Sound quality of compilation albums

What domembers think of the sound quality of compilation albums compared to the original?
Further, are 'represses' usually the equal of the original albums?
I suppose that if one were to buy a compilation it would be best to stick to the original label..?
Any thoughts..

 

Hi,

I varies wildly. Some compilations have excellent quality as do some remastered albums. The downside is that you don't always get to know which until you buy the item.

Alot depends on who is incharge of putting togethher the compilation or who is doing the remaster. They can do a good job or make a pigs ear of it.

For example, a re-release of a track may not be taken from the original masters but from copies. Remasters again may not come from the original master tapes.

But this has always been the case. Back in the 70s, we had K-tel records releasing various artists albums with 10, & sometimes more tracks per side. The sound quality suffered but these albums sold well.

SCIDB

 

An issue with all compilations is a) whether a collection of material from different studios and engineers should be remastered, or b) left as was originally released.

This is an issue for personal preference. But a few points on the process could help to make that decision easier.

Some compilations are 'all over the place' with varying dynamics, loudness and detail.
Some astute producers have used this imbalance as an excuse to remaster, with varying success. There are some very good remastered compilations but there are others that just sound different, with no real improvement.
To complicate matters, you will not know how successfull they have been until you hear it for yourself.

Master tapes that have perished are sometimes spliced with outtakes to 'fill in the gaps'.

Beware of reissued vinyl from the big labels also, as some are mastered from a CD !

 

Back at the beginning of the '80s I remember buying "Space Invasion" on K-Tel, a compilation which happened to have Hawkwind alongside Sheila B Devotion, somewhat incongruously. It must've had a dozen tracks a side and the grooves were so densely packed that the platter was virtually glass smooth. In fact the tracks were edited because it was so bloated and you didn't need any fluff on your stylus because the sound was so rough already.

As far as serious / artist compilations are concerned, which I guess is where the original question comes from, it really all depends on who comes along for the subsequent mastering, cutting etc. As with anything there are the greats (eg Porky Prime Cuts) and there are the also-rans.

Pete

 

most of the compilation's release now on cd's are made from different studio 2nd masters with very few being engineered to standard quality of sound, if you look at it this way they are probably right that the mass buyers have poxy stereos and mastering is cost efective to them, profit to them is more important than sound quality.
nando.

 

I remember buying the Tea for the Tillerman CD and being hacked off by the change in balance from the album. The album, when first released, had a rich, round and prominent bass guitar, the CD had been adjusted to a lighter and to my ear weaker balance. And no it wasn't rose tinted specs, I have the album alongside (and it's worn out sadly). Why do they do this? It didn't say remastered on it anywhere.

 

my friend came round to hear my bi-amp system,brought with him a fovourite track by maxwell re-issued, we listen to that track a few times when i noticed that various instruments were missing, just so happens i have the original vynil lp hence, he said i never knew that it haad so much instruments in this tune, point taken,

 

music, on cd compos, just got two reggae double combs, of old recordings awesome mastering,