Why do I keep torturing myself with remasters?


I am really beginning to believe these 180 remasters are mixed for a 500.00 system.It seems every one I buy it's either super bright,or has an ass load of bass in all the wrong places.The Bowie i have the soundstage is all wacked out .I have a decent setup but i can't imagine how much more obvious it must be on a serious setup.I can say the Yes fragile I got lately (cut fromt he original tapes) sounds pretty good ,Zeppelin In thru the outdoor Yikes! so bright waste of 25.00 again..... 
128x128oleschool
I haven't heard one Beatles remaster worth spit. They're all wrong. I mean really, one needs to remaster the Beatles? They didn't know what they were doing? I always prefer the originals, first pressings if possible.
Are you talking about Parlophone first pressings or Capitol first pressings, because many Capitol Beatles first pressings *were* remasters, with hard left-right panning and added reverb. I have the EMI/Parlophone Beatles in Mono LP collection and they're quite a revelation over the Capitol "stereo" ones I grew up on. I better connect with the Beatles' artistry on the mono reissues.

To the OP: there are evidently a lot of crap reissues, and one thing that doesn't help is when they're digitally remastered.

However, some reissues you can pretty much take to the bank because they are meticulously all-analog. Examples include Analogue Productions, Speakers Corner, and ORG. They're worth the money. Every Analogue Production pressing I have is an absolute treasure.


I've had luck with a number of new vinyl reissues and I am very glad they have been released.

Judging from the data on the Unofficial Dynamic Range Database the term "remastered" can be translated to mean "overly compressed."
No Geoff,
Much simpler.
No need for term remaster -- too loud and heavy.
Re-issued Re-used Re-cycled, Copies or even darn counterfeit -- those are right and definite terms. I remember Beatles counterfeits that sounded actually good... Well today's ones I guess different.

I tend toward original pressings --whatever that means re country, place of mastering, pressing, etc, at least as a reference point. But, some of these are extremely pricey, 4 figures sometimes. A good remaster serves a purpose. If you listen to pop, sometimes these can actually improve on the "original." RLJ's Pirates was an early digital recording on vinyl- it is an ear bleeder. The MoFi makes it tolerable. A friend asked me about an ORG Blood Sweat and Tears- I compared with an original US Columbia 2 eye and the ORG was richer and less strident. Some records, like the original Vertigos, or more obscure prog- the reissues generally suck, but the originals are nutty money. So, you either bite that bullet or go searching. And a lot of these records are hard to find in a really high quality state of play. I get lucky or break even on quality v condition most of the time, but there is a place for remasters. The issue then becomes which one. And sometimes the original record is just not a great recording. That's where I'll have a lot of copies- each has strengths and weaknesses--and typically, these are older pressings made at different times, not always current remasters.