MR

Does anybody know what it actually means if you buy a CD that has been remastered? I have just got Toto - Fahrenheit remastered, which is apparently remastered from the original tapes. Does it sound any better than the original? Nope. Does it sound different? Yep.

I think this remastering fad is a con. I believe it is playing to the masses who probably have fairly poor hifi equipment. The remastering process, to my ears just makes every instrument sound louder and sharper. This may make your listening experience better on poor equipment, but on good kit I actually think the original version of Fahrenheit sounds better. The remaster sounds very harsh. Just because everything sounds louder doesn't make it better. In my view Fahrenheit was sonically fantastic to start with. Is the remaster better? Not in my view.

Anybody have any similar experiences or disagree.? Can anybody explain what remastering means?

----------------
Now playing: Toto - Can't Stand It Any Longer

Duncan wrote:Does anybody know what it actually means if you buy a CD that has been remastered? I have just got Toto - Fahrenheit remastered, which is apparently remastered from the original tapes. Does it sound any better than the original? Nope. Does it sound different? Yep.

I think this remastering fad is a con. I believe it is playing to the masses who probably have fairly poor hifi equipment. The remastering process, to my ears just makes every instrument sound louder and sharper. This may make your listening experience better on poor equipment, but on good kit I actually think the original version of Fahrenheit sounds better. The remaster sounds very harsh. Just because everything sounds louder doesn't make it better. In my view Fahrenheit was sonically fantastic to start with. Is the remaster better? Not in my view.

Anybody have any similar experiences or disagree.? Can anybody explain what remastering means?

----------------
Now playing: Toto - Can't Stand It Any Longer

Remastering makes sense for older material that may have had poor source material.

Some of the reasons for redoing the masters digitally are:
Edit minor flaws.
Apply noise reduction to eliminate hum and hiss.
Adjust stereo width.
Add ambience.
Equalize audio between tracks.
Adjust volumes.
Dynamic expansion.
Dynamic compression.
Peak limit the tracks.

Most Remasters done now or just for monetary gain as everything is being recorded digitally to begin with.

One reason Record companies have in increasing the run on remasters is because of a pending change to copy right law that will return master recording s to the original authors, probably in 2012. The Eagles are already getting ready for this. A potential problem with this though is, does a group have enough money to print their own stuff or market and distribute it without the strength of the record companies behind it? Most likely a lot of bands will use this chance to renegotiate a better royalty rate with their record company.
One catch to all this is that the original recordings revert back to the songwriters, authors, etc., but any remasters done by the record company remain their property.
Record companies will be sure to push the notion that their DIGITALLY REMASTERED copies are superior to any new released material from the bands independently using the original source material even if it isn't technically true.
For the average fan, when they see two CDs next to each other and one says digitally remastered, chances are that's the one they will buy. That's what the record companies are counting on.