Which old "non-remastered" CDs to hang on to?

Still curious as to why you think this sounds better than the current Rhino Handmade box set?

 

Thanks Grant! I loved your original thread on these discs. Brought back some great memories of stuff I dumped . Oh well! I also found Dire Straits Brothers In Arms which has an interesting looking take on the "target style" label and sounds nice. That and Foreigner Records, which is really interesting in that there is no common sound or tone between any of the tracks. It sounds like a flat transfer for each & every track, which is a little jarring in a sense, but neat too. I'm not a huge fan of Foreigner, but they were so big when I was a kid that I have to have their stuff, you know? Anyway, thanks for that thread. Here's the link for anyone else who didn't catch it 1st time around. Read 'em & weep!

Best,
Mike

 

Dave,

Wow, you're right! This is the first listen I've given it with the new speakers. Actually the bass seems fine at the volume I listened at (I live in an apartment), but the highs are bright. "Jean Genie", "Ashes to Ashes" and "Let's Dance" are near unlistenable. I'm not getting my hopes up for the newly annouced Bowie 2CD hits package, so I may just look for the original RCA.

Has anyone compared the newest Joe Jackson remasters to their older counterparts. FWIW, I just got a CD copy of the MoFi "Night and Day" album and I think it's one of the best CDs I've got. Very smooth and really nice vocals.

 

Thanks Mike!!
Here's some more for ya!!!

 

SamS,

After you give an RCA Bowie a listen, and as your ears become more used to a flat transfer, you'll see just how much added eq. was done to those bass parts too.

It took me a couple of years to learn what I'm telling you and it's all thanks to our host Steve H. The only problem now is that I don't know whether to hug him or run him over with my car, now that I'm educated and half of my CD collection is going in the trash!

 

Here is what our Troll friend Juan posted about this thread over at ICE:

----------------------------------------------------------


Topic: Steve Hoffman's Crystal Ball (More Sound-Quality Advice) (1 of 1),

From: Jay ([email protected])
Date: Saturday, August 03, 2002 08:15 AM

There it was, Thursday afternoon, and still nothing on the Steve Hoffman chat rooms for me to discuss this week. Then, Friday morning, paydirt: "Which old 'non-remastered' CDs to hang on to?" Thank you, SamS! To top it off, Hoffman himself foresaw that I would comment on the matter! So, who am I to change topics now in a petty attempt to prove him wrong?

Anyway, now we're being told that the original Led Zeppelin CDs sound better (more natural) than the Jimmy Page-George Marino remasters--though you might have to improve your sound system to appreciate the originals, Hoffman admits. Folks, if your sound system (like mine) is good-not-great and your remastered Zeppelin CDs sound good on it, DON'T DO A THING!

If you do, I can guarantee you it won't stop there. Before it's all done, you will have spent thousands of dollars on ebay hunting down CDs you used to own but traded away. Plus, if you don't own one of those super-high-end systems and aren't planning to own one, chances are those old CDs still won't sound better than the remasters. Keep in mind that you're dealing with audiophiles with very expensive equipment. If you're not like them, you probably won't hear what they hear.

I'm sure many of you are happy with your Bob Marley remasters. I certainly am. But how can you be sure your Barry Diament- or Ted Jensen-mastered Marley CDs are better--i.e., truer to the master tapes--than the original Marleys? Sure, you compared them way back when and found the remasters superior, but didn't you do the same with Zeppelin? Now it turns out you were wrong. After being exposed to Hoffman's view, how can you be sure about your Marley remasters anymore? You can't, until Hoffman weighs in with his opinion. Today it's Zeppelin, tomorrow it'll be Marley and before long your entire collection will be called into question.

So, which original CDs should you have kept? Here's a partial list suggested by senior member Matt and others:

1. RCA Bowies
2. Fleetwood Mac "Rumours"
3. Steely Dans
4. Dennis Drake-mastered Rod Stewarts
5. Dennis Drake-mastered Allman Brothers
6. EMI McCartney & Wings
7. Capitol Sinatras
8. MCA Elton Johns
9. Black Sabbaths
10. John Lennon "Imagine" (outside U.S.)
11. Columbia Rolling Stones (except "Exile")
12. Madonna's first three albums
13. Roxy Music "Avalon"
14. ABBAs
15. Jackson 5s
16. PRT Kinks CDs
17. "The Ultimate Rascals" (probably not the Bill Inglot version)

Happy hunting! (I'm staying put.)

Hoffman says not every original CD sounds good, but I can't recall him citing any case where a remaster is better. He's already weighed in (sort of) on the Stones ABKCO remasters, writing a while back that a friend whose ears he trusts, upon hearing a Stones demo, complained about excessive treble spiking. I guarantee you if Hoffman ever compares the upcoming CDs to the originals, he will prefer the originals. That's because of the nature of CD remastering today: In order to make the remaster more impressive than the original, engineers will employ techniques--compression, treble spiking, you name it--that Hoffman hates. Again, I ask you, what remaster does Hoffman find superior to an original CD? (No, his own CDs don't count.)

Wait a minute, you might argue, why shouldn't we take Hoffman's advice about sound quality? After all, he puts out the best-sounding CDs on the market. Granted. But keep in mind that if Hoffman himself were remastering, say, "Led Zeppelin IV," it would sound significantly better than the original CD he recommends. Just like the George Marino remaster, Hoffman's "Led Zep IV" would sound different than the master tapes--though, of course, the Marino and Hoffman versions would differ even more greatly from each other.

So in effect Hoffman is telling you that he's the only engineer who knows how to improve the sound on a master tape. In virtually every other instance, you're better off with a flat transfer--even if, as in the Bowie and Zeppelin cases, the source tapes are of dubious quality. You can accept that if you want--I'm going to keep buying remasters.

At this point, a member like Grant stands out as a voice of reason in the Hoffman forums. Despite being told that the original Madonna CDs are truer to the original records, Grant prefers the remasters: "The clarity and dynamics on the new ones are stunning!" (He's also one of the few members--if not the only one--who lists Rhino's Bill Inglot whenever there's a best-remastering-engineers thread. I agree.) A few days ago Grant wrote that he wouldn't buy any more remasters unless they were done by Hoffman, but I think he was just having an off moment. Here's hoping he remains an independent thinker.

Jay

 

HZ how is he still accessing the SH site?

 

Sheesh, what's with this guy? It's amazing when you look at some of the reviews in Amazon, because you'll find the occasional review that denounces remasters, claiming they push buyers into buying the same music again. You can't please EITHER side.

Juan, Jay, whatever, dude, read down that list again and think about each entry. Fleetwood Mac is a first pressing that had a relatively small pressing; the "remaster" was done without any hype back in the 80's BEFORE labels started to remaster everything in site. Deja Vu, the older CD that was recommended, is actually "a remaster" of an even older CD...people here just want to get the best CD possible, regardless if it's a remaster. A remaster isn't necessarily always a good thing, and it's not necessarily a bad thing either. Every mastering is different, and usually, different enough that one stands out.

Now, if it makes you feel better, there are a number of recommendations you can find here on the latest remaster, and with some of those older CD recommendations, the remaster isn't bad at all. But lighten up, man! No one's forcing you to fish through used bins! If someone starts raving about another restaurant that's supposedly better than the one you frequent to, do you get offended like this? Ease up, pal, there's probably plenty of things in your life much more worthy of your concern.

 

Thanks Steve. Where is Sckott when we need a home PC meltdown?

 

That Juan guy makes me uncomfortable....
Yikes...

 

I hung onto my original CD issues. Passed on many a remaster after hearing the "new & improved" version. I trust "my" ears and my ears like what they hear when Steve does his thing. Yes, truly golden.

 

HEY! I don't have anything to do with this. Just so you all know.

I also never made the statement that I will not buy anything unless Steve does it.

'Nuff said.

 

I must be posting stuff in my sleep! I don't know or remember what thread I started.

 

Grant,
He's taking about me, not you....

 

Ya beat me to the punch Grant (vinylrec)!

 

Ditto! Who cares?
If we need to read his/her posts, we can veiw them at the "Ice" chest. Don't bring 'em here and give him "more" exposure.

 

First off, I don't have a "super high end" system. In fact, when I do comparisons, I use a cheapo Sams Club Teac receiver, a $200 DVD player, and a $500 laser disc player (though I do use a pair of high end Sennheiser
HD600 headphones). The key is using headphones. I will admit that many of the differences that I hear through the cans is not easily noticed through the speakers, and that most people I know don't give a hoot. Which means that I have to agree with the comment "if you're not like them, you probably won't hear what they hear". Then again, ICE readers aren't exactly your run of the mill music listeners.

Last year I bought the Bob Seger "Live Bullet" remaster. I listened to it once through speakers, thought it was OK, then put it away (didn't have another version to compare it with). A couple of months ago I won a very early (guessing '83-'84) Japan CD of Live Bullet off Ebay, for not much money (about what I paid for the remaster), and finally did a comparison. I was appalled at how BAD the remaster is. It goes way beyond "too bright", there is a horrible distortion throughout the entire CD. The Japan CD seems like a clean, flat transfer, which is what I would expect for such an old CD.

However - and this is important - the flat transfer Japan CD, though much better than the remaster, still needed help. So, I spent roughly 50-60 hours remastering it using Cool Edit (I did a lot of "picking the seeds off the strawberry" - thanks Sckott), primarily because it is one of the best live albums ever made, IMHO. My wife thinks I'm insane (and maybe I am).

The point is, I have nothing against remasters. I would have loved it if someone who WAS PAID TO REMASTER THE CD did a proper job, as it would have saved me a lot of work (and some fun, I'll admit). But if the remasters suck, give me the flat transfer, and I'll remaster the @#$% thing myself. Pardon my @#$% language.

This is what it boils down to - you have to listen to every available version and make up your own mind, because every engineer has his own idea of what sounds good (or sells). And if all the CD versions suck, remaster your own from the flattest copy you can find or get a CD-R needle drop. All it takes is time and money - mostly time - and caring about it enough. As TP is so fond of saying, "no pain no gain".

If SH's idea of good sound didn't closely match my own, I wouldn't be here. But I certainly won't say he's the only one qualified to remaster a CD - in fact, I prefer some remasters to his.

 

I'm already being proactive after reading this thread so that I don't get fooled again. I've been picking up sealed copies of The Rolling Stones ABKCO "Digitally Remastered From The Original Master Recordings" releases so I can make a killing when this subject comes up in a year or so. Let me be the first to advise you all to spend the money you're saving for the SACD's on the "originals".
And for those of you in the future that are browsing through the archives - This is the one you're looking for.........

 

Agree 100%. No more troll quotes please!

 

Dave, thanks for the list. Much appreciated.

I found an original "Houses Of The Holy" CD on Friday and I compared it with my Marino remaster. Yep, the original "breathes" properly and the remaster has a upper mid spike EQ on Plants voice, it's much smoother and more natural on the original CD. Tonally, the original CD is similar to my original LP.

But my US and Canadian LP originals of Led Zeppelin IV sound a mess compared to the Marino remaster of same. They are quite harsh sounding compared to the remaster which sounds tonally smoother, the way the original "Houses" beats the remaster of itself. Strange.

And today I scored a copy of "The Ultimate Rascals". It's got the same info as Steve supplied. And it sounds lovely...

 

Wow! Decent scores Dave. Yeah, I'm going going to have to get out there and hunt for some more of those first editions Zeppelins myself as I just discovered that the W2- version of of the S/T album is a little bit either boosted or compressed too much in the maximum volume peaks on Plant's voice so I'll be lookin' for that one to.

 

Sure thing chip-hp,

The Buckinghams- Mercy, Mercy, Mercy (A 28428) (10 songs Stereo)
Cyrkle- Favorites (A 28425) (10 songs Stereo)
Duane Eddy - Rebel Rouser (A 24200) (6 of 12 songs in STEREO!)
Teen Dreams - Various Artists (A 26731) (not much in stereo except: Am I The Guy-Tony Orlando (1961), Sealed With A Kiss-The Four Voices (1960), and Teach Me Tonight-George Maharis (1962))

These are just a few of many that I've recently purchased...usually under $6 a pop! There are NOT lengthy though, most having ONLY 10 songs.

The above are ALL Sony discs, but Warner, EMI/Capitol/CEMA Special Markets have some great offerings as well.

These CDs often have terrific songs that have been left off the larger compilations by these artists too!