Is remastering valuable or a gimmick?

It seems like any album over 5 years old that gets reissued is always marketed as remastered. There are definitely albums that need this. Sacred Warrior’s debut was greatly improved. But I find most of the time I can’t even tell a difference. Moreover, some albums with impeccable production and mastering get remastered. It’s completely unnecessary. This seems like it’s more gimmick than valuable. Thoughts?

I'm with you there. The only remaster I can think of that made a strong difference to me was when Klayton remastered and re-released all the Circle of Dust albums as well as Argyle Park. They sounded way better and clearer than the originals.

Depends on the album.

I think with my band's release "Overlord", it was definitely valuable.

To me, different colored vinyl is a gimmick.

I agree with ToB. I’ve bought some remasters that definitely improved the sound (such as Overlord). But others I shouldn’t have bothered with because they didn’t really improve it. I generally don’t bother buying a remaster unless the original had significant flaws.

Mastering for a recording is crucial as it takes a great studio recording, compresses the louder signals and excites the weaker ones.  It results in a fuller and more even listening experience overall.

For some albums like the new Chariot reissue, for example, the originals were done in a studio but were demo tapes.  I seriously doubt they paid for mastering.  The mastering process here made the songs louder and the overall sound fuller.  I can compare sounds on this as I had the demos that someone had shared with me months ago.

But, when you have an album that had an impeccable mix and master like say the Fear Not album, the remastering process can make the album sound a little bigger, but mostly you get volume that is more consistent with today's mastering levels.  Unless you have a producer's ear, you probably won't notice much difference in the original and the remaster.  You will notice the bump in overall volume, though.

Sometimes, the remaster can weaken the listening experience, though.  I felt like the Eternal Ryte and Recon remasters were muddy as they excited the bass tones a little too much.  I went back to my original CDs, ripped them back to MP3, and did some remastering of my own and exciting the mids where the guitars and vocals hang out.  I like mine but don't care for the official remasters.

So, I have gotten to the place that, unless they are offering listenable bonus tracks (badly recorded live tracks of songs I already have don't do it for me), I don't buy remasters.  If they have some good listenable demo tracks or unreleased tracks like the Fighter albums or the first Ransom release, then I will get those.  Otherwise, some other collector can get the new remasters and I will keep my originals.  I don't play them anyway.  I rip them and add them to my FiiO or Hidizs players and carry way more music with me than I ever could wagging CDs around.

I think all modern albums should be done right the first time. Unfortunately, remastering is needed because the engineer didn’t do a good job, and the original mastering didn’t sound good.

If it’s done right by someone that knows what they’re doing, it’s very valuable.

I think it can be gimmicky occasionally but at other times, even on modern albums, a bit of tweaking can make an audible improvement for the better if the mastering engineer didn't quite define the guitars (or whatever) on the initial commercial release, like TZ75 says.  So much is subjective to the listener's own hearing and preference.  These days I typically ignore the umpteenth remastering of a reissue unless there's a bunch of additional content included--usually one or more of the previous reissues sorted out the mastering to where I think it sounds really good.  I'll try to check out a sample online and compare its mastering to what I already have before entertaining any further impulse to re-purchase.

Straight reissues don't induce most would-be buyers to re-purchase a title as much as a reissue with perceived "value added" does.  A competent-but-affordable remastering job is one way to get the buying public to perceive "value added" whether previous editions sounded really good or audibly flawed.  The implied improvement doesn't always rise to the level of something remarkable.  Every now and then it's even a step down, like alldat says.

Very few are as impactful as overlord. Oracle Desolate Kings was another one that made a huge difference. If I recall, I want to say The Crucified Pillars was also improved significantly. I had high hopes for Testimony of Apocalypse when it was remastered but could really tell a difference.

I totally agree with what was previously stated about modern production. There should be no reason/need for remastering  anything produced in the current era. Get it right the first time. It’s no longer 1990!

One example of perfect and clear sound quality (that should never be remastered) is the latest Testament album. It was done right! 

I’m puzzled why a band like Metallica has such terrible production and mastering on their modern albums. They always seem “brick-walled”… 
Although I must say the remasters of their early albums were done great! The fullness of the overall sound and Cliff Burton’s bass is definitely enhanced.

average joe wrote:Very few are as impactful as overlord. Oracle Desolate Kings was another one that made a huge difference. If I recall, I want to say The Crucified Pillars was also improved significantly. I had high hopes for Testimony of Apocalypse when it was remastered but could really tell a difference.

I totally agree with what was previously stated about modern production. There should be no reason/need for remastering  anything produced in the current era. Get it right the first time. It’s no longer 1990!

I have two reissues of Testimony of Apocalypse. The version with the Presumed Dead demo is noticeably better than the digipak version.

Really? Which came out first? Who released the better sounding one?

TZ75 wrote:One example of perfect and clear sound quality (that should never be remastered) is the latest Testament album. It was done right! 

I’m puzzled why a band like Metallica has such terrible production and mastering on their modern albums. They always seem “brick-walled”… 
Although I must say the remasters of their early albums were done great! The fullness of the overall sound and Cliff Burton’s bass is definitely enhanced.

Did Andy Sneap mix and master the last Testament album? His work is so crystal clear IMO and he does wonders with setting vocals above the music just right.

I generally agree wit the OP.
remasters, most of the time, just sound louder to me...not any better...

average joe wrote:Really? Which came out first? Who released the better sounding one?

Both are on Retroactive records. The one I like better is the version with the Presumed Dead demo, released in 2005. The “Legacy” edition Digipak was released in 2014. 

To me, the Legacy version has more overall bass, but the vocals are a little buried. The 2005 version has a better balance. A good remaster should only enhance the sound (but retain the original production of the recording). When a remaster makes everything too loud or adds too much muddy bass, it’s almost a different recording.

average joe wrote:

TZ75 wrote:One example of perfect and clear sound quality (that should never be remastered) is the latest Testament album. It was done right! 

I’m puzzled why a band like Metallica has such terrible production and mastering on their modern albums. They always seem “brick-walled”… 
Although I must say the remasters of their early albums were done great! The fullness of the overall sound and Cliff Burton’s bass is definitely enhanced.

Did Andy Sneap mix and master the last Testament album? His work is so crystal clear IMO and he does wonders with setting vocals above the music just right.

Yes, Andy Sneap did the mix and mastering.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titans_of_Creation

I wish Andy Sneap was hired to mix and master the new Sacrament album!

That would be awesome! I know Living Sacrifice has used him.

Depends. But, I will say that Rob Colwell does a great job. He made Jesus Freaks second album sound way way better. It depends on the mastering engineer and the quality of the initial recording. For instance, Vengeance Rising “Human Sacrifice” doesn’t need a remastering ever again imo. No remaster really makes it that much better.

Roebuckryan wrote:Depends. But, I will say that Rob Colwell does a great job. He made Jesus Freaks second album sound way way better. It depends on the mastering engineer and the quality of the initial recording. For instance, Vengeance Rising “Human Sacrifice” doesn’t need a remastering ever again imo. No remaster really makes it that much better.

I agree, Rob Colwell does a great job! Didn’t he also do the recent Tourniquet remasters?

Speaking of the Jesus Freaks, when will the second album be released?

Folllower of Jesus, I was going to post a similar thread to the effect of Reissues/Remasters and Original Pressings and see what people prefer. I'll stay within this threat to prevent a duplicate. 

In many cases I like the Girder/Boones/Roxx remasters where lately they offer some perks like bonus tracks, trading cards and posters which I like. The work that Scott Waters does is amazing. Also, they will make available albums of bands that I never heard of/missed out or never bothered to gat back in the 80s and 90s. I got into Trytan because of the recent reissues and got their 3 studio albums. 

If the reissue is no better or the booklet has less pages than the original I'll keep the original. Girder reissued Ken Tamplin Where Love Is and Wake the Nations. I didn't bother to get those where I have the originals and they have a thick booklet and Wake the Nations has a DVD. The Girder version only has a 6 panel booklet  for both and Wake the Nations doesn't have the DVD. 

I have the 2010 or 2011 Intense Milennium Bloodgood debut and Dedonation with the second bonus live CD and there was only 100 of these made. I didn't get the recent reissues where the version I got is rare. Rox Reissues RED Sea in 2019 and they all sold out. I got the CD and colored vinyl. They reissued it again on gold disc where the CDs sold out. I didn't bother to get that where it's pointless. Both version has pretty much the same booklet. 

I have the GRRR version of Rez Band DMZ where it is a 4 pannel and there isn't much in it and no lyrics and the past couple of reissues by Retroactive are 4 pannel inserts. I went and ordered the 1991 Light Records version. All my Rez CDs from Innocent Blood to the 5 last CDs stuff are all original pressings. 

I have Joshua Chapter One that was reissued by Joshua himself which is also only a 4 panel insert. I ordered the original MPIRE version which has a booklet of all the lyrics. 

One thing that bothers me with reissues especially if they only come with a 4 panel insert. They will use a full page to advertise other album by that record company or the artist. That page could of been used for something related to that album. 

So for me, it depends on the overall packaging. If the reissue comes with a thick booklts with other features, I'll likely get it and sell the older version. If not, I'll keep the original version. For me I look at the remastering and the overall packing/presentation. The music buyer has to be discerning and decide for them self what they want to get.