>listening to remasters

they literally always sound worse

File: Audiophile compares cables.jpg (268KB, 1203x945px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1203x945px

>Using cables that aren't silver coated 99999 guage

>>70547874
Not true in the case of The Velvet Underground and Eloy.

File: 1471571817926.jpg (48KB, 462x462px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 462x462px

>>70547874

Not true, but I will definitely say that remastering music is primarily a marketing practice in order to generate sales and interest. It is, however, sometimes done to music that genuinely benefits from it. There's two rules of thumbs I follow with remasters;

1. Never ever trust that the remaster will be good, always do your research before buying.

2. If it was already a good sounding album there's a 98% chance the remaster is worse.

>>70547450
not true for nin. t rez can do no wrong

File: p03gmqcp.jpg (60KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 960x540px

>>70547450
>>70547874
But that's wrong

>>70547450

It really depends.
most cd reissues released in the 80s-early 90s sounded like crap. The more recent remastered versions are usually much better.

>>70547450

>he hasn't listened to You Fail Me - Redux
>laughinggirls

>>70548535
Thank you, based anon.

>>70547450
>listening to recorded music

What kind of pleb doesn't have his own chamber orchestra?

File: Form+testudo+and+penetrate.jpg (34KB, 370x268px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 370x268px

>mfw plebs

>>70547450
I compare the remasters to the original and read about them to make sure they didn't digitally fuck with it, then I proceed to get them.