Reissued CDs

specgrade

Well-known Member
Anybody like the reissued copies of their favorite CDs/albums? Where do I look for 1st edition copies not reissued? New or used, just as long as it is not a tampered with recording.
 
This depends on a gazillion factor.

For music that was released pre-CD, first edition CD copies were *awful*. Not because of the technology itself, its just record labels took the same exact masters they used for vinyl and threw them on CD's, and they were almost always shit. Pretty much anything released in the mid 80s (that wasn't an actual new/modern release) sounds worse than anything. The Beatles original 87 CD release was probably the first legacy CD release that actually sounded decent.

What you want from those legacy acts probably is their stuff released in the 90's. Those were mastered much better for CD, but the loudness wars hadn't yet taken off yet so you still have good dynamic range.

There's also the differences between remasters and remixes, and almost everyone always gets that information wrong or confuses the two. Remixes have traditional been extremely rare, and are only starting to get more popular (thanks to the Steven Wilson remixes of many popular classic prog records, as well as Giles Martin remixing of a few Beatles albums). But its still the minority. Remasters are what is common, but they're all the same original mix, just interpreted differently. I would say generally speaking the 90's era issues of classic bands is probably generally a safe bet, but also keep in mind that digital mastering technology has come *a long way* since the 90's, and a post 2000 remaster can very well be far superior, assuming that it hasn't been squished like a brickwall and become a casualty of the loudness wars (so you have to do your research on a case-by-case basis).
 
I was an audio engineer all through the 90's, I've listened to a lot of reissue/remastered CD's.
Seafroggys is correct wit the difference between "remaster" and "remixing'.

Here's my take and experience, two things factor in the remaster:
The "original master" was used/found. As addressed above, virtually all 1st generation CDs were made from and eq'd and compressed copy or copy of a copy of the original master that was suited for vinyl, Also, the low end was often rolled off to reduce the groove spacing and allowing the lacquer master to be cut "hotter" and fit more time per side, as you can see vinyl is a very limited format!

Second reason: Advance in "A to D converters": this is the biggest leap in technology and audio quality (1st. generation converters were horrible): every new remaster goes through the latest A to D converters, as these have evolved, they have become more and more accurate, more transparent and most importantly, squeeze more and more resolution into a 16bit 44.khz. format, the difference is startling!

What is mastering?
Mastering is actually relatively simple, at its most basic, it's a transfer process to the final format used for duplication. But wait, there's more, in a perfect world that's all that would happen, a straight transfer, but no 2 track master is perfect, the mastering engineer goes over each song with a fine tooth comb, mainly adjusting levels and "tweaking" the track with eq and compression/limiting. Limiting is a really useful tool for digital mastering for CD/DVD, you can knock down an errant peak that happens only once or twice in the whole song and bring up the overall level 3 to 6db without really affecting the overall quality, this has a big impact to the perceived sound, especially for CD's where your limited to 16 bits of resolution.
Traditionally, this is not done to classical music, you leave the peaks in so the music is not altered in any way.

Ok, so why do "they" keep re-remastering albums??
Many reasons, sometimes the original master wasn't available but hey found it in someone's closet! More often it's new technology that triggers the label or band to remaster/re release an album (along with the revenue it generates), DSP (digital signal processing and editing) is so powerful and prevalent now that it can be a great aid in old recordings, very often it's used for noise reduction, removing clicks and errant noises, 60hz hum, and editing.

Finally,
In the late 90's early 00's, there was a new format that was next step in fidelity and was supposed to replace CD's, the DVD -A.
This was an audio only format (24 bit 96khz), The intention was with this level of resolution, you could capture the best analog recordings and preserve them. Analog multitrack tape machines can easily extend out to 40khz, I've set up some 2 track machines that you would mix down to can reach 50+ khz! This is easily an octave and a half above adult male hearing range.
So if you have a DVD player see if you can find a copy of your favorite album, they are out there, just getting very rare!

 
I don't agree that early CD reissues are blanket bad. I have many that sound great. I've even A/Bed some with the vinyl.
Some early CDs just sound bad because of the early digital technology. Many mid-80's albums that are all digital (recording, mastering then CD) sound thin and hard.
It really is a minefield that's almost impossible to navigate, I've tried myself.
Used CDs are pretty cheap, so you could buy a few and see if you are happy with the sound.
I've bought used CDs on Discogs and Ebay. Dealers with many good reviews are usually reputable IMO.
To conclude... there are now many reissues of some popular albums - early 90's reissues, early 2000's reissues, contemporary reissues and it's kind of impossible to know which ones sound the best unless you read reviews from collectors or just buy one and sell it on if you're not happy.
 
You need to look at the dates on the back of the disc cover, or look for "original master recording" discs. Usually they're not cheap if one knows what they have. I own around 300 remixed DVD-A discs and a good 150 SACD discs and the SACDs are the closest to vinyl reproduction as it gets. You also need a good player and DAC to achieve that "close to analog" sound. Discogs was mentioned above, I would start there.
 
Last edited:
I just don't like it when they throw songs on re-masters that were not on the originals. And worse, when they do this in between the normal order of songs. At least put the add-on songs at the end

the sound quality usually doesn't bother me as much b/c I mostly listen to music in my car
 
Here's my take and experience, two things factor in the remaster:
The "original master" was used/found. As addressed above, virtually all 1st generation CDs were made from and eq'd and compressed copy or copy of a copy of the original master that was suited for vinyl, Also, the low end was often rolled off to reduce the groove spacing and allowing the lacquer master to be cut "hotter" and fit more time per side, as you can see vinyl is a very limited format!

Yep, the RIAA EQ curves that were "taken out" of the vinyl, and added back in when played back. Problem was, CD players didn't add those frequencies back in, so it just sounded super thin.

Agreed on DVD-a's. Also SACD was another high fidelity format that came around in the late 90's. Sadly, very few albums were released on that format. I have some King Crimson DVD-a's that sound amazing. Also Blu-Ray is apparently used now, as I have the 2019 remix of Abbey Road that is on Blu-Ray.
 
Yep, the RIAA EQ curves that were "taken out" of the vinyl, and added back in when played back. Problem was, CD players didn't add those frequencies back in, so it just sounded super thin.

Agreed on DVD-a's. Also SACD was another high fidelity format that came around in the late 90's. Sadly, very few albums were released on that format. I have some King Crimson DVD-a's that sound amazing. Also Blu-Ray is apparently used now, as I have the 2019 remix of Abbey Road that is on Blu-Ray.
The Atmos mix on that Super Deluxe is incredible. All of them are really. Revolver, Let it Be, SPLHCB, and Abbey Road are all well mixed on those remixes.
 
Anybody like the reissued copies of their favorite CDs/albums? Where do I look for 1st edition copies not reissued? New or used, just as long as it is not a tampered with recording.
I wished Metallica Re-issued St Anger (with proper drums). Someone in YouTube uploaded the full album with proper drums and it is actually not a bad album, I just for the life of me cannot understand how they released that original album with such shit snare sound and thought it was ok...
 
Last edited:
Jon Anderson of Yes released Animation on CD and because they lost the master tapes,used a vinyl record as the original master.
 
Years ago a fellow I'd met earlier in the day at a used record store pulled a roll of three thousand bucks out of his pocket and left with my vinyl collection . A hefty windfall for the " working " musician I was at the time . Sadly, much of the jazz / blues was irreplaceable .

Since then I've been on a perpetual hunt to replace as many of those albums as possible on CD with moderate success .

Bad finger ' Straight Up ' , John Mayall's ' Ten Years are Gone ' Savoy Brown's early recordings with the original band plus Street Corner Talking and many others are trophies on my shelf to have and to hold till ....

My latest search - As Safe as Yesterday Is , Country Life - both by Humble Pie

- Ogden's Nut Gone Flake - Small Faces

Argus - Wishbone Ash

It's a good hobby and yard sale season's coming up in the not too distant future .
 
Last edited:
Anybody like the reissued copies of their favorite CDs/albums? Where do I look for 1st edition copies not reissued? New or used, just as long as it is not a tampered with recording.
If I've ever bought a remastered CD, I don't know of it. I really do enjoy original pressings of vinyl though. They sound great on my vintage stereo.
 
I just remember hearing weird whistles, air cons turning on/off and all sorts of unintended audio artifacts on some of the first re-issued to CD albums. It's kinda strange because some of the inverse complaints about modern LP mastering from digital are being bandied about. Some of this stuff is the auditory version of the princess and the pea if listening to these things on stereo systems good enough to detail these things and sometimes it's much more obvious and can be heard on a one speaker jambox. Of course people with critical listening skills can be driven nuts with these things.
 
My issue with so many re-issues, re-this- re-that is it gets confusing. But more than that, they screw up the album with numerous "bonus tracks."

Picking the songs that made the album was an art form. I put on a CD of an album I enjoyed as a kid (pre-CD), I want to hear it as I remember it.

How an album ends is important, I like hearing the ending and knowing, that was the end.

But instead, it's now "here are two songs left off the original album" which were left off the original album for a reason, they're terrible songs the artist didn't want the public to hear.

Or

Here is the original 4 track demo, oh boy, the singer mumbling the melody and some of the lyrics over a bad drum machine and casino keyboard. Yeah, again, the artists never intended anyone to hear that.

Or
The previously unreleased live version, which sounds no different than the official live album. But technically, it was recorded on a different night, so it's somehow special.

And then there is just the confusing packaging. Which version am I buying? The remix? the remaster? The deluxe? The super uber deluxe? The New and improved subber duper uber deluxe deluxe?

Why d I need 4 different copies of the same album on CD?
 
@DrumEatDrum Some of those things do interest me, but I would rather buy a box set that has those odd demos, weird outtakes, live footage that didn't make it, etc. What I really wanted was Eddie Van Halen's solo that he demo'd for KISS on "Christine Sixteen", but they couldn't get the legal clearance from the VH camp. Again- I want that on a box set, NOT on Alive 2 re-release or whatever.
 
Yep, the RIAA EQ curves that were "taken out" of the vinyl, and added back in when played back. Problem was, CD players didn't add those frequencies back in, so it just sounded super thin.

Agreed on DVD-a's. Also SACD was another high fidelity format that came around in the late 90's. Sadly, very few albums were released on that format. I have some King Crimson DVD-a's that sound amazing. Also Blu-Ray is apparently used now, as I have the 2019 remix of Abbey Road that is on Blu-Ray.

The RIAA EQ curves were applied by the cutting lathe when cutting the lacquer master, they were to compensate for the lack of low frequencies picked by the cartridge.
RIAA EQ was NOT applied to any 2 track master, original, copy or otherwise, and was NOT used during CD mastering or cassette mastering for that matter.
 
That's.....exactly what I said.
What you seemed to be saying is that CDs were generated from the lacquer master which was cut using the RIAA curve, and since CD players don't remove the RIAA curve at playback the sound was thin and bad sounding.

What he seemed to be saying is that CDs were never generated from the lacquer master, only from the 2-track master tape, and therefore would not have had the RIAA curve applied and so would not have needed to have it removed at playback. If this is true, then the RIAA curve explanation for bad sounding CDs wouldn't make sense.

So the question is whether CDs were made from the lacquer master which had the RIAA curve applied. I'm no expert but I would guess that CDs were NOT made from the lacquer master because 1) the lacquer master was strictly part of the mechanical process of manufacturing vinyl records and would not have applied to CDs, and 2) the RIAA curve is so bad sounding when uncorrected for that it's hard to imagine anyone putting CDs out with the curve applied knowing it wouldn't be removed at playback. It just seems like too basic of a mistake.

EDIT: here's the RIAA curve for anyone who might be curious...

RIAA Curve.png
 
Last edited:
Back
Top