Dischord: Remasters or Originals

[version sound]

Which do you guys prefer, strictly based on sound quality?

[yourenotevil]

Which do you guys prefer, strictly based on sound quality?

i probably don't probably own enough of the remasters to give a solid answer, but for the older stuff i didn't really notice a big difference. stuff like faith/void and flex your head was pretty raw to begin with. still never got the MT one either as the original still sound fine to me.

[gregpolard]

I think the remasters sound really good. They do a great job, compared to some places.

I know that in the 90's I owned the two-fer of "Can I Say / Wig Out At Denko's" and then bought the individual CD's when they were reissued and noticed a huge difference.

[patient_ot]

I've only heard a couple of the remasters. The ones I've heard are a bit louder, maybe a bitter brighter on the EQ. Haven't run any of them through a DR meter or anything, but the ones I've heard didn't sound that bad. I would probably be fine with the original CDs...I don't see the need to "upgrade" any old Dischord CDs or anything, unless there is some bonus material I didn't have before.

[soulforce]

I'm probably the only one around who prefers the original versions to the remastered ones. And this is valid not only for Dischord releases.

[version sound]

I'm probably the only one around who prefers the original versions to the remastered ones. And this is valid not only for Dischord releases.

I prefer a lot of non-remastered CDs. IMO, remastering goes wrong more often than it goes right. That's the main reason I'm asking. I'm going to pick up a used copy of the ROS CD (already have it all on vinyl) and am wondering whether to grab the OG or remaster. I've actually owned both before, but not at the same time. I don't remember having a preference, but I wasn't really looking for differences at that point.

[gregpolard]

I'm probably the only one around who prefers the original versions to the remastered ones. And this is valid not only for Dischord releases.

I prefer a lot of non-remastered CDs. IMO, remastering goes wrong more often than it goes right. That's the main reason I'm asking. I'm going to pick up a used copy of the ROS CD (already have it all on vinyl) and am wondering whether to grab the OG or remaster. I've actually owned both before, but not at the same time. I don't remember having a preference, but I wasn't really looking for differences at that point.

Unless you're hellbent on actually having the CD, you may be better off getting the remastered vinyl copy, as not only will you have that to compare to the original but it comes with the remastered mp3s anyway (including the mp3s for the 7" and bonus track)

[soulforce]

The three main cons of remastered albums (for me) are:
1. They literally hurt my ears when listening with earbuds
2. Make 70's/80's bands sound like Blink 182
3. Bonus material (B-sides, live material), usually added after the original tracklist, always fucks up the feel of the album. In the rare cases where it was added before the actual release's tracklist, it fucking destroys the whole concept of the album.

[version sound]

Greg, I considered buying the MP3s from Dischord, but they only offer 125 kbps files. I basically want the CD for easy ripping into iTunes at whatever bit rate I want. It's easy enough to get a cheap used copy of either version.

[version sound]

3. Bonus material (B-sides, live material), usually added after the original tracklist, always fucks up the feel of the album. In the rare cases where it was added before the actual release's tracklist, it fucking destroys the whole concept of the album.

Very much agree. I would prefer nice non-brickwalled and/or overly bright remasters of just the original material to harsh remasters with a bunch of bonus crap I usually don't really care about. If the bonus material is actually worthwhile, I just rename it something like "Forever Changes (bonus tracks)" so it's not grouped with the original tracklisting.

[MXV]

I found that many early Dischord CD's sound like crap. I have universally liked the remastered versions better. They aren't super loud or any of the usual trappings of many remasters. It seems they took a lot of care in doing them and it was a real improvement over the original CD's.

The vinyl remasters sound good to me, but none have been a huge improvement over what I remember the originals sounding like. Someday during the winter when I'm trapped inside and bored I will A/B compare them.

I agree with the opinion that buying the vinyl is the best deal because you get the download. I don't know the bitrate you get but they seem just fine to me but I only play them on my iPod in the car or out in the backyard when I'm skating (piped through a little boombox) since I only listen to vinyl in the house and not CD's or MP3s.

[JGJR]

I think the remasters sound really good. They do a great job, compared to some places.

I know that in the 90's I owned the two-fer of "Can I Say / Wig Out At Denko's" and then bought the individual CD's when they were reissued and noticed a huge difference.

Yeah I have the Can I Say/Wig Out CD and it sounds like absolute poop (same with Shudder to Think's Funeral at the Movies and Ten Spot). I'm not an audiophile (at least not compared to some of the folks on the Now Playing board and other similar places like the Hoffman board, etc.), but there is a HUGE difference and from what I remember, the individual Dag Nasty CDs are much improved. The Embrace CD remaster from the early '00s sounds great, too. I've never heard the Shudder remaster (I think those albums were remastered on CD around the same time, but don't quote me on that; I'd have to look it up), but I'd have to think it's a big step up. Like the early '90s CD mastering they used just straight up sucked. Wig Out and Funeral are notably lower in volume, etc. This was a common problem back then, though, as there are other CDs I've heard that suffer from the same affliction. Shades Apart's s/t is a great example. Incredible music and the s/t portion of that CD sounds OK, but the "Dude Danger" portion sounds terrible. You have to turn it up to hear it at all. All of the above (except Dude Danger; I used to have the vinyl; wish I still did; I like that record quite a bit) are some of my favorite records ever and so I'm glad I have them on vinyl and that's what I listen to.

[JGJR]

I found that many early Dischord CD's sound like crap. I have universally liked the remastered versions better. They aren't super loud or any of the usual trappings of many remasters. It seems they took a lot of care in doing them and it was a real improvement over the original CD's.

The vinyl remasters sound good to me, but none have been a huge improvement over what I remember the originals sounding like. Someday during the winter when I'm trapped inside and bored I will A/B compare them.

I agree with the opinion that buying the vinyl is the best deal because you get the download. I don't know the bitrate you get but they seem just fine to me but I only play them on my iPod in the car or out in the backyard when I'm skating (piped through a little boombox) since I only listen to vinyl in the house and not CD's or MP3s.

This. Exactly except I will occasionally listen to CDs or stream something at home. And you really need to join the Now Playing group on FB. There are some great A/B comparisons with different pressings, etc.

[JGJR]

3. Bonus material (B-sides, live material), usually added after the original tracklist, always fucks up the feel of the album. In the rare cases where it was added before the actual release's tracklist, it fucking destroys the whole concept of the album.

I've never knowingly seen this before, but I do remember that when XTC's catalog first made it onto CD, they put bonus tracks (usually B-sides) between side 1 and side 2. Talk about messing up the flow of an album! I think they rectified this later on, though.

[yourenotevil]

3. Bonus material (B-sides, live material), usually added after the original tracklist, always fucks up the feel of the album. In the rare cases where it was added before the actual release's tracklist, it fucking destroys the whole concept of the album.

I've never knowingly seen this before, but I do remember that when XTC's catalog first made it onto CD, they put bonus tracks (usually B-sides) between side 1 and side 2. Talk about messing up the flow of an album! I think they rectified this later on, though.

i like b sides and live tracks if they are good. you guys just hate fun sometimes.

[version sound]

Live tracks are almost always worthless. B-sides and outtakes I sometimes enjoy, but I still split them off from the main album when I rip them into iTunes.

[MXV]

Did they remaster Funeral/Ten Spot? I was always under the impression that they hadn't. I'd certainly upgrade if they did. The original CD sounds like total shit and I love those records.

[drew]

I like the Dischord remasters very much. To save money I downloaded most of them from Dischord or Emusic and they sound great.

[JGJR]

Did they remaster Funeral/Ten Spot? I was always under the impression that they hadn't. I'd certainly upgrade if they did. The original CD sounds like total shit and I love those records.

It seems like they did digitally based on the comment (Dischord's digital stuff does not contain cover versions for licensing reasons I don't fully understand though Alec Bourgeois sent me an e-mail about it once so I'd have to pull it up), but not the CD (and both the Lp and the 12" EP have been OOP for a while). I'm not sure, though.

http://www.dischord.com/release/55

[soulforce]

Did they remaster Funeral/Ten Spot? I was always under the impression that they hadn't. I'd certainly upgrade if they did. The original CD sounds like total shit and I love those records.

Yep, I have the remastered CD and it sounds great.

[scannest]

My two cents - any label that goes out of its way to list the mastering house (and the mastering engineer) when they do re-issues is serious about what they're doing and I would expect those re-issues to sound excellent. And Dischord does that (or at least has done that in the past).

[FlexMyHead]

I've been pleasantly surprised with Dischord's attitude towards this, at times they seem like total sticks in the mud about some things, but they really seem to have embraced (no pun intended) archiving and re-releasing music/earlier bands on releases that sonically sound better and needed a full/proper re-release. I wish they would also have a comprehensive discography with more release/pressing information, so many colored LPs and such, it's hard to keep track of what came out when and what pressing amount.