originals vs remasters?

Question

so in rock music which do you prefer originals or remasters? in my opinion, when it's about remastering the 1980s songs, i accept it , because for instance, i personally love motorhead but their songs aren't clean. i can barely hear what they are saying because of the older tracks. while albums of the iron maiden, have been fully remastered and they are great. remaster doesn't mean to ruin it. but there are moments when remasters really ruin the songs. for example, megadeth , they ruined rust in peace, they ruined peace sells, while originals still rocking. what do you think

Bony Iommi · Accepted Answer

It depends -- sometimes they improve on the poor recording quality, sometimes they end up taking away a crucial bit of the sound.  I think Deep Purple's "In Rock" is an example of an album that was improved via the remaster.

Remixes are generally even more thorny.  I grew up on the remixes of the Peter Gabriel Genesis albums, but upon hearing the original mixes I preferred them, though they have some shortcomings.

? · Answer

REMASTERING IS TIME-SENSETIVE

Remastering seems to serve the purpose of remixing 
the instruments and vocals with slight variations meant 
to accommodate the expectations of the time in which 
the release is occurring.

So if a 1983 song is remastered (remixed) and released 
in 2019 the goal shall be to make it sound more desirable 
for people who are used to listening to music in 2019.

Sharpness and bassiness seem to be the main areas of 
Alteration to accommodate shifts in expectation.

Sometimes remixes just make sounds a bit clearer by 
eliminating noise and I can appreciate it but usually this 
doesn’t appear to be the objective.

Anonymous · Answer

Personally, I've never noticed anything that's been remastered sounding worse than the original. Sometimes I notice no real difference, other times they sound better.

Trending News

originals vs remasters?

3 Answers