Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Remasters and Audiophoolery?

  1. Back To Top    #1

    Remasters and Audiophoolery?

    I find it hard to start this thread... I've attempted it a few times over the past few months but when I do I ultimately hit the "back" button and punt. This time, I'm gonna make an attempt at being coherent and short(ish) winded here.

    For as long as I can remember I've been a huge fan of music. Who isn't right? I mean, that's why we're all here. Everyone I know loves songs. But I sometimes feel like my love for music is more than just a love for "songs". This hobby at times clouds my passion for just enjoying the music. After last weekend's show (The Vinny MECA comp) my passion for listening to music was reignited by all the awesome systems I heard. It turned that spark back on for me.


    Now, here's where I'm gonna skip all the mooshy talk and get right to the good stuff.

    We as audionuts often find ourselves entrenched in gear swapping. However, my gear swapping has rarely been with the hope of a gain in sonic bliss. Rather it was done out of necessity... you know... I just needed to do something. Idle hands and whatnot. I never really get in to the "amplifier sounds" or "DAC sounds" side of things even though I do believe there are legitimate points to be made. An extreme example would be tube amps not being able to drive a complex load loudspeaker as well as a solid state amplifier.

    Enter, the plight of album masters. Even though I'm not a gung-ho equipment sonics guy, I do believe there are differences in the source material that can often lead one to hear different things by simply swapping the disc for another of the same name but different release date or country it's released to. The most obvious example would be something like a common-day Remaster where an album with previously high dynamic range has been brickwalled to satisfy the 'loudness wars'. We know this scenario all too well by now (if you don't, here you go).

    However, dynamic range aside, there are many cases where an album/disc may be flat out mastered differently. I ran in to a fine example of this some years back when I was researching Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms Mobile Fidelity Soundlabs remaster (note: herein Mobile Fidelity Soundlabs will be referred to as "MoFi"). There were some fellas on a recording/engineer forum, http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/, discussing the difference in mastering between the MoFi (SACD/CD Hybrid) version and the original album release. Some presenting their case for why the MoFi version is superior and others stating their fondness for the original. Ultimately, totally subjective opinions on which they liked the best. So, naturally I'm thinking it's all conjecture... typical crazy audiophile talk. Until I saw that someone actually provided proof there is indeed a difference between the two versions beyond just the loudness wars aspect. Below are two screengrabs provided in the discussion of the proof. You'll see the delta illustrates the frequency response differences between the two. Actual, objective and quantifiable difference in two different versions of the same original source material.






    You can see from the above that one version of "So Far Away" (I believe it was the SACD version) has a +4dB bump at 80hz and some dips in the higher frequency end. Right. So definitely a case for audible differences.



    That opened my eyes... the argument that one album can sound different from another of the same title is totally plausible and isn't just audiophoolery. Since then I've cruised that forum countless times before purchasing a CD looking for tips on which version of an album I should buy. To give a pretty typical example consider an album with (3) different versions: 1) the original 1985 US Pressing, 2) the original 1985 Japan master, and 3) the 2010 remaster. Sometimes the consensus is the Japanese master is the better version and sometimes not. When there's a new mix provided there will be discussion comparing the new mix vs some of the previous. Usually objective data comparing track vs track is provided to illustrate differences. But, over time I've learned to trust these guys at their word on the 'fact' there is an audible difference between the versions being discussed.

    Another further example is a 2014 remaster of Tears For Fears' Songs From The Big Chair. I recently purchased this mix and compared it to my MoFi version. I'm told the MoFi version is in many ways similar to the original with some key differences. The thing that stood out to me about the 2014 release is how much more defined the transients were. I thought that odd... figured I was tricking myself in to hearing things. But, lo and behold, I found this interview and subsequent quote from Steven Wilson, the guy who remixed the album off the original analog recordings, discussing the differences between his mix and the original and I realized that what I heard was likely due to this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Wilson
    It’s a matter of taste whether it sounds better than the original mix,” he says. “More clarity in places perhaps, but the original mix is great and definitive, so I would say the new mix just sounds different, not better. However, one thing that does differ very slightly to the original is that I backed off some of the extreme use of reverb on some mix elements. The trend in the mid 80’s was definitely to have everything bathed in massive arena-sized reverbs, and I certainly have not changed that approach or the overall sound world of the album, which is supposed to sound huge and epic after all. It’s more a subtle tweak that just gives the impression of the instruments and vocals being slightly more present or “up front” in places.
    If you read the whole article above you'll also find some neat info about how "Shout" was basically put out with reversed stereo. The new mix got it right based on how the musician played the toms; the original version was incorrectly swapped.




    While we all understand that remixes can and often do sound different for some obviously audible reasons, there are cases where the changes are much more subtle. Furthermore (and most importantly to me) is the fact there even released versions of a disc put out in the same year sound different depending on the market (the US vs Japan example I gave above).

    Like I said, before I get ready to purchase a CD I'll spend some time doing some research on the better options. For example, before I purchased Michael Jackson's Thriller, I wanted to determine just which version I should get. I already had the remasters but felt like I could get something better. I go to http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/ and search for "Thriller" and read and read... sometimes the threads are short and sometimes they are long and there's tons of them. As you can imagine, Thriller has a lot of threads discussing it. Once I determined that catalog number EK38112 was the one to get, I went shopping. I buy used albums/discs from discogs.com. Discogs is an incredible source for used/new media. I've purchased the majority of my music through them then I'll resell it on eBay once I've ripped it to my computer (lossless format). All these darn "Erin's Mix" CDs I give out at meets and whatnot are almost entirely comprised of original pressings that I sourced through discogs... and I put a lot of effort in to finding the "best" versions of the albums through the SteveHoffman forum. So if you have one of those meet discs, just know that I put serious effort in to making it a good disc. It's the first time I'm telling this out loud ... and subsequently giving away my insider info.

    Now, you would think that a lot of these "best" versions would cost quite a bit given some of their age (remember, I am more fond of 80's pop/rock than I am anything else) but mostly I find the used CDs are <$10 shipped in mint or very good condition. That's not bad, considering. Of course, if you want Madonna's self-titled German-master then you're gonna pay a bit.
    But, I digress. A lot of the 90's era rock/alternative stuff I was in to typically stays under the $10 target as well with an occassional oddity (typically cult classics or rarities such as Matchbox 20's Yourself Or Someone Like You LP that continually goes for $300+ (seriously, I love MB20 but I would have never expected their LP to go for so dang much!... did you notice the Mint condition for $750?!).





    So that's it... my tip for sourcing the best albums of a given artist/title I can is simple but sometimes involves a bit of work to weed through specific catalog numbers to make sure I'm getting the 'correct' version. This may seem silly to some. That's cool. But I rather enjoy it.

    Just for kicks, I snapped some pictures of a few of my favorite purchases. These are all original pressings. Tears For Fears' Hurting is a West German 'Atomic' pressing. Songs From The Big Chair is my 1985 US Pressing. The Wang Chung album is a Japanese pressing. And finally, rounding out my quad that I refuse to sell is Michael Jackson's Thriller original 1982 US Pressing (EK38112).















    and my parting shot of my silly collection of SFTBP (I don't have the physical CD version of the MoFi version):

    Last edited by erinh; 07-30-2016 at 01:18 AM.

  2. Back To Top    #2
    Noob Afghan Vet's Avatar
    Real Name
    Jason
    Location
    North Carolina
    Vehicle
    2015 Audi S4
    Posts
    233
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?

    Wow! I have a lot to read.....you are a scholar and a gentleman (and a bikinpunk). Thank you so much for posting this, although my PayPal account may suffer

  3. Back To Top    #3

    Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?

    Ha! Well, I apologize in advance. And please don't tell your wife it's my fault... I don't want her shanking me the next time I'm at one of your meets!

  4. Back To Top    #4

    Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?

    I'm gonna give another example, real time, about my 'process' here. I may be making too big a deal about said 'process' but it kind of gives a clearer example to the ADHD above.


    Last night I was listening to Apple Music's mix playlist of 80's hits and George Michaels' "Faith" came on. I flat out just dig this song. Side note: if you haven't noticed it, the intro to "Faith" has a throwback to GM/Wham's "Freedom" song via pipe organ.








    Now, I already have a ripped version of the original US album but it got me curious if there may be a different version or two out there that might be noticeably different. So I pull up the Steve Hoffman forum and do a search. I get quite a few hits. Notably these:
    http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread....160779/page-2
    http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...t-2010.223185/

    The first discusses the SQ of GM's first two albums and the latter discusses the 2010 Remaster release. I do a bit of digging in the threads and find that for the original release, the preferred versions are 32•8P-231 (original Japanese pressing) and the original US version (catalog number/barcode number CK 40867/074644086720).

    As for the 2010 remaster, it's received pretty well. I didn't find a consensus on the remaster being excellent but just some posts here and there saying they liked it. So... yea.

    With all that said, buy the one that fits your needs best. I wound up getting the Japanese pressing for about $8 shipped (it was the last one they had at that price).



    The cool part about doing this process is the other things you run in to. For example, I found this article discussing the recording of the album that was really quite cool:
    http://www.soundonsound.com/people/c...-michael-faith

    And if you read through the 2010 Remaster thread linked above you'll find all sorts of little nuggets. For example, this post:
    http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...#post-11816079

  5. Back To Top    #5

    Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?

    Good stuff erin! Thanks for the source of mix quality discussion, didn't know it existed, lol. I've purchased several mofi releases over the years, found some better than the origional, some not. It's nice to know you can research the differences through that site tho. I do know that some of the versions on your mix discs do sound stupid good tho.....I never noticed such fidelity in the "water song/Jamie's got a gun" version on one of yer mixes, in the recordings I have owned.........
    Last edited by claydo; 07-30-2016 at 06:16 PM.

  6. Back To Top    #6

    Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?

    I have to give some credit to Jason B for me posting this. We had a convo yesterday and at some point I began telling him about my new Tears For Fears disc and that went on to me talking about the Steve Hoffman forum. He expressed interest in knowing a bit more about my whole 'process' here regarding the forum and discogs. I was going to just text him the site's but decided to sit down and really write this up last night instead.

  7. Back To Top    #7

    Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?

    Quote Originally Posted by claydo View Post
    Good stuff erin! Thanks for the source of mix quality discussion, didn't know it existed, lol. I've purchased several mofi releases over the years, found some better than the origional, some not. It's nice to know you can research the differences through that site tho. I do know that some of the versions on you mix discs do sound stupid good tho.....I never noticed such fidelity in the "water song/Jamie's got a gun" version on one of yer mixes, in the recordings I have owned.........
    I honestly don't even remember which version of that disc I used. But, I agree, the opening sequence is very ... fidel? lol... it certainly has a hi-fi sound to it.

  8. Back To Top    #8
    Owner BigAl205's Avatar
    Real Name
    Alan
    Location
    Hayden, AL
    Vehicle
    2018 Chevy Silverado Z-71
    Posts
    5,697
    Join Date
    Feb 2013

    Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?

    The biggest problem that I have is that a lot of my music was ripped from compilation CDs that I got back in the 90's (Now That's What I Call Music, Billboard Top Hits, etc). I don't know if whoever mastered these compilations did remastering of the original songs, or just copied them over verbatim. It also has me wondering about 'Greatest Hits' albums that bands put out. I'm one of those guys who hated to buy a whole album for just 2-3 good songs, so I would always buy a CD with numerous hits...but even I've noticed sonic differences between multiple versions of a song on my PC. I can tell from personal experience that the only version of Axel F you'd want to own is the one from a copy of the original Beverly Hills Cop soundtrack.

  9. Back To Top    #9

    Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?

    Lol, al, you know what always bothered me about "greatest hits" albums was the varying mixes from song to song. That has me thinking most of them are direct copies of the pre-existing mixes. The change in sound from song to song seemed to mirror the origional album mixes, which of course were different from each other. Now some best of albums are labeled as remasters, to address my complaint of differing mixes above, me thinks, as I don't believe I was the only one who disliked the varying sounds from one track to the next on the same album.

  10. Back To Top    #10
    Senior Member
    pocket5s's Avatar
    Real Name
    Robert or Mac
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Vehicle
    2012 Charger RT
    Posts
    699
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Re: Remasters and Audiophoolery?

    Here I was reading that long post, saw the tears for fears bit and thought "I need to show erin this"...

    Kept reading and realized I needed to facepalm for myself.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    MASQ partner and judge
    MobileAudioSQ.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back To Top