Remasters and Audiophoolery?

erinh

New member
I find it hard to start this thread... I've attempted it a few times over the past few months but when I do I ultimately hit the "back" button and punt. This time, I'm gonna make an attempt at being coherent and short(ish) winded here.

For as long as I can remember I've been a huge fan of music. Who isn't right? I mean, that's why we're all here. Everyone I know loves songs. But I sometimes feel like my love for music is more than just a love for "songs". This hobby at times clouds my passion for just enjoying the music. After last weekend's show (The Vinny MECA comp) my passion for listening to music was reignited by all the awesome systems I heard. It turned that spark back on for me.


Now, here's where I'm gonna skip all the mooshy talk and get right to the good stuff.

We as audionuts often find ourselves entrenched in gear swapping. However, my gear swapping has rarely been with the hope of a gain in sonic bliss. Rather it was done out of necessity... you know... I just needed to do something. Idle hands and whatnot. I never really get in to the "amplifier sounds" or "DAC sounds" side of things even though I do believe there are legitimate points to be made. An extreme example would be tube amps not being able to drive a complex load loudspeaker as well as a solid state amplifier.

Enter, the plight of album masters. Even though I'm not a gung-ho equipment sonics guy, I do believe there are differences in the source material that can often lead one to hear different things by simply swapping the disc for another of the same name but different release date or country it's released to. The most obvious example would be something like a common-day Remaster where an album with previously high dynamic range has been brickwalled to satisfy the 'loudness wars'. We know this scenario all too well by now (if you don't, here you go).

However, dynamic range aside, there are many cases where an album/disc may be flat out mastered differently. I ran in to a fine example of this some years back when I was researching Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms Mobile Fidelity Soundlabs remaster (note: herein Mobile Fidelity Soundlabs will be referred to as "MoFi"). There were some fellas on a recording/engineer forum, http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/, discussing the difference in mastering between the MoFi (SACD/CD Hybrid) version and the original album release. Some presenting their case for why the MoFi version is superior and others stating their fondness for the original. Ultimately, totally subjective opinions on which they liked the best. So, naturally I'm thinking it's all conjecture... typical crazy audiophile talk. Until I saw that someone actually provided proof there is indeed a difference between the two versions beyond just the loudness wars aspect. Below are two screengrabs provided in the discussion of the proof. You'll see the delta illustrates the frequency response differences between the two. Actual, objective and quantifiable difference in two different versions of the same original source material.






You can see from the above that one version of "So Far Away" (I believe it was the SACD version) has a +4dB bump at 80hz and some dips in the higher frequency end. Right. So definitely a case for audible differences.



That opened my eyes... the argument that one album can sound different from another of the same title is totally plausible and isn't just audiophoolery. Since then I've cruised that forum countless times before purchasing a CD looking for tips on which version of an album I should buy. To give a pretty typical example consider an album with (3) different versions: 1) the original 1985 US Pressing, 2) the original 1985 Japan master, and 3) the 2010 remaster. Sometimes the consensus is the Japanese master is the better version and sometimes not. When there's a new mix provided there will be discussion comparing the new mix vs some of the previous. Usually objective data comparing track vs track is provided to illustrate differences. But, over time I've learned to trust these guys at their word on the 'fact' there is an audible difference between the versions being discussed.

Another further example is a 2014 remaster of Tears For Fears' Songs From The Big Chair. I recently purchased this mix and compared it to my MoFi version. I'm told the MoFi version is in many ways similar to the original with some key differences. The thing that stood out to me about the 2014 release is how much more defined the transients were. I thought that odd... figured I was tricking myself in to hearing things. But, lo and behold, I found this interview and subsequent quote from Steven Wilson, the guy who remixed the album off the original analog recordings, discussing the differences between his mix and the original and I realized that what I heard was likely due to this:
Steven Wilson said:
It’s a matter of taste whether it sounds better than the original mix,” he says. “More clarity in places perhaps, but the original mix is great and definitive, so I would say the new mix just sounds different, not better. However, one thing that does differ very slightly to the original is that I backed off some of the extreme use of reverb on some mix elements. The trend in the mid 80’s was definitely to have everything bathed in massive arena-sized reverbs, and I certainly have not changed that approach or the overall sound world of the album, which is supposed to sound huge and epic after all. It’s more a subtle tweak that just gives the impression of the instruments and vocals being slightly more present or “up front” in places.

If you read the whole article above you'll also find some neat info about how "Shout" was basically put out with reversed stereo. The new mix got it right based on how the musician played the toms; the original version was incorrectly swapped.




While we all understand that remixes can and often do sound different for some obviously audible reasons, there are cases where the changes are much more subtle. Furthermore (and most importantly to me) is the fact there even released versions of a disc put out in the same year sound different depending on the market (the US vs Japan example I gave above).

Like I said, before I get ready to purchase a CD I'll spend some time doing some research on the better options. For example, before I purchased Michael Jackson's Thriller, I wanted to determine just which version I should get. I already had the remasters but felt like I could get something better. I go to http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/ and search for "Thriller" and read and read... sometimes the threads are short and sometimes they are long and there's tons of them. As you can imagine, Thriller has a lot of threads discussing it. Once I determined that catalog number EK38112 was the one to get, I went shopping. I buy used albums/discs from discogs.com. Discogs is an incredible source for used/new media. I've purchased the majority of my music through them then I'll resell it on eBay once I've ripped it to my computer (lossless format). All these darn "Erin's Mix" CDs I give out at meets and whatnot are almost entirely comprised of original pressings that I sourced through discogs... and I put a lot of effort in to finding the "best" versions of the albums through the SteveHoffman forum. So if you have one of those meet discs, just know that I put serious effort in to making it a good disc. It's the first time I'm telling this out loud ... and subsequently giving away my insider info. ;) :D

Now, you would think that a lot of these "best" versions would cost quite a bit given some of their age (remember, I am more fond of 80's pop/rock than I am anything else) but mostly I find the used CDs are <$10 shipped in mint or very good condition. That's not bad, considering. Of course, if you want Madonna's self-titled German-master then you're gonna pay a bit.
But, I digress. A lot of the 90's era rock/alternative stuff I was in to typically stays under the $10 target as well with an occassional oddity (typically cult classics or rarities such as Matchbox 20's Yourself Or Someone Like You LP that continually goes for $300+ (seriously, I love MB20 but I would have never expected their LP to go for so dang much!... did you notice the Mint condition for $750?!).





So that's it... my tip for sourcing the best albums of a given artist/title I can is simple but sometimes involves a bit of work to weed through specific catalog numbers to make sure I'm getting the 'correct' version. This may seem silly to some. That's cool. But I rather enjoy it.

Just for kicks, I snapped some pictures of a few of my favorite purchases. These are all original pressings. Tears For Fears' Hurting is a West German 'Atomic' pressing. Songs From The Big Chair is my 1985 US Pressing. The Wang Chung album is a Japanese pressing. And finally, rounding out my quad that I refuse to sell is Michael Jackson's Thriller original 1982 US Pressing (EK38112).















and my parting shot of my silly collection of SFTBP (I don't have the physical CD version of the MoFi version):

 
Last edited:
Wow! I have a lot to read.....you are a scholar and a gentleman (and a bikinpunk[emoji12]). Thank you so much for posting this, although my PayPal account may suffer [emoji6]
 
Ha! Well, I apologize in advance. And please don't tell your wife it's my fault... I don't want her shanking me the next time I'm at one of your meets!
 
I'm gonna give another example, real time, about my 'process' here. I may be making too big a deal about said 'process' but it kind of gives a clearer example to the ADHD above.


Last night I was listening to Apple Music's mix playlist of 80's hits and George Michaels' "Faith" came on. I flat out just dig this song. Side note: if you haven't noticed it, the intro to "Faith" has a throwback to GM/Wham's "Freedom" song via pipe organ.






Now, I already have a ripped version of the original US album but it got me curious if there may be a different version or two out there that might be noticeably different. So I pull up the Steve Hoffman forum and do a search. I get quite a few hits. Notably these:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...-michaels-first-two-solo-albums.160779/page-2
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...-cd-dvd-special-edition-due-sept-2010.223185/

The first discusses the SQ of GM's first two albums and the latter discusses the 2010 Remaster release. I do a bit of digging in the threads and find that for the original release, the preferred versions are 32•8P-231 (original Japanese pressing) and the original US version (catalog number/barcode number CK 40867/074644086720).

As for the 2010 remaster, it's received pretty well. I didn't find a consensus on the remaster being excellent but just some posts here and there saying they liked it. So... yea.

With all that said, buy the one that fits your needs best. I wound up getting the Japanese pressing for about $8 shipped (it was the last one they had at that price).



The cool part about doing this process is the other things you run in to. For example, I found this article discussing the recording of the album that was really quite cool:
http://www.soundonsound.com/people/classic-tracks-george-michael-faith

And if you read through the 2010 Remaster thread linked above you'll find all sorts of little nuggets. For example, this post:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...on-due-sept-2010.223185/page-10#post-11816079
 
Good stuff erin! Thanks for the source of mix quality discussion, didn't know it existed, lol. I've purchased several mofi releases over the years, found some better than the origional, some not. It's nice to know you can research the differences through that site tho. I do know that some of the versions on your mix discs do sound stupid good tho.....I never noticed such fidelity in the "water song/Jamie's got a gun" version on one of yer mixes, in the recordings I have owned.........
 
Last edited:
I have to give some credit to Jason B for me posting this. We had a convo yesterday and at some point I began telling him about my new Tears For Fears disc and that went on to me talking about the Steve Hoffman forum. He expressed interest in knowing a bit more about my whole 'process' here regarding the forum and discogs. I was going to just text him the site's but decided to sit down and really write this up last night instead. :)
 
Good stuff erin! Thanks for the source of mix quality discussion, didn't know it existed, lol. I've purchased several mofi releases over the years, found some better than the origional, some not. It's nice to know you can research the differences through that site tho. I do know that some of the versions on you mix discs do sound stupid good tho.....I never noticed such fidelity in the "water song/Jamie's got a gun" version on one of yer mixes, in the recordings I have owned.........

I honestly don't even remember which version of that disc I used. But, I agree, the opening sequence is very ... fidel? lol... it certainly has a hi-fi sound to it.
 
The biggest problem that I have is that a lot of my music was ripped from compilation CDs that I got back in the 90's (Now That's What I Call Music, Billboard Top Hits, etc). I don't know if whoever mastered these compilations did remastering of the original songs, or just copied them over verbatim. It also has me wondering about 'Greatest Hits' albums that bands put out. I'm one of those guys who hated to buy a whole album for just 2-3 good songs, so I would always buy a CD with numerous hits...but even I've noticed sonic differences between multiple versions of a song on my PC. I can tell from personal experience that the only version of Axel F you'd want to own is the one from a copy of the original Beverly Hills Cop soundtrack.
 
Lol, al, you know what always bothered me about "greatest hits" albums was the varying mixes from song to song. That has me thinking most of them are direct copies of the pre-existing mixes. The change in sound from song to song seemed to mirror the origional album mixes, which of course were different from each other. Now some best of albums are labeled as remasters, to address my complaint of differing mixes above, me thinks, as I don't believe I was the only one who disliked the varying sounds from one track to the next on the same album.
 
Here I was reading that long post, saw the tears for fears bit and thought "I need to show erin this"...

Kept reading and realized I needed to facepalm for myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks Erin, I now feel totally inadequate by merely walking into BestBuy and picking up Gary Clark Jr's latest CD because it was there.

But it does give me the idea to search deeper for versions of some Jethro Tull and ZZ Top CDs I have that seem to sound disappointing.
 
Cool! Yea, all I was trying to do is to make people aware that a 'Remaster' isn't the only version of an album that can be different. There can be numerous version of the same album released in the same year and have differences in the mix.
 
Just a word of caution on something I forgot about until recently...

Sometimes sellers on Discogs will be located overseas. You'll notice it by the shipping price because typical domestic shipping is only a few bucks where international shipping is more than $7-10. If you are looking for a disc in a hurry make sure you check the seller's location. I ordered a disc nearly two weeks ago. It was shipped 9 days ago and it still hasn't arrived. Luckily, I wasn't in a hurry. ;)
 
a new discovery for me...

I'm a fan of Madonna. Her singles that were played on the radio back when I was a kid were and have always been 'fun' to me. I've used her song "Live to Tell" from the greatest hits album The Immaculate Collection (TIC for short) on a few of my demo discs because of the large sense of space in the recording. I noticed the track doesn't sound the same on the album it was originally in: True Blue. Now I know why...


I got to researching her music and found out TIC was remastered in Q-Sound and I found this blurb on the SH forum which came from allmusic.com:
Everything on the collection is remastered in Q-sound, which gives an exaggerated sense of stereo separation that often distorts the original intent of the recordings.

So that would explain why I hear a difference in that track and others on TIC vs the original album versions, beyond the obvious remixing of sounds and track lengths. Just another example of how re-releases, greatest hits, etc tracks can be different from their originals.





For those who don't know, Q-Sound I pulled this from their site (http://www.qsound.com/):
"QSound’s proprietary audio algorithms truly deliver a fuller, more natural and immersive audio experience - users hear the difference!!"

Wiki link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSound#Selected_albums_.22mixed_in_QSound.22

As far as I can tell, the Q-Sound purpose is to basically emulate surround sound, of sorts. Apparently some recording engineers hate it, judging by this thread started by Steve Hoffman himself:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/q-sound-make-it-stop-already.238632/

For those interested, here's a list of Artists who use QSound in their recordings:
http://www.qsound.com/spotlight/users/recording-artists.htm

That list doesn't appear to be complete, however, because this link shows others that aren't on the list above. For example, Michael Jackson's Dangerous... another track that I like to use for the sense of space (the beginning guitar riff sounds WAY out there). Makes sense now that I know how it was mixed.
Further discussion regarding this album's original 1991 release vs the 2001 Special Edition release here: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...ael-jackson-dangerous-cd-1991-vs-2001.307016/


Alright... brain dump off.
 
Last edited:
I too had The Immaculate Collection cd and enjoyed the music of that time. I remember Vogue being one of those must have bass demo tracks that everyone had :)
 
I'll have to dig up the jewel case for the Dire Straits BIA remaster I have. Intrigued now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
keeping this going...


I'm a huge fan of Matchbox Twenty (or Matchbox 20, depending on what year you're talking about ;)). I have been since I heard "Push" off their first Album Yourself or Someone Like You. But they really got their claws in me when I heard "Real World" for the first time. I bought the CD that day and it was the only CD I took with me on my trip to Europe that summer. I never got sick of it.

I have lots of great memories shared with their various albums over the years. The first concert my wife and I went to turned out to be the night they were filming their DVD "Show". So that was a really great time and helluva show.



I recently found a Japanese CD pressing of Yourself or Someone Like You, catalog # AMCY-2325, on eBay which I haven't seen before. Knowing how expensive this album can be (seriously, the LP sells for $350 (used) to as much as $750 (new)!) I decided to go ahead and buy this CD and see if it had a different or better master than the one I already owned. I didn't realize it when I ordered it but it turns out it's a Japanese Sample which are provided to radio stations and are not meant to be sold. There's actually a collector's market for these. Being the fan I am, I find it really cool that I inadvertently found one. Some people call it fate. LOL.


I ripped the disc using Exact Audio Copy (EAC) as I do with all these albums and then ran it through the Dynamic Range Database's (DRDB) Dynamic Range (DR) scanner. This does what you probably think it does: scans your songs and provides you the dynamic range information that you see on the DRDB site. You can download the tool for the PC/Mac via the "links" button at the top right of the DRDB site page. I posted a link to the DRDB results for this album here:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/114709

Which you can compare to the original version here:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/6996


Though, my DRDB results yield similar results to the others already posted there, it does seem mine has ever-so-slightly more DR on the majority of tracks (by about 1dB if that). I also did some spectrum comparisons between the Japanese disc and the US version I have. I compared "Real World" and "Back 2 Good" and at most, the difference was about 0.1dB and typically above 10khz. I found that interesting, but not convincing enough to think that this may just be pressing differences and not at all related to the mastering process. So, basically, I wasted $30 trying to get a 'better' version of the disc but ultimately I got a Japanese Sample which has a market in it's own right. Kind of cool!





I did a high quality scan of the cover at work so I can have the Japanese OBI* as part of the cover for my album art instead of the standard album cover. I also scanned the disc to show you what I mean about it being a Sample. Look at the inner ring and you'll see "Sample" written on it.
*Note: OBI is the insert that is slipped in the CD wrapper on the left of the CD case. The Japanese CDs with the OBI usually run a bit more than the ones without simply because they're a collector's piece as well.


Cover in the CD case:




Cover without case:





Disc:

 
Last edited:
just to show what I mean about why I scanned the album cover with the OBI, this is what I see when I play this on my iPhone:








As opposed to this:







I just plain think it's cool to see the Japanese strip on the side. I know, I know... nerd status.
 
Back
Top