Is the remaster better?

[Dusty Chalk]

(cliché movie moment) That's no waveform...

[Knuckledragger]

By comparison, here's a techno release from 1992:

 

[Dusty Chalk]

One of the nice things about SoundCloud is the uploader (usually the music maker or someone associated with them) has to look at the waveform every time they visit the page, so if it's just a big swath of grey or orange, then they are reminded on a daily basis how much they suck.  Look at this crap.  I'm sure there are even worse examples.

[Knuckledragger]

I've been staring, bleary-eyed at the 40 minute version The Orb's "Blue Room" for an hour now, trying to figure out if I can edit it down to something I can use on my radio show.  Conclusion: No.  Alex Patterson is laughing at my meager attempts at DJing.  I've moved on to the 11, 15 and 17 minute versions.  That said, this is the waveform to the 1992, 40 minute "single" version:

 

 

Alex Patterson believes in dynamic range.

[Knuckledragger]

Holy thread necro look at this noob bumping a decade old thread.

Hay guise remember this idea?  Well, I bring it up because I spent a couple hours looking at remasters of The Rolling Stones.  I'm not going to post any images of waveforms at the moment, but I'll say this: post 2000 remasters in general seem to be okay.  Dynamic range is a thing.  Mid 1990s loudness war remasters are, OTOH, a war crime.  I had one example of a Let it Bleed remaster in particular that was an absolute nightmare.

[Pars]

I'd agree, just from listening, and not the Stones. Led Zeppelin. Even though LZ 1 was one of the first records I bought, I didn't have any copies of any LZ, so decided to wade in. Looked at SH forum for some info, but the originals aren't bad (target discs), the mid 90's remasters suck, and the 2000's remasters are pretty good. Haven't decided whether I like the original or 2000s better yet.