sharke
It's a marketing ploy for sure. Why else would people buy new copies of music they already have? I think the public hears the words "digitally remastered" and what immediately comes to mind is a clearer, higher resolution, "restored" sound which fixes some non-existent technical limitations the original is supposed to have had. They also confuse the concept with digital remastering or "enhancing" of old movies, which quite often does result in an improvement.

Technically, that's actually what "digitally remastered" should stand for. Back in the early days of CDs, albums that were transferred to the new media w/o any other care probably didn't sound as good as they could have. 
 
Then the record companies must have seen the opportunity to pull a George Lucas on people by re-re-releasing digitally enhanced versions every couple of years.
 
Incidentally, am I the only one to notice that MP3s and other formats of compressed audio don't seem to be as detrimental to albums that aren't squashed in the first place? I can listen to the mp3s  of old classics and compare them side by side with the CD and the compressed version is actually not that bad - I get the impression that there is a difference in depth and width, but overall, nothing that would prevent one from enjoying the album.
 
Whereas recent albums that have been so severely compressed and limited are totally compromised. Heavy guitars in particular seem to modulate as if there was a parallel mix running through a chorus or something...

sharke
It's a marketing ploy for sure. Why else would people buy new copies of music they already have? I think the public hears the words "digitally remastered" and what immediately comes to mind is a clearer, higher resolution, "restored" sound which fixes some non-existent technical limitations the original is supposed to have had. They also confuse the concept with digital remastering or "enhancing" of old movies, which quite often does result in an improvement.

I think in the public's mind, "remastered" is indeed taken to mean "higher quality". I think some of this spurs from the waning days of vinyl when "Original Master Recordings" were released and, at least in theory, that meant from an original copy of the master tape vs. an nth generation copy. That makes some sense, but I don't think that's the typical case anymore. Some of the first generation of digital releases also had some issues.
 
 
In terms of Rain's point of why artists would allow horribly overcompressed versions of their art, well if you want to $ell more copies of your back catalog then you want people to be able to hear a difference when comparing. And most people aren't going to hear tiny differences in noise levels and EQ and whatnot, so you make it louder sounding and the relative loudness effect might make it "better" to someone not familiar with dynamics and people might think that there's more "detail" there just because the quiet stuff is LOUD now.
 
Of course once things get so completely squashed that even the most unperceptive members of the public despise it, then they can remaster the same stuff again (and again) with some dynamics restored. Cha-ching $$$$

RainIncidentally, am I the only one to notice that MP3s and other formats of compressed audio don't seem to be as detrimental to albums that aren't squashed in the first place? I can listen to the mp3s  of old classics and compare them side by side with the CD and the compressed version is actually not that bad - I get the impression that there is a difference in depth and width, but overall, nothing that would prevent one from enjoying the album.
 

Most people fail miserably when trying to do an ABX test between an uncompressed original and a reasonably high rate MP3 encoded with a modern encoder. There are certain killer samples that are hard to compress, but they are exceptions not the rule.
 
The difference in "depth and width" is most likely meaningless drivel you imagine because you think something audible is supposed to be missing. But lossy compression doesn't work that way - you're more likely to hear artifacts than loss of depth or imagining or air or any of those other undefinable subjective terms that people use that might mean something in some cases, but also are vague enough that they can be used whenever people don't understand what they are supposed to be imagining.
 
The difference is real artifacts are still audible under ABX and/or double blind testing.
 
The sad part is people are afraid to acknowledge that they can't really hear any difference because they are afraid they will be made to look bad by pretentious idiots.

both my kids listen to music out of an i-phone speaker and think it sounds fine....this generation does not know good sound.
 
It is all about portability, not fidelity.

drewfx1

RainIncidentally, am I the only one to notice that MP3s and other formats of compressed audio don't seem to be as detrimental to albums that aren't squashed in the first place? I can listen to the mp3s  of old classics and compare them side by side with the CD and the compressed version is actually not that bad - I get the impression that there is a difference in depth and width, but overall, nothing that would prevent one from enjoying the album.
 

Most people fail miserably when trying to do an ABX test between an uncompressed original and a reasonably high rate MP3 encoded with a modern encoder. There are certain killer samples that are hard to compress, but they are exceptions not the rule.
 
The difference in "depth and width" is most likely meaningless drivel you imagine because you think something audible is supposed to be missing. But lossy compression doesn't work that way - you're more likely to hear artifacts than loss of depth or imagining or air or any of those other undefinable subjective terms that people use that might mean something in some cases, but also are vague enough that they can be used whenever people don't understand what they are supposed to be imagining.
 
The difference is real artifacts are still audible under ABX and/or double blind testing.
 
The sad part is people are afraid to acknowledge that they can't really hear any difference because they are afraid they will be made to look bad by pretentious idiots.

Makes sense. 
 
For whatever it's worth, one of the reasons I posted that remark is that I am in no way ashamed to admit that the difference I seem to hear is very, very subtle. In a blind test, I'm not so sure that I would hear it. 
 
One of the albums I picked was the first Black Sabbath record which I had a compressed copy of while we were on the road and bought the CD version of again a few months back. And I did compare them because I noticed in the first place that there didn't seem to be any obvious difference. Though I spoke in very vague terms, everything being relative, I thought that if there was any actual explanation to my impression, maybe a part of the audio data which allows one to establish a relation between the various elements in the audio had been compromised - certain barely audible elements which were compromised.
 
But overall, as I said, admitting that I even did hear a difference, it was nothing that made the album less enjoyable, and I'd be hard pressed to even tell that one sounds "better". So I didn't waste time further analyzing that stuff.
 
The more recent albums though, I swear that the difference is quite obvious - the chorus-like effect on the overdriven guitars gives those away immediately. 

Lessee...when I were a lad it was 45s, then 8tracks, then cassettes, then harsh 1rst generation CDs, then a few actually good sounding CDs, then MP3s, then.......
 
Turns out most folks have never heard consistent high quality audio....ever.  Mores the pity.
 
I like it when I do though.
 

Hi,
 
NOTE: I'm a visual person. Listening to music for me is about how much does it open up and get the movie going in my head. Thus, lyrics, or a solo, or a sample, are nothing to my imagination, because the lyrics in rock music tend to go in completely different direction than the music itself, not to mention use centuries old ideas, like major is happy and minor is sad.
 
Of ALL the remasters I have heard, there is only ONE that has stood out, and it was not because of the remastering, as much as it was the fact that it did what should have been done before, and wasn't. The album is CARAVAN's New Symfonia, which is some of their music done with an orchestra. The original album had the concert out of order, so they could fit in the LP, and they cut down the material. The "remaster" had almost ALL the material and you could actually HEAR the orchestra, whereas the LP, was very spotty. Plus the "remaster" has the new stuff that you had not heard which made it better all around.
 
It still is, for me, the best orchestra/rock mix ever done in a live situation. Not pretentious and the story goes that the orchestra even was about to not go do the encore because of money and Pye Hastings told them to buck off, but they were going on, and then the orchestra showed up. The encore is magnificent (usually it was "For Richard").
 
Steven Wilson. Being that my tendency is towards visualization in all music, you can see why I have thought that his redoings of King Crimson are horrible, and just fabricated ideas that have nothing to do with the music itself, because he does not have the feeling and idea what the whole thing is about. He didn't have to be there, but all he needed to do was talk to his mom and dad, and he might have learnt and appreciated something about bombs going off and killing folks, be it in the "IRA just hit London" thing, or the VietNam thing as is so gloriously illustrated by "Apocalypse Now". Steven did not understand this, when he did the first piece, and then had no idea that "Epitath" was the other side of the equation ... your friend is gone! Dead!
 
Moving an instrument in the "remaster" or "remix", as I felt that Steven had done, did not make the music better. In fact, it gave it an "isolation" feeling that I felt hurt the music. On top of it, the song is exactly about this, as are the next couple of pieces in the album! Steven did not LISTEN to the lyrics, and figured they were not important to the album! He "didn't get it".
 
Some "remasters" are a rip off!
 
Almost ALL the Beatles, Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd are for the American market because the original copies of the LP's were so badly copied off a overused master, that you could not hear details very well. If you "bought" the import LP at the time, you heard the difference and it was like this was a completely different band! The last Pink Floyd album to do this was "Dark Side of the Moon" where the English LP, even had different posters! This changed on the next album and from then on as fas as I know. I have not found a difference in "The Wall" in either version for example, so "remastering or remixing" those might sound ridiculous.
 
Albums I would like to see redone, simply because they need it!
 
CAN - Future Days. Too much of the guitar is in the background, which is nice and gives it a very pretty atmosphere, that is very different from the rock audience bullcrap of kiss me gritz! But there are also some wonderful moments that deserve to be heard a lot better.
 
AMON DUUL 2 - Wolf City. The mix in there is interesting but in most cases it's like there are only two tracks and it's all muddled through. The beauty of the music itself carries the album, and there are some magic moments. The transition between "Surrounded by the Stars" and the next song is one of the prettiest ever. The use of the wah wah in the next piece is totally out of this world and not something that most guitarists have the ability to even try and do.
 
BANCO - The first album. One of the most unusual sounding rock bands ever, had a bunch of really well designed and done albums, that were well recorded, but it was only that famous TEAC. The music is so good, and so well designed that listening to it is exhilerating. It just needs to be cleaned up a bit, nothing drastic.
 
REFUGEE - Patrick Moraz should have done this, but I don't think the other mate has allowed it or the estate of the other member. Very well done album but the synthesizer recording is like two speakers in front of you and a microphone 10 ft away. The subtlety and punch that some of that keyboard work has is missing!
 
KEVIN AYERS - The Confessions of Dr. Dream. Crazy album that got a few people noticed and where Bryan Eno probably really learned how to play with knobs on a synthesizer, but the sound is not crisp, specially after the long cut after the poem, that is the signature of the whole album and its very inventive design. Massive kudos. Bad recording. No money for it, in the "Harvest" vaults to ever clean these up. But this album deserves it.
 
ROY HARPER - Either "Stormcock" or "Jugula +4". Both albums also have Jimmy Page, and him, I do not trust touching these albums! But they need to be cleaner, and Jimmy needs to stop hiding in his friend's albums!
 
SEVENTH WAVE - Things to Come. This massive keyboard blowout, is a great listen when it came out as an LP. But it's recording was very simplistic, and yet, it sounded great. A clean up of the recording and at least a few of the old swishes moving around your head would make this album ... unreal and off its rocker!
 
HAWKWIND - Space Ritual. The original, LP double album was not very well recorded and sounded really poor is places. A better show of the blowout, would be an even more fun listen for this idiot! It's still a great concert regardless, besides not having Bapu!
 
I can go on forever on these ... How about Ray Charles in the album "I can't stop loving you!"

Rain
For whatever it's worth, one of the reasons I posted that remark is that I am in no way ashamed to admit that the difference I seem to hear is very, very subtle.

 
Neither am I.
 
But consider the people who are marketing their audio production services to the public - do they really want to admit they can't hear something that some pretentious idiot is blathering on and on about? Even if the idiot is hearing things that in no way could possibly relate the cause in question?
 
You routinely find that anyone who claims that something isn't audible is dismissed as either having bricks for ears or (gasp) not caring about audio quality. 
 

In a blind test, I'm not so sure that I would hear it. 

 
In a properly controlled double blind test, you will only (potentially) hear stuff that is actually there. That's the beauty of it.
 

One of the albums I picked was the first Black Sabbath record which I had a compressed copy of while we were on the road and bought the CD version of again a few months back. And I did compare them because I noticed in the first place that there didn't seem to be any obvious difference.

 
You need to make absolutely sure you don't compare two different versions of the same piece. Otherwise it's easy to make the mistake of attributing what's really a different mastering to compression. The only real way to be certain you're comparing apples to apples is the start with the lossless and then compress it yourself.
 

Though I spoke in very vague terms, everything being relative, I thought that if there was any actual explanation to my impression, maybe a part of the audio data which allows one to establish a relation between the various elements in the audio had been compromised - certain barely audible elements which were compromised.

 
Most music varies over time. Do you think you would be most likely to hear problems some of the time vs. something vague overall?
 
I have something I call the "magic levels effect". It is the idea that seemingly any artifact in audio apparently must always be at a level where it is neither completely inaudible (and thus irrelevant) nor is audible enough to be heard as noise or distortion or whatever it really is. Instead it is only ever perceived by anyone, regardless of source material or listening conditions, in the magic barely audible zone where it can be perceived, but only vaguely, indirectly and not as any sort of noise or distortion or whatever it really is.
 
Personally, if I hear someone describe something distinct (like your chorusing effect on guitars), I am likely to find it more plausible than the vague, indescribable stuff.
 
Doing ABX testing comparing to lossless and starting with lower bit rates can be very instructive as to what sort of real things you might want to listen for.

Excellent points. 
 
My test was indeed flawed as I cannot guarantee that the MP3 and the wav were from the same source. In fact, saying it was a test is pushing it - a quick comparison of both versions would be a bit ore accurate. I'll have to try that one again, and encode my own MP3 version. 
 
But overall, my impression remains - I did that quick comparison because I didn't feel that there was such a significant improvement when I bought the CD. If there is, it will be subtle, for my own taste anyway.

Rain
...
But overall, my impression remains - I did that quick comparison because I didn't feel that there was such a significant improvement when I bought the CD. If there is, it will be subtle, for my own taste anyway.
...

I'm not sure, that any recording, can EVER, give you the "total experience" of the live moment.
 
The problem here, is that we're spoiled by stuff that is so fancied up in the studio, that being able to figure out the proverbial is li live or memorex thing, is lost and hurt. It almost becomes a discussion of is it digital recording better than the analog thing?
 
But today's mixes are way better than they were before. And you can hear the details better than before. However, sadly, i do not think that the talent and ability was improved from before. Consider that at one time many bands did this with these 2 track and then 4 track machines, and came away with a Sgt Peppers, or many other albums. Today, the music is way better defined within the mixing context, and yet ... it does not show/stand up to the strength of material and romantic design of those earlier albums.
 
I still believe, that, it is not a matter of how, or what, as much as it is what you define in your work to present it better ... or as a friend of mine here that ran a studio had mixed a band really well and they sounded strong and very good, but the lead guitarist and guy in charge, didn't like it, because all of a sudden he didn't sound like Nirvana! It was the end of that band around here! That person had no idea what his band was about, or what it sounded like, and he was dreaming a fan-tasy, that ruined the music!
 
In the end, it is all about "your vision" and how well you  define it. The better you define that the better your music will sound on its own, instead of being compared to someone else's. The question is, are your eyes and ears, the best judge, and not the audience? And I think this is where many bands get confused and not able to define it properly.  If you define it by the "audience", you will not likely make it because these are a dime a dozen. If you define it by your own definition, that might have bits and pieces of other bands you like, in the end, this is about you, not the inspirations, and your material will sound better and stronger.
 
(I hope this is the right track here!)