is there a point to vinyl remasters?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

surely, if people are going to want and buy remasters, they'd want them on cd format.

― ilx, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 17:16 (twenty years ago)

wrong.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 17:18 (twenty years ago)

why?
if i have the original vinyl pressing of say, hendrix's axis album, or the stooges debut, why am i going to fork out for another copy on vinyl thats only going to have the dubious honour of being remastered (which a lot of the time, just seems to mean, being louder than the old records)?

― ilx, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 17:19 (twenty years ago)

but what if you don't have the original vinyl pressing of Axis?

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 17:24 (twenty years ago)

Well, a re-release doesn't have to be 'remastered'.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 17:30 (twenty years ago)

Why the hell is this an anonymous thread?

― donut Get Behind Me Carbon Dioxide (donut), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 18:16 (twenty years ago)

he is collectorscum and wants to preserve his anonymity so no one can figure out his name, and thus his address, and therefore the whereabouts of that Gal Costa private pressing NM- (only extent copy in the world)

― 1337 dood3z (1337 dood3z), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 19:02 (twenty years ago)

maybe u wore out yr copy of fun house, fool

― Old School (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 19:08 (twenty years ago)

but like he said, why does the reissue need to be remastered?

― dan. (dan.), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 19:55 (twenty years ago)

If it improves the sound, why not?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 19:56 (twenty years ago)

I mean, at least it's the same mix. Remastering doesn't really make for a different album like a remixed version does.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 19:57 (twenty years ago)

Because improving sound just = making LOUDER which is bad so go buy the originals or the CDs.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 19:58 (twenty years ago)

There are plenty of records that were poorly mastered to vinyl the first time around btw and CORRECTING that poor mastering is obv the main point of vinyl remasters.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 20:00 (twenty years ago)

you gotta remaster cuz you dont have the fukkin stamper round no more cuz brothers go outta buzness foool.

― Old School (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 20:02 (twenty years ago)

I could be wrong, but don't you have to remaster something to reissue it (especially on a different medium such as CD) anyway? So wouldn't not remastering a reissue sort of like saying "Let's do a second printing of this book, and we could fix the typos, but let's not, because then it wouldn't be like the original?"

Which is a fancy way of saying, Old School OTM (xpost).

― Rick Massimo (Rick Massimo), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 20:04 (twenty years ago)

if you dont have a master copy, you must re-master. that said, it's vague enough ad copy the consumer doesn't really understand so... PRINT THAT MOTHER

― Old School (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 20:06 (twenty years ago)

"I mean, at least it's the same mix. Remastering doesn't really make for a different album like a remixed version does."

but sometimes remastering = code word for some new remixing....

― okok, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 21:12 (twenty years ago)

eq and compression are parts of the mastering phase, so differences there could be.

― Old School (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 21:21 (twenty years ago)

Also, remasters occasionally turn single LP into a double LP (wider grooves = more dynamic range).

― Siegbran (eofor), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 21:03 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.