Often when I ask Siri to play a particular song, she’ll say “OK. Now playing ‘Hell World’ remastered 2010 by Linus Torvalds on Apple Music.” Why are so many songs remastered? About 99% of the time I can’t tell a difference between the remastered version and the version that I’m remembering.
ISTM that the obvious answer would be “Money” but if that’s the case, how does one make money by remastering?
I think it’s to drum up sales and introduce new fans to good music, but also to fix any production problems that existed at the time whether due to oversight or technical limitations.
That might depend, at least partly, on what kind of format you’re listening to (i.e. low-bitrate streaming vs. CD or vinyl) or how good your speakers are. But some remasters make a more noticeable difference than others.
Presumably, by selling another copy to big fans who already own the music but want to own a copy that sounds as good as possible, and perhaps also as an extra incentive to those who don’t own it but may be thinking about buying it.
Kevin DuBrow remastered a bunch of old Quiet Riot stuff many years later, which was cool because he also restored some prime Randy Rhoads stuff. But while doing so he didn’t pass up the chance to rerecord his vocal parts.
Remasters are often louder:
As an example, the original Zeppelin CDs were poorly transferred. It didn’t take advantage of the Digital Format and lost the advantages of Vinyl. So many of the 80s transfers were in need of remastering.
Though at this point, my hearing has degraded enough where I can’t really hear the differences any more.
There are several companies who business revolves around buying the license to a particular album, then remastering it in the “highest quality,” then selling it.
Same as any other track. Get access to the original Pink Floyd recording and remaster it!
For 60s songs, the original songs were often produced to sound good on mono car radios and transistors. If you can find the originals, you’ll notice that the drums and bass are barely hearable, favoring the singers and guitars.
Remastering them for today’s speakers hugely changes the background. I just heard Gary Lewis’ “Sure Gonna Miss Her” on SiriusXM. Basically a nothing song, with a pretty guitar riff from the Wrecking Crew. The version I heard brought up Carl Radle’s bass, which was fantastic. Who knew? Doing that didn’t affect the nostalgia of the rest of the song but improved it tremendously.
Remastering can be done for a variety of reasons. Whether you notice is dependent on your playback equipment and how you listen - do you actually listen or is it simply background, in your vehicle etc. As mentioned above, back in time a lot of pop stuff was aimed at car radio.
Sometimes the original was simply flat - limited highs & lows or instruments buried. Could be who did it, affordability at the time, equipment and on & on. Remaster doesn’t necessarily equate to better but depending on the quality of the original there’s often improvement.
Pressings matter as well. They can vary from one factory to the next or batch to batch. Two of the same vinyl records side by side can sound different. Remaster or not I’m sure you’ve put a disk on and decided this sounds flat or tinny, lacks bass or whatever and you think your stereo sucks until you play the next disk and it sounds awesome. Whew, just saved a few grand on new gear.
If you’re streaming it’s irrelevant because you’re going to hear what the company decides you’re going to hear.
Well, to be fair, a lot of early CDs were barely audible. I think those were the ones marked “AAD” and I suspect the process for creating them was probably not much different than if I burned a CD from a vinyl album today.
Revenge against Scooter Braun.
That’s re-recording, not remastering.
You’re right. Never mind.
AAD just means is was recorded & mixed analogue before mastered to digital for CD (or audio file). Many still prefer this.
ADD is analogue recording the rest digital.
DDD is digital right the way through.
Some vinyl enthusiasts can get their undies quite in a knot if/when they learn the LP they bought, believing it was an analogue recording, was actually produced from digital.
As evidenced by the uproar when it came to light that Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab had been using digital masters on their releases since 2011: Audiophile Hero Mobile Fidelity Hit With Multi-Million Dollar Class Action Lawsuit
I was keeping an eye on digital recording back then, and I always assumed some high-tech (maybe “prog rock”) album would be the first one recorded DDD.
Nope, it was Ry Cooder… lots of roots-y bottleneck guitar.
If I recall, I think it was Bop Till You Drop? Seems to me a Santana vinyl release was touted as being digital as well. I believe it was Swing Of Delight. One of his jazz offerings. It was a double disk because each side was considerably shorter than with regular vinyl.
I’d forgotten about those. Thanks 
The obvious answer is to improve the quality of the sound. Digital technology rocks.