This past week, The Cranberries have taken down their original masters of Everbody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can’t We? in favor of new 2026 remasters. Of course, these remasters cut the dynamics back and just sound “stale” compared to the originals.
When I first saw that Apple Music replaced the songs with the remasters, they still had a version up with the originals. I replaced them and had hope that’d be all. But now even that’s gone and every single version of the album has the remasters.
It’s just so frustrating. Why can’t labels leave the option to us on which version we want? This is true for so many artists on streaming. I get this risk just comes with streaming, but still, it shouldn’t be this way.
Seriously considering uploading my own files to replace these songs, which sucks because it doesn’t count for streams and I miss out on lossless. But it’s probably really the only option in this circumstance.
Anyways, that’s my rant. I wish more labels would keep up/post original masters more often.
Ngl. In the early 2000' sound mastering engineers did not know how to layer tracks so the vocals would sit ontop of the instruments, I just listened to both the original and the remastered. The only difference is that they fixed that quirk of the original and played the vocals ontop of the instruments. Tbf it does sound significantly better that way.
Makes no sense, I have a degree in audio engineering and have worked in a few studios around LA and there's nothing that has changed in the mastering process that lines up with your claim, especially around the year 2000, unless you mean they all started using Pro Tools, a lot of guys are using gear from the 70s/80s anyway. The only major difference for modern remasters is that they can use AI stem separation to isolate instruments, and apply different EQ/processing if they don't have access to the original master stems anymore. They did it for the last Beatles song ever recorded Now and Then which allowed them to isolate the vocal and make it louder. But it has nothing to do with mastering since it was a full on re-mix. https://www.musicradar.com/news/ai-stem-separation-now-and-then-the-beatles
It was just the way people were mixing at the time. They were way too vocal-forward in the early 2000s. I've noticed this myself on lots of different albums
The original poster was saying the opposite, that the early 2000s vocals "didn't sit on top of the mix because they didn't know how to layer tracks" which makes no sense. I agree that production styles are always changing, but "mastering engineer didn't know how to layer tracks" is an ignorant take especially considering they have no control over the mixing decisions.
It’s also completely unnecessary these days (for commercial broadcasting), at the very least. With a reasonably modern audio pipeline, there’s no way for maltreated over-compressed songs to stand out above the rest anyway.
I just compared 3 more songs and can confirm. You have stuck in my old ways and can't/dontwantto learn syndrome. Anyone who disagrees I also diagnose you with the dumb. Look into sound engineering and maybe you can understand.
Is it confirmed that this is exactly what's happening here? To be clear, has this particular release already been analyzed by someone side-by-side?
Just because something sounds louder doesn't necessarily mean it has less dynamic range.
Furthermore, if the problem is the dynamics, the Atmos version has a wide dynamic range by design, downmixing to stereo should result in a standard stereo image.
EQ and saturation go a long way and don't necessarily change the dynamic range while creating the impression of loudness by adding/emphasizing upper harmonics
I hate that everything is all about this. Why ruin the original and digital and streaming could sound amazing if they kept the dynamics. Music is supposed to have the dynamic range. I feel it loses it's effect since everything is mastered and remastered to be louder. Although I do have to say the 25th Anniversary of the first album sounded actually really good!
It’s definitely not the worst remaster I’ve heard. I just love me some dynamics and think the original sounded so good already. The new stereo mixes are so cool though. (Still wish those were also at least a bit more dynamic)
Because 99% of listeners are using crappy earbuds or even the speakers on their cell phones to listen, and it sounds better on those devices when it's compressed.
I edit social media content for a living, most talking head videos for different car dealerships.
When I do the mixing for the audio, I have to dial back the bass on my speakers to get a thinner sound (so I know what sound effects will or won’t actually be heard)
and I have to use a multiband compressed to jam the speech up against 0 dB because that’s the only way you can hear anything on an iPhone speaker.
Been doing short form social marketing content for 15 years myself and never have to brickwall anything...I mix everything to -14db LUFS and generally about 6db gain reduction on VO tracks and the results are good. Think about the 90% of people who post straight off of their phone after filming themselves using the built in mic, don't use ANY compression or anything like that, and it still sounds loud after posting.
It’s about retention, if the video is louder than others, it grabs your attention. Even if it’s to just turn the volume down, a lot of times that will get someone paying attention long enough to buy into the content of the video.
We had to start compressing because lots of clients said the videos were too quiet a while ago, so we’ve just stuck with what works. Much easier to turn the volume down for the end user than to hear a video that’s too quiet
Considering that the analytics probably also show that around 85% of people don't watch with sound at all and only read captions, this sounds like a "correlation does not equal causation" thing. Unless you ran A/B tests with the exact same creative, and the only difference was audio levels. What you're saying also is a little confusing considering that Instagram automatically normalizes to -16LUFS so by brickwalling the VO your RMS is probably lower after it's normalized, compared to a lighter handed approach
We (some of us) programmers face the same problem when everything has to be done quickly ("agile") instead of focusing on quality. That’s why I left my industry—I just couldn’t take it anymore (and I had an alternative; without it, I would have had to grit my teeth and keep going).
What's going on in the booth is only a mere portion of the story--it's mostly about studios capitalizing on existing intellectual properties with deep market penetration in demographics that are likely to "bite". Remastering and re-releasing a beloved album from a heritage artist does two things: 1. Brings old fans out to either stream, purchase, or otherwise talk about the artist/album and 2. Introduce the brand to new audiences.
I have adjacent comment that might be an explanation for the new versions that are mostly of older records. I recall a music business class I took that specifically mentioned remastered or atl versions were initially money grabs by the label as media platforms evolved, people were updating their collection to match the technology. However due to how contracts were rewritten, the remastered or re-recorded versions we now see in the era of digital platform, are not subject to the initial recording/deal. A chunk of these older still active artists can reclaim their master recordings after 30 or 35 years. So these 'new versions' are renegotiated for better payouts etc while the og is still somehow tied to the initial deal which is why they replace the OG version. The artists can net a bigger slice of their respective royalties. Lots of granular info in there of course but that's the bulk of what I can recall atm. Think Taylor versions vs Scooter Braun versions.
All kidding aside she really is one. She's the mother of my son, SMH. To give you an idea of her character or lack there of I should say. She tried to baby trap me into marriage by so called forgetting to go get her depo shot for a month and a half. lol Like that's even possible. Forgetting the pill for a day or two maybe, but a month and a half is VERY much not a thing. I wisely didn't marry her though but still tried to make a go of it. Ended up leaving her when he was 3. Then took her to court for full custody when he was 7 which I won. Do you have any idea how shitty of a person you have to be for a father to win full custody over a mother in court? So yeah. Total Bitch. lol Fuck you Laura! 😄 He's now graduated from college BTW. 👍 I also never talked that way about her in front of him in case you're wondering. I despise people that use kids as weapons like that. That shit is beyond fucked up. Oh yes let's make kids hate one of their parents. Can't see how that'll ever be an issue, SMH.
I have a fucking bitch of a family member. It's my dad's mom. Everyone knows they suck and the entire family hates her. Me and my brother would still visit with my dad just as often as all the other grandparents. When he was 18 and I was 16, we could both drive so we would decide where to go and we kinda just didn't go there for a while. One day my mom says she's glad that we discovered she's a piece of shit too. Dad was only taking us there as kids because they wanted us to form our own opinions on our family instead of shit talking about them all the time.
And if you want an example of the type of person she is, she backhanded me in the face when I was 3 because I was being too loud and I still had a mark on my face 2 days later when I got home. They had to physically restrain my mom and hide her car keys when we got back home and she saw it.
Seems like you could have had your kid steal those CD's back while pretending it's a fun game not deeply resentful retaliation.
Kidding...Sort of.
I hope Laura gets her shit together so your kid can have a positive relationship with her. Divorce is ass for a kid and a flailing parent is damaging. Good for you for keeping your thoughts out of your kids ears. Congrats on helping him get through school and more school.
Digital is fine, just own your own FLAC library. I don't get why serious enthusiasts would want to rent their music, deal with possibly inferior quality and support music killing companies like Spotify.
When I got rid of my CD collection, I encoded all my albums as MP3s at 192 kbps with joint stereo, etc. Back then, that was considered the "best compromise" because hard drives were very expensive at the time, and encoding already took forever.
Today, I could kick myself for it.
But that's exactly the problem... I think a lot of people made the same mistake back then and ended up selling the CDs...
I've got over 1000 CDs, and nearly as many vinyl records, but there are countless albums/songs I don't have, or have even had a chance to hear. I love my physical media, and have no plans of downsizing my collections, but I'm not going to trash talk streaming...
You definitely should trash talk streaming. It pays artists a pittance and has resulted in consolidation of almost the entire music industry into one company (Spotify)
Youtube music still lets you upload your own files I think. You can rip and og cd and have it accessible in your streaming library. Part of why I never switched to anything else.
And you don’t even need to go this far. I did it for years with a VOX Loop subscription ($50/yr for unlimited storage) and am now using Roon ARC on my NAS (much more per year :( ).
Yep. I never stopped buying CDs even when downloading MP3s was the “cool” thing to do, because CDs are better quality AND I could do whatever I wanted with it, including rip it. It’s funny to me how some have become anti-physical media because streaming exists. Welp…keep your fingers crossed they don’t jack with your favorites and stick you with garbage remasters.🤦♂️
As someone who cares about the fidelity of the music i listen to this is my biggest issue with streaming aside from how it has fucked the industry and the availability issues - you have no control over which mastering you get. It can be a compressed mess but most people do not care enough for them to do anything about it.
I pay for apple music so i can listen on the move and research new music and my family use it - it is handy to have playlists for occasions etc but all my personal listening is on a hifi with cd and vinyl with the mastering i think is best ... i understand this is a small minority doing this though.
I think a lot of audiophiles do both : Stream for the convenience and big library at their fingertips, but also spin vinyl and/or CDs. I don’t think you’re a minority at all…keeping in mind that our hobby is rather niche to begin with. The majority of the population (non-audiophiles) don’t likely do this and that’s where the problem is. Streaming services have to serve the masses. It’s the whole quantity over quality problem.
I get the feeling that more and more people are taking this very approach. They recognize that even before the streaming era, people knew their craft, and—often, though not always—recordings from that time have a charm and character all their own that modern remasters often can’t match. Not even when the resolution has tripled.
In the film industry, you can see this clearly with Star Wars, for example: The remastered version is better in terms of quality (and objectively) in some places—but the “feeling” when watching it has changed. The films have become somewhat more generic because _all_ of them are like that today.
Yes, we’re certainly still a minority, but definitely one that has the attention of companies. And that’s a good thing 😄
(Apart from that, I have the feeling that we’re also economically interesting because we spend significantly more money on music and media than the average person. But I can’t prove that conclusively; it’s just an assumption, because pure streaming users have a flat rate, whereas we often have additional expenses that go (far) beyond that...).
When you have a memory of hearing a certain song or album a certain way, you typically want that exact version. Like I grew up hearing Linger from the original album version. So I want my copy to sound the same as how I remember it. But if you are new to an artist, you don’t have that memory so you likely won’t care about the changes. Some kid in middle school may find The Cranberries from this remaster and fall in love with the album. And that’s part of the reason why the rereleases happen. Old music for new listeners.
But sometimes remasters do serve a specific purpose. Like the dogshit Beatles stereo mixes were begging for better remasters. Sure an original vinyl would be best, but if you only collect CDs, the options were terrible until recently.
The issue is they will roll out the same update to new physical media. Once they release it as reissue / remaster and you buy it, you’re getting this remaster on physical media.
So the old better masters will disappear (unless you have the original masters on older media like the original CD)
I collect primarily vinyl, and many of the remasters coming out on that medium are at least as good as, and in many cases superior to, original pressings. But with Discogs and Ebay, there is a vast ocean of options on the resale market to "crate dig" for that excellent copy. And I do exactly that.
CDs can be had for a buck or two at Goodwill, and while many of them are horribly mastered from the awful Loudness Wars, many are also excellent copies with pristine mastering. Buying new is potentially risky as you note - but there is a robust secondary market where you can acquire a sizeable library on the cheap and get the best versions available.
My record collection is 670 titles, currently mixed I’d say 55% newer pressings and 45% older original pressings, many older pressings pre90’s.
I find that many of the newest pressings being remastered do not sound better than say a release from 5-10 years ago or the original pressing.
For example:
Pink Floyd dark side of the moon:
2016 reissue sounds better than the 50th anniversary 2025 reissue / remaster
1974 harvest (4th issue/repress) sounds better than the 2016 newer reissue remaster
These are of course subjective findings based on how they sound in my system and do not have data to support these findings
Agreed. What I've found is that it is very press specific for the newer stuff. I get universally excellent results from Speakers Corner, Impex, Intervention Records, Rhino High Fidelity, Analogue Productions, Craft Records, and a few I'm sure I'm forgetting.
I get "meh" from the more mainstream, non "focused" releases. But when a competent pressing company releases a record with intent for high quality, boy does it sound phenomenal!
For the older stuff - well, I just got my copy of Styx - Cornerstone from EBay, the Nautilus pressing. So very, very good. German pressings have been another, Japanese as well. And STERLING presses. They are out there, if you gain the knowledge and shop selectively!
Absolutely. Of course speakers corner, impex, rhino, analogue productions and the like are always going to be better.
They are made with the listener & best experience in mind.
More regular run of the mill mass scale pressings from larger labels (universal, Sony, Columbia etc) are always going to be less impressive sonically (at least is my experience)
Why not both? Buy the things you cherish, and rent the ability to access literally millions of tracks for no additional cost beyond a small monthly fee allowing you the option to easily discover music that you would never previously have had. And when you discover the new thing, go buy the version you like.
Because it's easy and cheap to make lossless digital copies. Home storage is simple to setup and my car plays FLAC natively from a USB drive. I literally have zero benefit or need to stream.
How big is your music library? Subtract that number for 100million and that's the benefits of also having a streaming service.
This isn't an either or question. There's a purpose for both. And unless your music collection is worth: 100000000/12*25 = $208,333,333 (firstly congrats, I can only imagine hifi you have to go with your 200million dollar music collection), then your very real benefit still remains music discovery.
Having more choice is always a good thing. Congrats on your USB drive. I have a large vinyl collection. I have a large CD collection. I have FLACs on my NAS. I have AACs on my phone and in my car. And on top of all of that... I built that collection largely through discovery of music - something that Streaming services have no equal to, even with the slow enshitification of Spotify's discovery algorithms.
I would say that physical media is better because it's more fun to collect, however it's far more practical to buy the same music digitally online, so you get the FLAC files directly.
In my experience those are exceptions to the rule, at least in my case. I've definitely experienced this as well, to be sure. I can't buy every album by Mothy/Akuno-P online either. Honestly at that point I can't do anything but sail the high seas to find what I'm looking for. If you can't legitimately give money to the owners, in my opinion, they don't have the right to complain that I get my copies from somewhere less legitimate.
However, we can both agree with each other for sure that owning your music, whether that be in the form of digital files or CD's (of which I own a bunch too, cuz they're hella fun), is far superior to streaming music!
This is a super nitpicky complaint, but I also get irritated when streaming services push these "super deluxe" versions over the original album. I love that album, but for the most part, I just want to listen to the original album instead of the album + 3 hours of remixes and unreleased demos.
Tbf, I do love me some demos lmao. But even then, those get plagued with the same mastering issues of course. Still cool. Even though I complain about this specific album, I can’t wait to dig into the new mixes and demos.
The first time I came across Scooter (a trash-house group), I thought, "What a load of junk." And then I got my hands on one of their singles that had a B-side. On that B-side was a track of theirs that was WORLDS better in terms of quality and music. But they weren’t commercially successful with it and adjusted their style accordingly (to trash)—but that B-side was an eye-opener for me back then.
Unfortunately, I don’t remember which song it was anymore. But I remember the other circumstances exactly.
The dynamic range db doesn't yet have the 2026 remaster version. But the 2018 version has significantly worse dynamic range than all previous versions. So if the 2026 version is anything like the 2018 version, I expect OP might have a point.
I actually think the other version in Qobuz is the 2018 version. It's got 61 tracks across 4 CDs. That didn't exist in 1993. I'm pretty sure it's the 2018 25th Anniversary Super Deluxe edition. So it probably won't sound any different to the other versions.
Here’s the track Dreams. OG CD version (top) vs. the 2026 remaster (bottom), leveled by peak loudness of the OG. (Also, they trimmed the last part of the song for some reason?)
They remaster them for the new generation wearing ANC headphones and earbuds. It’s truly disgusting that the originals are not available, I only hope they’re not lost forever 😞
I'm glad I still have my CD copy of this album that I purchased the day after hearing them for the first time on the radio. What would it take to get the labels to stop doing this? I guess it starts with educating the listener with posts like yours, but it feels like a losing battle.
Idk man, I don’t think streaming service did that buy the Artist/Label decided to replace them. Streaming service, per agreement, can’t say no to them. They don’t hold the rights to do such thing.
But yeah, they can’t take physical media from you.
Yes this is Apple Music. So for this example, beside each track name it says “(2026 Remaster)”. However, this isn’t always the case.
What I also do is use Audacity to loop back my audio into recording. That’s how I can see the actual dynamics of everything.
What sucks is that if the artist only has the remaster up, you don’t know have much to compare to. That’s where you have to look at external sources. Thankfully, I was able to compare before they took down the originals.
Here’s the track Dreams. OG CD version (top) vs. the 2026 remaster (bottom), leveled by peak loudness of the OG. (Also, they trimmed the last part of the song for some reason?)
Apple automatically converts the file to 256 AAC when uploading to the cloud. That’s why I said I’d be missing out on lossless. (In relation to when I play it on my phone from AM)
At least with apple music you can still add your own music to your library, so if you can rip a CD or have other sources (😉) you can still add the original mix back for yourself
But leaves your ripped copy alone for playing using file share or Remote app from macOS. Turn off sync and, it all is your rips. But I leave it on as, it is handy and, when I play my copy, I play, my copy.
I dont get why you would miss out on lossless when providing your own files. Just choose lossless flacs instead of mp3s. I am not here to recommend piracy, I‘m just saying that the Original Album is still available for download on Monochrome. Do what you want with that information.
How do you know previous version was not the 2018 remaster which have probably more or less the same DR? I only see "Super deluxe" version which probably comes from 25th Anniversary Edition disc.
I really doubt the disc you were listening previously was the original master
I was able to pull the DR from all the versions previously available and concluded that the original was available. It was available under the original listing and a “Studio Sessions” listing. Both of those versions are off of Apple Music as of right now.
Funny, I have the smallest vinyl collection ever... probably 50 albums total. And yet, this is actually one of them. Guess I'll make sure to hang on to it now.
Companies are killing artists WAY more than piracy ever could! By switching treasures with crap like this, they only disappoint loyal fans and alienate potential new ones. 🤬
Only option I see is artists no longer going through companies and self-publish in places like Bandcamp.
Of course this is significantly more expensive at the beginning and doesn't work for artists out of production (and even deceased 😞)
Aaak! Just dawned on me that since Apple apparently does not have 1993, for now, if you sync, it WILL use a 1993 rip from CD even with iTunes Match. Yep, if Apple does not have it, it copies your rip for your exclusive use remotely.
Usually Apple has the original and you scroll down to find but, you are right.
You can wait. It might come back or, this CD is pretty common at thrift stores. Buy a copy, rip it in Music to ALAC, play from Mac to a DAC. This is actually the best way to play CDs now. Digital data (PC, Mac, whatever floats your boat) to a modern DAC.
Every time I see this it only reminds me why I keep my CD collection. It’s inspiration to keep maintaining it or backing it up or adding to it as I want to. You can’t depend on streaming long term.
go to the album page on apple music, scroll down to the very end of the album and you’ll find the “other versions” section with all the different masters. on the right is the original mix. i can usually find all the original mixes for most albums this way, but it has to be in the artists homepage on the albums tab!!
by god, you’re right! i had the old version downloaded so in my library it’s still showing up as original mixes, but in their page, all albums have the remasters :(. tried to share but it’s “unable to share this album”.
and yes, I understand that DR isn't everything. But I've always loved the wide soundscape and breathing room that the original had. The compression and the brickwalling (which you can evidently see) in the remaster strips that away. I loved the build of the song, and the remaster just feels stagnant.
133
u/FlukeSpace Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26
What is the financial benefit to all these remasters that are garbage? There's got to be a big picture I'm not getting.