version of their music before he would buy a digital download. I think Jimmy's thoughts and opinion say it all.

I kinda wish I'd never been 'enlightened' by vinyl because I find it harder and harder to listen to CD's these days. As each day passes, vinyl sounds better and better and CD's sound more and more like s**t.

Loudness war is a terrible crime against music and should be punished severely. Unfortunately tons of bands think it is mandatory to have their stuff brickwalled or it wont be cool enough. I have to fight constantly with bands sending me clipping masters, and there's nothing worse than getting an awesome 80s analogue demo/album smacked down to -10RMS

You want your stuff to sound loud, there is a knob called VOLUME for a reason, use it!

/End of rant!

let's see. I don't hate the Priest ones as much as everyone else. But the 'Defenders' stuff is goofy. I mean, I don't expect pristine sound to begin with with that record, but the channel thing is just bizarre...and yes, 100% of the bonus tracks are worthless. I could say that for just about any instance in which there are bonus tracks though, bar the W.A.S.P. remasters. Which, by the way, get those. I'm pretty sure even the new reissues are just the repackaged ones from 1998 which sound really good.

I don't know about all the new slipcase Maiden discs since I have the old Raw Power catalog from 1998, not the Sanctuary and so on and so on and so on that came after. Those are specified as remastered and those sound fine and not too loud to me. You know what sounds like ass? 'Dance of Death'.

I don't really mind the remixing on the Megadeth stuff but it kills me that (supposedly) some of those vocal parts HAD to be redone, they were LOST.. I guess.......ugggghhhh.


You guys do know that the compact disc is pretty much the mark of the beast, right? That's in the Bible. They are possessed, each and every one of them, and will turn your brain into a digital imprint of Beelzebub. That's why I only collect on 8-track these days. I've got the first Fozzy demo if anyone's got a good trade.

Generally I like the Maiden, Priest and Van Halen remasters.

However I think the absolute WORST remasters (after Megadeth's 2004 remixes) are Scorpions! Ugh have you guys heard those? They are from the early 2000s - the spine when put together makes up the band's logo.... the sound is incredibly bright and thin .. horrible

You REALLY want to hear something awful, go play anything that Frontiers puts out. 'Painkiller' will sound like Holst once that label is done with your ears.

As of late, I have become very interested in this issue, and have pretty much sworn to only get original CD pressings, unless the remaster is a good, reputable one. There are some out there that are (Ozzy 1995 ones, for example).

For more comparison, here is Megadeth's "Wake Up Dead", compared side by side. The top one is from the 2004 Remix and Remaster. The bottom is from the original pressing; albeit mine is the BMG Music Group issue, but it was pressed from the same masters as the actual Capitol pressing:



As you can see, the 2004 is HORRIBLE. Man, it's almost a complete brick all the way across. Almost NO dynamics left whatsoever. As Witchfinder said in the original post, Dave...what WERE you thinking? I would have thought that the actual artist, and an old-school one at that, would have had much more respect for the sound and dynamics of his own recordings than that.

Well seeing that I was brought up listening to cassettes and then to cds I'm used to what cds sound like. The only 2 records I would listen to when I was younger was Led Zeppelins Zoso and The Monkees. I was too young to know any difference as to what sounds better than the other. Listening to cds for most of my life I'm used to what they sound like and I honestly have no problem listening to them.

Within the last few years I started picking up records for the hell of it, and I will say I hear a difference but not with everything. The only problem with records is they aren't portable. I can barely listen to them at home as it is and for me to even listen to them properly I'd have to buy a really nice pair of headphones, which I've been thinking about doing but again the only thing I can hook my record player up to is my surround sound which is connected to my tv and theres no way in hell my gf will be fine with watching me sit on the floor listening to a record with my headphones on haha.

The only cases I have really heard where a cd has been too loud is Kiss' Monster and Metallicas Death Magnetic, otherwise I haven't heard anything else, that I have noticed to that extreme when it comes to brickwalling.

When I get my cds I'll burn them onto my ipod and thats pretty much how i'll listen to it. Before I listen to it in my ipod tho, I usually throw it in my cd player and listen to it there first.

So between all these different things I listen to music on I really don't hear this stuff. I can pick up hidden instruments, sounds etc, but i'll be damned if I can hear this brickwalling more often than I do now, cause I don't really notice.

As for the question this thread was started with, the only remix/remaster that I'm not 100% happy with is the Megadeth ones. I can't say I hate them cause to me they sound a bit beefed up. I love how the drums sound on some of them, but then again you have the things that he added in there and some are ok but most of it is like WTF?

Other remasters I have are
Black Sabbath (the first 8 albums box set)
Blue Oyster Cult (complete Columbia Box set)
Blur (complete box set)
David Bowie
Ozzy (the first remasters)
Judas Priest
Helloween (also have originals and other versions)
Iced Earth (also have originals)
Kiss
Rush
Thin Lizzy (also have originals)
Blind Guardian (also have originals)
Gamma Ray (also have originals)
Iron Maiden (all 2 cd versions and remasters)
Slayer
Sabaton
Saxon
Savatage (also have originals)

I'm sure I have more. I know I have some odd and end ones of other bands. I like what I have and have no problem with them.

It is very hard these days to find the best sounding versions of things, at least an affordable way to find the best sounding version. A good rule of thumb is to stick with CDs released prior to 1997, of course that cuts down your options a great deal.

The very early CDs (1985 to 1989 or so) aren't always the best option either, because the record labels were in such a hurry to get everything out on disc they weren't taking the time to find original sources and remaster them specifically for the medium. They'd find an old LP master (that was practically worn out from over-use) and just slap that onto a CD and call it done...and often times the results were far from high quality and sounded worse than the original LPs. Once you got to 1991 and later the A/D converters (analog to digital) were far superior to the ones being used just a few years earlier, CDs started to be mastered in 22bit and then 24bit resolution and the medium started sounding really good. That "sweet spot" from say 1993 to 1996, there are some really fine sounding CDs from that era....but then the labels started the loudness wars and killed off all the advancements they had made with improved technology. As someone that has always been passionate for high quality sound it's really sad, a lost opportunity.

All this has led me to the point where I hardly ever buy anything on CD anymore unless it is the *only* possible option or if the CD is made by a company whose work I respect. There are absolutely stunning sounding recordings being released in high-definition these days (miles higher quality than CDs or LPs can attain), whether it's 24bit/96khz downloads from HDTracks, artists releasing their music on blu-ray or SACD and companies like Audio Fidelity doing amazing work with both the traditional CD and LP technologies. But the catalogs are limited, the releases are expensive and not enough people care about good sound any longer (or they've never even heard really good sound in their lives so they don't know what they are missing) for it to expand beyond a niche market.

It's a weird time right now.

What if albums are ripped in high quality bitrate from vinyl, then cleaned up a little, if needed?
How would that sound? Or is something still lost there, even though it's being done carefully and with attention to quality?

stormspell wrote:

Loudness war is a terrible crime against music and should be punished severely. Unfortunately tons of bands think it is mandatory to have their stuff brickwalled or it wont be cool enough. I have to fight constantly with bands sending me clipping masters, and there's nothing worse than getting an awesome 80s analogue demo/album smacked down to -10RMS

You want your stuff to sound loud, there is a knob called VOLUME for a reason, use it!

/End of rant!

Yep. It would be nice if the record companies gave ME the choice of turning up the volume.