• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

What do you think about original analog LPs being remastered digitally?

This is true, Kent. I was amazed at what had to be done on the Zappa album, Freak Out, when it was first available on CD. Last time I played it, my original LP was really in shoddy condition, and never did sound any good, but it was a shock to me when that CD came out in the mid-80s.

Would be interested in knowing what members have to say about the SUNDAZED reissue of the Santana Abraxas album. I can remember the very instance when I was separated from my early original several decades ago. I know this is one of several audiophile reissues, but it's the cheapest and maybe truest to the original album, I'm not interested in paying lots of money for one of those 45 RPM versions where you can't get settled in to listen because you'll be up turning the records over every few minutes. I may be forced to accepting that this is one that will have seen major departures from the original sound, but I can hope not.
 
Personally, I wouldn't buy an LP once the music had been moved into the digital realm. I can't see any advantage and can think of many disadvantages.

I realize I have an advantage over those of you who are new to LP's or returning after selling off or losing their originals. I own most of the iconic records mentioned here, many of which are first pressings. If I was rebuilding my collection, I'd consider reissues instead of some of the crazy prices for the original releases.

There has been some discussion of the condition of the original master tapes. I'm reminded of when they wanted to remaster "Hotel California". The master tapes suffered from sticky shed. They had to bake the tapes and they knew they'd have only one pass to capture the recording. I think moving to digital was the right choice.

I may break down and buy an LP that has been digitally remastered which I already own in its original release to see what all the fuss is about. What are some of the classics where that has happened? I guess all Beatles reissues fit that description.

[EDIT] OK, It may not be a good test, but I just bought "With the Beatles" on new LP as well as the CD. I'll compare it to original releases. This isn't fair, because Capitol buggered up the sound.
 
Last edited:
vinyl1 said:
Are you talking about original UK first pressings? The US pressings from that period were usually not very good.
Click to expand...

Correct...for example FC6060 Charisma Selling England By the Pound US issue...BAD.
My copy of Foxtrot is one of the better ones, it is a German issue...but still not as good as the remastered.
 
Well, there's that, Doug, OR you could take your chances on some old used vinyl on ebay, I suppose. My experience with used has not been so good — even with CDs where you would think even casual consideration of care would be enough.

Just recently I bought a "sealed" copy of Girl at Her Volcano. I would have thought that this would have been the holy grail for some audiophiles, but with this sealed copy going for a mere $7 on Amazon, I didn't think twice, I ordered it on the spot. What arrived was "sealed," alright, but it was easy enough to see use/wear underneath that pristine shrink wrap.

Like you, Doug, my record collection — 40% pop/rock, 40% Classical, 20% Jazz & etc — is almost entirely original releases in the pop market. I was asking about the Santana album because that is one that I gave to a friend in the 80s, thinking that what I had on CD was sufficient. The nostalgic in me wants to hear it in analog again but not as a hyped-up audiophile 45 RPM. That's why I'm asking if anyone knows about this Sundazed release.
 
sgbaird said:
I was asking about the Santana album because that is one that I gave to a friend in the 80s, thinking that what I had on CD was sufficient.
Click to expand...
I don't have Abraxas on CD. I just have the LP I bought when it was released. I have come CD anthologies with songs from the album that sound OK, but not great. I'll have to go back and listen to the album.
 
Not directed at any one poster/comment but a case for digital :smoke:

24/96 or better HiRes files made from masters can have better SQ than any other past renditions if your system is setup properly for the HiRes file
 
Hmmmm...... Considering I did this a lot professionally, I'm all for it ;)

I'm more analog based, but there IS a place for digital too, but it should ENHANCE the audio, not take away from it. There lies the rub... I've seen bad digital releases, as well as bad analog ones. In the end, it's all about making the music sound as good as possible.

For the most part however, I do NOT like 'remasters' unless the original suffered in some way. Nowadays 'remastered' means two things: crank up the bottom, high end and volume to ridiculous levels or just throw it back out with some noise reduction to make a cheap buck. More often than not, nothing is wrong with the original mix, and all that is needed is a good transfer (be it from master tape, vinyl or whatever) and some good noise reduction techniques. Sadly, most are just 'run the tapes and get it out quick' deals.
 
It's been about 5 years since I learned that digital done right can sound every bit as good as analog. The issue now is if the record was done well or not. If the master used is digital or analog is a complete non issue for me.
 
But what if what you want is the sound the way you remember it? I know exactly what you mean about the compression and loudness on recent recordings, and I think I know to whom you are directing that.

I am most interested in hearing the records the way that they were originally meant to sound, not with bloated bass a-la MoFi. That's why I asked my original question. It is becoming very clear that the factions that began back when digital was in its infancy are still out there. I think both have their place, but I like them IN their place.

Vinylmasters said:
Hmmmm...... Considering I did this a lot professionally, I'm all for it ;)

I'm more analog based, but there IS a place for digital too, but it should ENHANCE the audio, not take away from it. There lies the rub... I've seen bad digital releases, as well as bad analog ones. In the end, it's all about making the music sound as good as possible.

For the most part however, I do NOT like 'remasters' unless the original suffered in some way. Nowadays 'remastered' means two things: crank up the bottom, high end and volume to ridiculous levels or just throw it back out with some noise reduction to make a cheap buck. More often than not, nothing is wrong with the original mix, and all that is needed is a good transfer (be it from master tape, vinyl or whatever) and some good noise reduction techniques. Sadly, most are just 'run the tapes and get it out quick' deals.
Click to expand...
 
The main problem today are listening tastes. In the 60's a lot of us wanted are recordings to have the characteristic of a live performance. Be it a small venue for 4 or 5 member jazz groups or a large one Like Philharmonic Hall. So we were content with our analog recordings that attempted to capture that sound. Today most young folks want the sound that's heard in the recording studio booth. And with all the controls and processors trying to do the work to please the artist and producer and to Hell with what the actual sound was. So if you take an old analog master and the engineer and producer aren't content with just trying to restore the tape, but want to bring the recorded performance to todays standards the original recording will fall flat on its face. Lets not make a 1957 Chevy Bel Air into anything more than it was. We don't need or want fuel injection with turbo charging and an 8 speed auto matic transmission with air pollution controls and wide profile tires, we just want it with the 6 cylinder with 3 speed stick shift most came with. Like wise we want the hall sound with the rolled off highs due to the acoustics, we want that extra acoustic warmth, we don't need steely cold hard endless definition. We want the sound of the performance as a hole not a bunch of individual instruments. Its not about individuals tying to make a whole performance, its about the performance. Most Digital guy haven't figured that out yet.
 
sgbaird said:
But what if what you want is the sound the way you remember it?
Click to expand...
Sadly, that ship might have sailed. It was years before I found out the way I heard the Beatles was not how they or George Martin intended. It took some adjustment to hear the mono versions of my favorites without the echo drenched, heavily compressed "Duophonic" treatment done to them by Capitol. It was a revelation to hear "I Want to Hold Your Hand" in true stereo.

I share the concerns of others when hatchet jobs are done on remasters to adjust them to the tastes of today rather than a more realistic and true to the original rendition. I haven't run into many that were poorly done. I've bought some SACD Living Stereos that sound great - the remastering engineers tried to remain undetected, deferring to the judgement of the original engineers and producers.
 
sgbaird said:
But what if what you want is the sound the way you remember it? I know exactly what you mean about the compression and loudness on recent recordings, and I think I know to whom you are directing that.

I am most interested in hearing the records the way that they were originally meant to sound, not with bloated bass a-la MoFi. That's why I asked my original question. It is becoming very clear that the factions that began back when digital was in its infancy are still out there. I think both have their place, but I like them IN their place.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, I wasn't really directing that at anyone in particular. It's more of a generalization is all. yet, there are some labels who are just BRUTAL (and that's being nice, believe me).
 
^ Gotcha. Overall I've been pleased by the help that many have offered me in this thread.

I should say that I do not intend to be spending much or buying many new records, since I already own thousands that date back to the 60s. I would just like to fill some holes in my pop collection, and maybe buy a few that interest me.

Two of special interest are both classical records on the Speakers Corner reissue label. Since neither is a sonic blockbuster per se, my guess is that there are few who actually would own either. So I would appreciate comments on the quality of this label. Just in case there are any owners, they are:

Mozart Mass in C K427, Ferenc Fricsay with the Berlin Philharmonic, Originally on DGG.

Howard Hanson: Fiesta in Hi Fi, Mercury.

I have several LP copies of the Mozart, but I have pretty much worn them out. I have the Hanson on CD only, and expect that a proper LP remaster could really do this one justice.
 
I can tell you for a fact that some (very little, but some) of today's vinyl is analog. I just wish I had a reliable way to find out which without buying it first.
 
Frank Sol said:
Not directed at any one poster/comment but a case for digital :smoke:

24/96 or better HiRes files made from masters can have better SQ than any other past renditions if your system is setup properly for the HiRes file
Click to expand...

Are there any recordings in particular you've been wowed by the HiRes versions of? I have a good music server setup and a 24/96 DAC, but I've never found anything on HDTracks etc that I felt definitely sounded better then a standard redbook CD.
 
Catcher10 said:
My original Genesis Foxtrot, Selling England By the Pound and Nursery Cryme have a blanket over them. The 2008 remasters done at 1/2 speed sound glorious.....Same with King Crimson remasters by Steven Wilson, absolutely fantastic compared to the original issues.
And these compared to the remstered CD's?? I and many others prefer the new remastered vinyl versions.

That works for me
Click to expand...

Bingo, I have them all and they are light years ahead of the originals :yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom