I can understand albums from as far back as "way-back-when" needing to be remastered, but what's the deal with albums from the 90's (and even 00's)?

Couldn't they have been mastered perfectly the first time around?

I have some cds from the 90's and even as late as 2000 or so that need a good remastering.

What gives?

You'd think these latter-day albums were mastered with the state-of-the-art equipment.

Furthermore, will albums released today with "perfect sound quality" need to remastered 20 years from now?

I imagine that an album released in 1980 was made with "state-of-the-art" means, for its day. The musicians never thought they'd have to tinker with it again.

I have albums from the 90's that were 'remastered' that sound like they need to be remastered again. Does the sound quality degrade over time?

It's Bob Ludwig's fault.

Yeah I don't understand why they had to fuck with Jeff Buckley's Grace. I like the extra songs and all but how do you improve on what Andy Wallace did?

Do you feel a strange hand in your pocket?

Husker Du's New Day Rising needs the combined efforts of 20 studio engineers, Milton Friedman and Ted Danson to make it sound listenable.

Shouldn't you be listening to Usher and drinking 2% milk alone in your bedroom without the internet tonight?

Tonight is The New Radicals combined with a box of chocolate covered espresso beans.

I usually save Usher and 2% milk for special occasions, such as talking to a light-skinned girl or filling up my gas tank.

I've never had a satisfactory explanation of the mastering process, even by people I've trusted, and I've dropped some money on this ordeal.

All I know is that some people run studios soley to master records, like Mr. Ludwig mentinoed above. That dude can master the fuck out of a record.

I think it's like undercoating or scotch-guarding.

I understand you love pushing your lil ol' dancy prancy music, but Borg, please.

Queensryche's 'warning' needed remastering bad cause it was unlistenale and sounded like it was recorded under water...

the newly touched up version sounds great again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering

Alot of problems would be solved if the artists, producers, and labels would enlist a mix engineer. No one questions the need of a mastering engineer, it's just a given, but if you had a mix engineer working with the mastering engineer present at different points through the mixing process, everyone would save a lot of cash and end up with a superior product, provided you had a mixer and a mastering engineer who were on the same page and could ditch the ego, and labels who would be willing to let mastering engineers master albums at much lower levels. When albums are mastered too loud, the dynamic range shrinks.

Anyhow, the flaming lips don't use the mastering process, and their albums sound great, because they take the time to get a great board mix, and they don't want to trim the natural peaks and valleys of the tracking process.

So do some albums need it? Sure. Others do not, and the labels are just preying on the completist nature of loyal fans to get some more cash.

C'mon, do you think they're gonna remaster an album that needs it if they think they can't sell it? Or do you think they're gonna spend the cash to remaster it because they feel some kind of dedication to the listerners to put out the best product possible?

Please.

Good article here on Ludwig and mastering. Its from 2001 so the equipment and technology they are discussing is five years (or 12 eons) old but its pretty fascinating nonetheless if you like this sort of things.

I always used to use too much compression when mixing Busty's demos....