I have no expertise in this subject but would like to offer some observations about 'remasters' in general. Most of the CDs I have purchased in the last couple of decades have been reissues rather than new recordings, with particular emphasis on the output of the analogue LP era (mostly stereos but some monos, as well). That's because most of my favourite artists recorded then and I unapologetically find their performances to be authoritative and superior to many more recent offerings.
When reissues of earlier recordings are accompanied by claims of "remastering", the main point of interest for me (and I suspect, many others) is whether they offer improved sound quality compared to earlier issues - after all, most of us already know the performances!
If 'remastering' means that the original source material has been used, my response to some of them seems to pose a conundrum. My - admittedly subjective - reactions are that (i) some reissues fail to sound better than or, indeed, don't sound as well as, earlier issues and (ii) 'restoration' labels such as Naxos Historical and Pristine - presumably working with commercial pressings only - sometimes get better results than the company which made the original recording.
Message Thread
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb