# How Much is Digital Remastering Worth?



## Titus_A (Jun 23, 2010)

How much do folks think a digitally remastered copy of a recording is worth? I'm looking to get some new road-trip music for an upcoming trek, and there's something in the neighborhood of 400% markup between the original and remastered copies of the album I want. That seems excessive, and I can't hear much difference in the Amazon preview clips (it's not like the music is some early-twentieth-century piece, it's stuff from the 50s and 60s). Anyone with more experience or expertise have thoughts on the pricing issue?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Listen to both on Spotify, then you'll know. If they have it. 

Spotify mobile is great for roadtrips too.


----------



## Scotch&Cigars (Dec 27, 2009)

Beware of the new-fangled "digital remaster." A large amount of music mastered (or remastered) since the mid-to-late 90s is heavily compressed in order to make it as loud as possible, completely squashing the music's intended and natural dynamic range, and making it very difficult (and unappealing) to listen to. Most often, the original version of the albums are far better than the remastered versions (obviously there are exceptions).

Do a Google and Youtube search for "The Loudness Wars" for more on this.

Here's an example to get you started:


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Titus_A said:


> How much do folks think a digitally remastered copy of a recording is worth? I'm looking to get some new road-trip music for an upcoming trek, and there's something in the neighborhood of 400% markup between the original and remastered copies of the album I want. That seems excessive, and I can't hear much difference in the Amazon preview clips (it's not like the music is some early-twentieth-century piece, it's stuff from the 50s and 60s). Anyone with more experience or expertise have thoughts on the pricing issue?


If you're going to convert them to MP3 for use on an IPOD of other device, don't bother. This is one of the issues you're running into on Amazons preview.

If you're going to play them off the CD, in a good quality sound system go for it.

400% mark up..... I don't think the increase in price justifies it.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

400% of what is the question. 400% of $3.99 for the old version....possibly. 400% of $12.99 - probably not.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I'd wait for the half-speed master to come out!!

(Anyone remember those??)

In quad!!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

For playing on your car stereo while you're driving? Not worth it. For playing via high quality headphones--assuming you use high bit rates or something like Apple Lossless formats--then it's often worth it. I listen to most of my music through relatively high-end in-ear monitors (Fischer DBA-02) and can definitely tell the difference between high and low bit-rates, and good and bad mastering. When I'm listening to music on the car stereo, though, it is another matter altogether. I suppose some luxury cars are quiet enough and have good enough sound systems for one to be able to tell the difference, but it seems to me that if you're driving you shouldn't be paying close enough attention to notice if the vibrato on that cello is just right.


----------



## Scotch&Cigars (Dec 27, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> For playing on your car stereo while you're driving? Not worth it. For playing via high quality headphones--assuming you use high bit rates or something like Apple Lossless formats--then it's often worth it. I listen to most of my music through relatively high-end in-ear monitors (Fischer DBA-02) and can definitely tell the difference between high and low bit-rates, and good and bad mastering. When I'm listening to music on the car stereo, though, it is another matter altogether. I suppose some luxury cars are quiet enough and have good enough sound systems for one to be able to tell the difference, but it seems to me that if you're driving you shouldn't be paying close enough attention to notice if the vibrato on that cello is just right.


I suppose it depends on the genre and who has done the re-mastering. I've listened to a whole boatload of re-masters (on a decently high-end system), and it's just murder when they are overcompressed, loud garbage with absolutely no life or zing to them. The higher the quality of your listening equipment, the easier it is to notice the flaws.

Another thing I would recommend is doing some internet research on the specific items you are looking at. You might just find an audiophile or two who have written reviews on the quality of the re-mastered version. That will be more helpful than any blanket "yes" or "no" from this post.

Gosh, this is making me want to start an audiophile thread...


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

tocqueville said:


> For playing on your car stereo while you're driving? Not worth it. For playing via high quality headphones--assuming you use high bit rates or something like Apple Lossless formats--then it's often worth it. I listen to most of my music through relatively high-end in-ear monitors (Fischer DBA-02) and can definitely tell the difference between high and low bit-rates, and good and bad mastering. When I'm listening to music on the car stereo, though, it is another matter altogether. I suppose some luxury cars are quiet enough and have good enough sound systems for one to be able to tell the difference, but it seems to me that if you're driving you shouldn't be paying close enough attention to notice if the vibrato on that cello is just right.


I think this is a great point that I often forget. Most of the time when I am listening to music, it is on headphones while I walk the streets (or am exercising) or when I am in the car (often the convertible). It makes very little difference in these settings how good the quality of the recording is.


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

Technically, any analog recording that is converted to digital format is "digitally remastered". The term is pretty meaningless. That's not to say the two recordings are identical. Any digital recording can, after conversion, be, to use a visual analogy, "Photoshopped" for better or worse. It's just that you can't really tell anything useful from the term. Also, just because you're listening to an MP3 in a car or on earbuds doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't matter. If the remastering involved adding clarity or better high-end response, the lower quality system may actually benefit more, since this is exactly what these systems often lack. 

I realize this probably isn't really much help in making a choice, though.


----------



## N05J3W3 (Feb 2, 2010)

Some current remasters [think of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue] make significant alterations to the recording that are quite different from compression/loudness. In this case the remaster 'corrected' a pitch issue related to the tape speed used on the master. The background noise is also diminished, without degradation of the music. Technology has come a long way since the 50s and 60s, and can contribute to enjoyment of music that's decades old.

In many cases, I think the result is quite audible and beneficial - and worth a small premium. That's a subjective judgement, of course. I can understand how 'enhanced' recordings can undermine a sense of time and place that we've come to associate with the original.

The Photoshop analogy is a good one. A little 'correction' helps us see through the clutter. Too much 'correction' and we tend to notice the PS work, and not the image itself. That's my beef with the current high-dynamic range fad in photography. Same holds true in audio, I think.


----------



## Scotch&Cigars (Dec 27, 2009)

N05J3W3 said:


> That's my beef with the current high-dynamic range fad in photography. Same holds true in audio, I think.


Except that in music, unfortunately these days the fad is toward absolutely no dynamic range.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Sounds like another excuse for the greedy music industry to sell you the same stuff yet again. I wonder how many AAAC members have bought The Beatles - White Album over and over again? 

We like Bittorrent...


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

MikeDT said:


> We like Bittorrent...


 Enjoy those hard drive destroying viruses you get with your stolen music as well.


----------



## Scotch&Cigars (Dec 27, 2009)

MikeDT said:


> Sounds like another excuse for the greedy music industry to sell you the same stuff yet again. I wonder how many AAAC members have bought The Beatles - White Album over and over again?
> 
> We like Bittorrent...


If it's the same stuff, the solution is then to not buy it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying "buy this thing 13 times or else!"


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Enjoy those hard drive destroying viruses you get with your *stolen music* as well.


I'm not in the USA. In China using Bittorrent for private and educational purposes is not illegal. The paid music sites tend to be USA only, "Please note that AmazonMP3.com is currently only available to US customers.". Also can't say I've ever seen a virus from what I've downloaded, but then I'm using Linux.

BTW I don't get all music from Bittorrent, in association with top100.cn gives away MP3s as well, mainland China only.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Scotch&Cigars said:


> If it's the same stuff, the solution is then to not buy it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying "buy this thing 13 times or else!"


As formats change over the years, often we do tend to be buying the same stuff over and over again, reel-to-reel, 8-track, LP, cassette, CD, SA-CD, DVD-Audio, MP3, 'digitally remastered', 'special remastered' etc. That's what got me thinking how many times have people bought The Beatles - White Album over and over, in various formats and editions.


----------



## Scotch&Cigars (Dec 27, 2009)

MikeDT said:


> As formats change over the years, often we do tend to be buying the same stuff over and over again, reel-to-reel, 8-track, LP, cassette, CD, SA-CD, DVD-Audio, MP3, 'digitally remastered', 'special remastered' etc. That's what got me thinking how many times have people bought The Beatles - White Album over and over, in various formats and editions.


Re-mastering is not a format change. Re-mastering is essentially adding something (which took real man hours to accomplish) to the original recording. Granted, those "additions" are not always actually good, but it does make it a substantially different product.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

MikeDT said:


> I'm not in the USA. In China using Bittorrent for private and educational purposes is not illegal.


 So because you live in a country that thrives from stealing copywritten material - you think it is ok to join in? If you are smart enough to know that it is illegal elsewhere in the world...then are smart enough to know it is WRONG - regardless of the laissez-faire attitude of your current government.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> So because you live in a country that thrives from stealing copywritten material - you think it is ok to join in? If you are smart enough to know that it is illegal elsewhere in the world...then are smart enough to know it is WRONG - regardless of the laissez-faire attitude of your current government.


'elsewhere in the world', meaning the USA I suppose. Many supposedly legal sites have stuff like... 
"Unfortunately, Slacker Personal Radio is currently only available in the *United States.*" 
"We are deeply, deeply sorry to say that due to licensing constraints, we can no longer allow access to Pandora for listeners located outside of the *U.S.*"
"Please note that AmazonMP3.com is currently only available to *US* customers.""
"We're sorry. Google Music is currently only available in the *United States.*"

Downloading MP3s free from Google.cn/music is perfectly legal, as is downloading from Top100.cn, as long as one is mainland China. AFAIK I'm not doing anything wrong, and the RIAA only has jurisdiction in the US.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> So because you live in a country that thrives from stealing copywritten material - you think it is ok to join in? If you are smart enough to know that it is illegal elsewhere in the world...then are smart enough to know it is WRONG - regardless of the laissez-faire attitude of your current government.


Copyright is not universal. The comparison to theft is halting, as noone is bereft of property.

With the current attitude of the music industry, still pushing their 1965 business model, they can choke on it.

Also, there is Spotify, which is a 2011 business model. Don't know if that is available in china though.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Bjorn said:


> Copyright is not universal. The comparison to theft is halting, as noone is bereft of property. With the current attitude of the music industry, still pushing their 1965 business model, they can choke on it. Also, there is Spotify, which is a 2011 business model. Don't know if that is available in china though.


 Again....because you dont agree with it...you somehow try to justify it, to make yourself feel better. But if you were a producer of music...and thousands of people were stealing the songs you spend hundreds of hours writing and recording, you would feel differently about it. Period.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

MikeDT said:


> AFAIK I'm not doing anything wrong, and the RIAA only has jurisdiction in the US.


 Shady is as shady does.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Shady is as shady does.


What's so 'shady' about downloading music _free_ from Google?

_"Google yesterday launched a new online music service in China at https://music.google.cn. The service is free for users from Mainland China but is currently not accessible from any other country.
Users can search, download or stream free licensed music and choose from a pool of over 1.1 million songs. The main revenue model is based on banner advertising and expected to grow to a business with 100 million yuan ($14.6 million) in annual revenue within the next few years. Among the 140 label partners are also the *big 4 major labels - Warner Music Group, Universal Music, EMI and Sony Music Entertainment."
*_

Nothing 'shady' about the big four music labels giving their catalogues away free in China, in return for advertising revenue.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Copyright is not universal.





mrkleen said:


> Again....because you dont agree with it...you somehow try to justify it, to make yourself feel better. But if you were a producer of music...and thousands of people were stealing the songs you spend hundreds of hours writing and recording, you would feel differently about it. Period.


United States copyright laws, (U.S.C. chap. 17 I believe) only applies in the United States, not elsewhere like China or Sweden, where Bjorn is. Despite what the RIAA might think.

A big problem in the US, is the fact that the copyright laws there are made by a greedy media industry, e.g. "The Copyright Term Extension Act, (Mickey Mouse Protection Act)". Brought in because the copyright was going to run out on Mickey Mouse...and Disney couldn't have that happening. There is also the DMCA, which again has no meaning outside of the United States.

EDIT:

If the greedy RIAA, MPAA and music/media industry had completely it's own way, The States would end up having Chinese style internet censoring brought in by the Protect IP Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act
https://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/BillText-PROTECTIPAct.pdf


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

MikeDT said:


> Nothing 'shady' about the big four music labels giving their catalogues away free in China, in return for advertising revenue.


 So is this the same as the "bit torrent" you mentioned earlier? Right...I didnt think so.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> So is this the same as the "bit torrent" you mentioned earlier? Right...I didnt think so.


If what I need is not available on Google.cn I use Bittorrent and vice-versa.

As I posted earlier most paid music sites appear to be *US only*, e.g. Slacker, Amazon and Google Music, so that's the end of that. US copyright laws don't apply here anyway, so the Recording Industry Association of America can go 'choke on it.'. Spotify is not available here either, *US and Europe only*.

I can buy CDs locally, but the problem here is that they're all in Chinese and are of no use for my purposes.

BTW I'd love to pay for the music I use, as I do think that artists should be rewarded for their works. However the music industry seems to have made that quite difficult for me, with their *USA only nonsense *on so many paid sites. But AFAICT I'm not doing anything wrong or unlawful here.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

MikeDT said:


> so that's the end of that. US copyright laws don't apply here anyway, so the Recording Industry Association of America can go 'choke on it.'


 I would expect nothing less from a country where 99% of all music files are pirated. China is great at stealing ideas and producing cheap, inferior knock offs. Guess this new Google model proves that if you cant beat em, might as well join em.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> I would expect nothing less from a country where 99% of all music files are pirated. China is great at stealing ideas and producing cheap, inferior knock offs. Guess this new Google model proves that if you cant beat em, might as well join em.


'US good, China bad'? I think that is right up there with the Chewbacca defence, legally speaking.

However, you do have a point that people have an interest to get paid for their work. However, I don't think artists doing actual performances (working) in China do it for free.

Laws protecting IP are offered by the legislator if society feels it's beneficial for the economy. Naturally, the Chinese are indifferent to keeping their companies from using outside ideas, and indeed indifferent to actively propagate something that works to ensure that only non Chinese companies profit. What ideas have we not 'stolen' from China? Silk? Tea? Opium? Gunpowder? Pasta? Maybe time to give back a little?

Like some manager at a Swedish car company (I think) said recently:

"We used to laugh at Japanese cars. We don't do that anymore. We used to laugh at Korean cars. We don't do that anymore. We're laughing at Chinese cars right now."


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Amused to see “tea” listed as an idea….and as for the first use of Opium, I think the Egyptians would have something to say about who took the idea (and the seeds for that matter) since they were using for about 1000 years prior.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> Amused to see tea listed as an idea.and as for the first use of Opium, I think the Egyptians would have something to say about who took the idea (and the seeds for that matter) since they were using for about 1000 years prior.


Explains the catty noseless bird. And the pyramids.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> I would expect nothing less from a country where 99% of all music files are pirated. China is great at stealing ideas and producing cheap, inferior knock offs. Guess this new Google model proves that if you cant beat em, might as well join em.












Pssssssssssssssssssss!


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Like some manager at a Swedish car company (I think) said recently:
> 
> "We used to laugh at Japanese cars. We don't do that anymore. We used to laugh at Korean cars. We don't do that anymore. We're laughing at Chinese cars right now."


Just noticed the irony here....assuming that 'Swedish car company' is Volvo, now owned by Geely of Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, PRC.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Maybe you should go look up "troll" Mike. Someone that has been here for 4 years and has nearly 1000 posts is FAR from a troll. The fact that I disagree with your "bit torrent" whatever music you feel like stealing attitude doesnt make me a troll...sorry.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

^^^^

Well I took it that you seem to think that United States laws and United States organisations(the RIAA) have meaning in China. _"Guess this new Google model proves that if you cant beat em, might as well join em."_ ... sounded rather troll like to me. What Google is doing in China with giving away music, is completely legal and has the approvals of all the major music labels. If anything Google in China has to be squeaky clean and comply with Chinese laws, because of its somewhat knife-edge relationship with the Beijing government.

I would pay for the English language music I need if I could, but the simple fact is I can't due to location. Paid online music stores are NOT available in China for whatever reasons and are mostly US only(the RIAA again?). Most of what I download is for _educational purposes_, teaching English in a school, so I'll consider it 'fair use' or whatever you call it in the States.

BTW if anyone knows of a paid online music store which operates in Mainland China that has English language songs, I would be very interested to know about it. Anyone know anything of those Russian ones, like LegalSounds and AllofMP3?

You know what, I feel like I'm being encouraged to steal music, when I see crap like 'Sorry, our music store is only available in the USA' on so many sites.


----------



## Titus_A (Jun 23, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> if you're driving you shouldn't be paying close enough attention to notice if the vibrato on that cello is just right.


I guess I should have mentioned that I was looking at a Clancy Brothers album (Irish folk music). If I were getting Stokowski recordings, this would be a much bigger issue.


----------

