LOUD remasters that sound great

Just finished listening to Off the Wall remaster. This baby is loud but still somehow manages to sound great. I dunno if there was any compression used on this one - it certainly doesn't suffer from the side effects. So the lesson (to me at least) is that sometimes it's possible to master it loud and walk away with it. Any other examples?

 

The Sweet Funny Adams recent remaster sounds great. Compressed to the limit, but it sounds fine. To my surprise, on the other Sweet remasters the high compression doesn't work as good as on the Sweet F.A. remaster.

Eric Clapton's Money And Cigarettes remaster is much louder than the original CD but it sounds much better. The same guy did the Rod Stewart remasters, which sound to aggressive to my ears. Hits and misses.

 

The Off The Wall remaster was significantly compressed. Personally, this one is way too loud for my tastes.

I can't think of any examples where an excessively maximized remaster sounds good. However, there are some remasters that, while boosted to a certain extent, still sound pretty good. The examples that come to mind are the Fleetwood Mac remasters (white album, Rumours, Tusk).

 

I love the Grundman Jackson remasters, they sound great.

 

I seem to recall a lot of people here liking the John Mellencamp remasters, despite the fact that they were ear-bleedlingly compressed.

The Chicago DVD-As are also often cited as having great sound - these things are as compressed as any "modern" rock release.

I think what happens a lot of times with LOUD remasters is that, on first listen, people hear details that they may not have heard before. Also, when doing a quick comparison, the human brain will tend to interpret louder as better.

However, what may sound better on a cursory first listen often doesn't hold up in the long haul. Loud remasters tend to be fatiguing after awhile.

 

I'll vote for the John Mellencamp remasters too. I also love the Experience Hendrix stuff. I've always found that such a loud and compress sound serves well the Jimi Hendrix music. It's musical to my hear.

 

On the Aerosmith Young Lust Anthology and the Geffen remasters there's a lot of detail I never heard before.

I agree on the MJ remasters as well.

 

I'll let you know when I find one.

 

I think some LOUD remasters sound pretty good at very low volumes. However, as soon as you turn them up to a decent level they become earbleeders, which of course makes them worthless. What good is music if you can't listen to it loud when you want to? And that's why I like Steve's work, you can turn the mothers up and really crank it. And you know what? They sound damn good loud!

 

I like the Australian remasters of the early Church and Hoodoo Gurus albums.

 

None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

 

I have a volume control and I'll use that if I want my music to sound loud, thank you very much!

 

SO - Do you turn it up to 11?

 

Not so far, like Steve, Chris and Drifter I can use my volume control if I want it loud without audio fatigue. Boost with compression and/or eq. = removing the life out of the original recording.

 

That's the whole point and contradiction of this thread - I usualy can't stand really loud remasters they are very heavy on the ears and my system is damn sensitive to compression. So I avoid them at all costs - this time I found a CD that wasn't hard on my ears and caused no fatique yet it was pretty loud. Big surprise!

 

I like several loud remasters - as I've discussed in another thread, I don't really have a problem with The Who's A Quick One stereo remaster. U2's How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb is another CD that, while loud, does not cause my ears to bleed. I say push it to the limit without clipping - I've got no problem with that, especially with pop/rock recordings. Jazz and classical are a different story.

 

Loud as in "compressed", "peak-limited", "digitally clipped"? No loud remaster in this sense will ever sound good.

Loudness is the job of my amplifyer. As long as the 16 bits are reasonably used (i.e. the CD peaks at 90% volume or more without clipping), loudness has no place in mastering.

I know that many like the Kinks' Ultimate Collection, which is quite loud, but that can be explained with the fact that some (not all!) other Kinks releases are much worse.

 

...just can't say I have any...I'll just be happy and content with my normal volume treasures.

 

They sound very warm on my system. Compressed, but warm.

I think the problem is that people are using termonology that means different things to different people. Some people describe compression as "bright", while others describe brightness as boosting treble, and not necessarily with compression. Some prople just describe compression as "loud", even when compression doesn't have to be loud. And, some people describe a lack of dynamics as loud.

So, with all these interpretations of these subjective descriptors, these posts and threads become very confusing.

 

Only occasionally.

 

Someone on this forum recently dissed the Sade remasters as loud.Well all I can say is either they don't sound loud to me or if they are loud-give me more loud remasters like these then! Excellent bass,smooth sounding,great highs,done from the original masters.They are among the best sounding cds I own.

 

I agree... the Sweet remasters are fine!

 

Don't know about LOUD but the somewhat louder Cat Stevens remasters sound very good.

 

For some specific music or songs, I think that if the compression is reasonably made in the analog domain during the mix or mastering to get an ''everything in my face'' effect, this could be acceptable in the case where it's artistic and musical. Nothing to do with the digitally clipped loudness race we see today.