XPost: rec.music.gdead, sci.electronics.design   
   From: trevor@home.net   
      
   "DGDevin"  wrote in message   
   news:_qWdndS3TMVmTvvQnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...   
   > Re-mastering at least in theory means they started with the original raw   
   > tracks   
      
   Nope, the term is widely used regardless of what the original source   
   material was. It simply means some process (anything at all) has been   
   performed between the source material and what is on the final product.   
      
      
   >and did the mixing and EQ all over again and carefully produced a new mixed   
   >master recording with better quality than the old one.   
      
   That's what they'd like you to believe of course, and *sometimes* it might   
   even actually be true.   
      
      
   >But sometimes they start with the old final mix and just are more careful   
   >in making a digital transer that will be used to make CDs.   
      
   Or not.   
      
      
   >A lot of early CDs made from analog tapes were not done very well, the   
   >analog to digital transfers were poor, they benefited from more careful   
   >work later.   
      
   Or not, depending on your preference for heavy compression.   
      
      
   > Unfortunately some re-mastered recordings have relied on too much noise   
   > reduction software or compression and actually sound worse than previous   
   > versions.  There have also been re-mastered albums with questionable   
   > choices, where somebody decided to edit tracks (I think I'll lose that   
   > piano) or added reverb to the drums or whatever (to the outrage of fans   
   > who loved the old version).   
      
   Right.   
      
   Trevor.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)