Does remastered always mean "better" sound?

[jasn]

More times than not, I'd figure.

But I do have two different copies of Steven Stills Manasas and the "remastered" version has the bass so cranked up and fat I can hardly listen to it.

[Dave_G]

Some remasters sound "better" than previous releases, and some sound "different" or even "worse".

It's very subjective, though.

I think the big record labels do a pretty good job in general, but I wish they were more meticulous like MFSL was and DCC.

Dave

[Dusty Chalk]

"No."

[Lifes-A-Blast]

As a collector there have been times where I have bought an earlier version of a title, and you got the old LP mix/master on that transfer .Usually more tape hiss, and tape drop outs(especially the real popular titles) When replacing title for Remasters I tend to look for these things: 1: stereo-mono versions, original LP mixes verus 45 mixes that are substitiuted, bonus tracks from original recording session(s),original label re-releases vs. artist private label reissues, and the overall sound quality of the recording. And let's face it boys & girls the recording industy really did not do a very good job in producing, manufacturing, and archiving pop/rock music from the 50's-60's-70's and in some cases the 80's.
So caveat emptor.....

[Davey.]

Every remaster probably sounds better to someone, but few that I've heard are better in all respects. Sometimes the audiophile labels like DCC were pretty consistent because they were actually remastered for better sound quality and a small niche market, which isn't what drives the release of most major label remasters. I generally find that the remasters done in the UK are of much better sound quality than the ones done primarily for US release. Almost all remasters are more compressed than the original to get the volume up as high as new CDs. It's unfortunate, but that's life. For the same reason, they usually have boosted low frequencies and often upper frequencies too. Oftentimes nowadays the signal level is driven into clipping, sometimes even severe, to boost the volume. Reference the latest Dark Side of the Moon remaster (CD layer of the hybrid SACD). This is nowhere near the only one or even the worst offender, just one of the most visible. Stereophile even devoted a column to investigating why the CD layer sounded so much worse than the stereo SACD layer, which was supposedly taken from the exact same stereo master.

In any case, as most of the others in this thread have already said, some are good and some are bad, but you won't necessarily find a consensus as to which fall under each heading. Part of it is very subjective because there are clearly certain areas of the sound that are improved in even some of the bad remasters. A general rule of thumb is, if it sounds a lot louder than the old version and seems to have an extra octave of bass all of a sudden, you may like the sound but it likely has been overly compressed and has sacrificed some (or a lot of) dynamic range.

Probably best to just ask for opinions on a specific remaster, if you have something in mind.

[Grblgrbl]

IMO, usually, but definitely not always. In my experience a lot of early cds released in the '80's sounded vry thin and tinny compared to the lps. Often they did not use the original masters, and very little time and effort went into them. In general, remasters have improved on them. Recently, however, there has beeen a movement toward over-processing. This includes boosting the volume, changing the eq (to make things sound punchier), compression, no-noise (which removes tape hiss, but also sucks the life out of the higher frequencies). I've recently bought some remasters that sounded worse than the original cd's (Bruce Cockburn and Fairport Convention). This is the topic of constant discussion on the Steve Hoffman Forum:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums