Remastered vs Original

[Punxsta]

It's worth saying that 'remastered' does imply that its been sourced from the original master tapes. Compare for example auralux's reissue of dub landing1+2 which was done from the vinyl to the properly remastered scientist world cup/vampires reissues. Auralux did a good job but really the comparison shows how much better the sound is when using the original masters.

[Lion]

Remix and overdub you just the 4/8/16 track recordingtape.

For remastering you just the 2 track mix/mastertape.

Lion

[leggo rocker]

Good point Lion.

[daCENSOREDone]

just a sad example of disastrous remastering
[cover=3092,3488]
an example of great remastering
[cover=1661,1940]

[leggo rocker]

[cover=3488]

Yep, this one sounds like it is playing underwater. Simply awful. Avoid.

[Rob Strictly-Rockers]

Rob Chapman’s definitions given in his excellent book DownBeat Special – Studio 1 Album Discography are as follows:

A RE-ISSUE is an album which has been re-mastered from the original master tape and is identical to the original release except that the matrix number differs. Very often the sound quality of the re-issue is better than the original pressing.

A RE-MIX has been re-mastered and re-mixed and differs in some way from the original release (with either a different track list, or a different mix of vocals and/or instruments.

A RE-PRESS has been pressed from the original stampers, often many years after the original date of release. Obviously, this is identical to the original release, although sometimes the sound quality can be impaired due to the age of the stampers.

These definitions, although they have wider application, are based on his complete Studio One vinyl album collection . They do not, therefore, take account of re-mastering from vinyl (as has been discussed on here) which is a more recent practice.

Regards

Rob

[Lion]

In case of ST 1 from the mastertapes you get the remix versions of the album.


Lion