Does a remastered cd normally have audible differences compared to the original?

[Watt93]

<article>And I mean when you’re using typical/consumer music equipment. Does the music, in most cases, sound clearly a bit more modern, or clear. That would something I wouldn't be fond of, because I really prefer hearing the original release, the way it came out.

Thank you


Greetings

</article>

[JoeE SP9]

It depends on who and how the re-issued/re-mastered release was done. Some are an improvement. Other are pure dreck. There is no hard and fast rule.

[Mr Peabody]

What Joe E said. I'd say if you don't like it different stick with the original. I think you can tell a difference in many of the newer remasters. They usually try to eliminate some noise and bring out detail better. You can tell a difference between the original Zeppelin and the remasters done by Page, the recordings are even a bit louder. I could tell a noticeable difference in the Dark Side Of The Moon remaster.

I don't know if it is me or technics have gotten better for remastering, I thought some of the first attempts sounded a bit sterile or artificial compared to the original. The Zeppelin remasters are a bit sterile but push comes to shove I like the remaster to listen to better.

Also, some of the better attempts go back to the master tapes and start from there, opposed to trying to reengineer someone else's work.

A good example of a bad remaster, if you can call it that, is when ZZ Top went back to there older albums and rerecorded the drums tracks in an attempt to "modernize" them after the success of Eliminator. You can hear they are messed up even over the radio.

[Watt93]

OK

Thanks for the replies


Greetings