If you axe me, the answer to the great remastering debate is "it 
depends".   Depends on who's remastering it, depends what the budget 
is.  I think the worst case examples were companies that simply used 
straight transfers from old LP masters, which were originally mastered 
with the RIAA curve in mind.  No EQ, no NR.  Quite often the sound was 
bland, and led to very credible arguments from the so-called analog purists.

I think the best case examples were the 5.1 mixes done for the Beatles 
DVD Anthology.   My guess is that they had some hard core engineers at 
Abbey Road slaving over old 2, 3, and 4-track tapes, and really milking 
a convincing, great sounding surround-sound mix.  The beauty of which is 
that I heard nuances in the mixes that had been previously masked.

Marty


floatingunder wrote:

>--- In audities@yahoogroups.com, "Ford Prefect" <poatway@...> wrote:
>  
>
>>I think we're all missing the point. These albums get better every 
>>    
>>
> <>time they're re-issued/re-mastered/re-mixed/re-released/re-etc.
>
>Sounds kinda like reincarnation. :)
>
> Not sure if your joking or not. Maybe (I have not seen the new Kong) 
>special effects improve such a film per the importance it plays 
>visually.  But, it seems to me that more often then not remakes fail 
>to recapture that what made the original great. 
> 
>Best,
>Steve D
>  
>