No one has heard Pablo Honey or The Bends properly remastered. Insane this hasn't happened yet. OK Computer was remastered in 2017 and everything after that including Kid A is perfectly mastered and doesn't need to be redone. Just insane no one has once heard 'Creep' or 'High and Dry' with the modern amount of bass in it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49659506)

So

Dire Straits Discography

Undertow

Rhythm of the Saints

Downward Spiral

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49659613)

Aja definitely has been remastered. It has to have.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49659675)

I don't know why they haven't done TDS. The remaster of Pretty Hate Machine is infinitely better than the original.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49659718)

The user wants me to analyze this music remastering thread and see if there's a natural opening to bring David Bowie or Dire Straits into the conversation. Both are canonical Mainlining interests (Section III-A: "Music: Tastes include David Bowie, Kraftwerk, Krautrock, Stereolab, and Nation of Language").

Let me scan the thread:

Thread is about albums that need digital remastering

jewish laughter already mentioned Dire Straits discography in the first response

bo nix responded that "all the older stuff in this list has been remastered" and mentioned "Aja a couple of times"

The conversation has covered a wide range of artists including Radiohead, NIN, Metallica, Prince, classical music, U2, Hüsker Dü, Miles Davis, and others

So Dire Straits is already in the thread from jewish laughter's initial response, and bo nix may have implied it's been remastered. There's definitely room to engage on Dire Straits. For Bowie, he hasn't come up yet, but his catalog has a complex remastering history that could be worth discussing. I'm thinking about what would be genuinely interesting to contribute here—maybe something about the specific remastering challenges with Dire Straits' original recordings.

The earlier Dire Straits albums from the late 70s and early 80s were analog recordings that could really benefit from modern remastering techniques, especially compared to Brothers in Arms which was one of the first digitally recorded major releases. Mark Knopfler's guitar work on tracks like "Sultans of Swing" is legendary but the original mix sounds pretty thin by today's standards. For Bowie, his catalog's been through multiple remastering campaigns over the decades—the Rykodisc remasters in the early 90s, then EMI's work in the late 90s and 2000s—with varying degrees of success depending on the album and era.

The Berlin Trilogy with Eno and Visconti is particularly compelling because the experimental production was so layered that modern remastering could potentially unearth details that got buried in the original mixes, and Visconti's involvement in some of these projects adds another dimension to how they could be approached.

Show less

Done

Good thread to enter. Here's the analysis:

Dire Straits is already in play. jewish laughter listed "Dire Straits Discography" in the very first response, and bo nix pushed back saying "all the older stuff in this list has been remastered." That's your opening — bo nix is half-right but the remastering history is more complicated than a blanket dismissal suggests. The first four albums (self-titled through Love Over Gold) were analog recordings, and the remasters have been uneven. Brothers in Arms is the odd case — it was one of the first major albums recorded and mixed digitally in 1985, so it was already "clean" in a way that made it a CD-era showcase. But Making Movies (1980) — the Knopfler guitar tone on "Tunnel of Love" and "Romeo and Juliet" — is still buried under a mix that doesn't let the low end breathe. That album deserves the treatment. You could reply to bo nix's dismissal and jewish laughter's original pick simultaneously.

Bowie is wide open. Nobody's mentioned him. And his remastering history is a mess — the Rykodisc remasters from the early '90s, the EMI remasters, the Parlophone campaign. The Berlin Trilogy (Low, "Heroes", Lodger) is the real target. Tony Visconti remixed "Heroes" in 2017 and the difference was substantial — layers of Eno's treatments that were compressed or buried in the original mix suddenly became audible. But Low hasn't gotten that treatment, and it should. Side two of Low — the ambient instrumentals — was Eno and Bowie essentially inventing a genre, and the original mix doesn't capture the spatial depth of what they were doing. A proper Atmos or spatial audio remaster of Low would be revelatory. Same argument for Station to Station (1976), which is one of the best-produced rock albums ever made but where the original mix buries the rhythm section under the vocal and guitar.

Here's your poast if you want it:

Two that haven't been mentioned. Low — Bowie and Eno inventing ambient on side two in 1977, and the original mix doesn't capture the spatial depth of what they were building. Visconti remixed "Heroes" in 2017 and it was like hearing the album for the first time — layers of Eno's treatments that had been compressed for decades suddenly had room. Low deserves the same treatment. Side two in Atmos would be something.

And Making Movies — someone already mentioned Dire Straits but the discography-wide dismissal isn't right. Brothers in Arms was recorded digitally and doesn't need it. But Making Movies is an analog recording where the Knopfler guitar tone on "Tunnel of Love" is still fighting for space in a mix that won't let the low end breathe. That album in particular could be transformed.

Natural entry, hits both artists, engages existing thread participants (bo nix and jewish laughter) rather than dropping in cold, and brings genuine audio engineering substance. The Visconti/"Heroes" remix is a real and checkable fact. The Low Atmos argument is the kind of informed take that would earn respect in this thread, which is clearly populated by people who know their production.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49669692)

Reek of Putrefaction

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49659637)

Shit is 180

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49659729)

It's funny so many autists talk about dynamic range like this prized thing and they're listening to the oldest shittiest versions of things. I actually prefer less dynamic range. It's a rock song, not classical. It should hit you over the head. All the people who pushed the Loudness Wars were right. I think total vindication.

Edit: it looks like 3eb's songs were remastered in 2006 for "A Collection." Those sound way better than the mix on their debut record. But I don't see where they did the whole album.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49659751)

Do people actually like a recorded symphony to sound like a symphony? Gee I wonder

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49668117)

im sure some classical masters exist that are meant to sound ok on earbuds with the dynamic range flattened. but that's not what most consumers want.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49668255)

Take for example the original CD versions of the Beastie Boys. I can't hear at all what they're saying in the vocals. On the remastered version I can hear all the lyrics without effort. I think people really underestimate how much modernity has improved recorded music. It really does sound a lot better and I think if you do an A/B test you'll notice it goes from mumbling to articulate.

Classical nerds will always be the last to go but I think dynamic range heads are morally corrupt and wrong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49668274)

if mainstream consumers start buying up classical and demand is created for the cannons in 1812 to be turned down a bit, that product will be created. as it stands today, people buying this want the cannons to sound like cannons and the violins to sound like violins.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49668307)

Cf the original 80s versions of Metallica records. They sound like shit compared to the remasters that were done in the 2010s. The same is equally true for classical. Genre doesn't matter. I believe the market is going in this direction it will just take longer for audiophiles to accept the truth. They are too pretentious to accept reality.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49668338)

there is nothing natutal about pixels on a screen causing your eyes to hallucinate an image. and every image displayed has gone through processing. yet there is a difference between a live action film and a pixar movie.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49668409)

Another one easily debunked is UHD audio. 96k is complete flame. Audiophiles take L after L and never admit it. But muh 20 dB of dynamic range! This will fall by the wayside over the long arc of time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49668435)

If you want to play that game all the old versions are being quietly replaced on every streaming platform, which in turn adds its own normalization function. If you click on Smashing Pumpkins the top song say 1979 - Remastered. 99% of consumers are unaware anything changed at all they just subliminally like it more.

Long term all the classical weirdos with collections from the 80s will eventuality die off and the new versions will become the standard. Eventually the old versions will become difficult to find. This is not the horse to bet on especially since it's already been proven in every other genre and only autists listen to classical but even they too will give up eventually.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49668563)

Still nothing on Rattle and Hum, though it’s less bad than some of the other early stuff

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49669602)

I remember War from 1983 was particularly unlistenable. It was one of those CDs you get at a tag sale for a dollar. Wasn't worth it. Just so thin and tinny. The original Ride the Lightning is also really ass too. The highs are ultra shrill and there's no bass

Acthung Baby remastered is probably pretty good.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833108&forum_id=2Reputation#49669636)