askchapo

Yeah; I've noticed over the years that a lot of those mid-80s CD reissues of albums released in the 70s and early 80s just sound like sterile ass because they more or less printed the studio's archival masters to CD format. The assumption was that if you had a CD player, you must be some kind of mega-rich audiophile, and therefore you also must have an outboard equalizer, and it would be untoward for the mastering engineer to make assumptions about how much bass you want coming out of your bespoke quadrophonic setup. The mentality shifted drastically by around 1991-92 which, incidentally, was around the same time everyone realized that they could cram a pair of boxed subwoofers and a Rockford Fosgate amp into their rusted out Pontiac Grand Ams.

But yeah, growing up listening to the first two Dio albums on cassette (so many times that I had to transplant the tape at least twice) and then hearing the same albums on CD for the first time was pretty underwhelming because of the aforementioned "just print the DAT masters to CD" approach. I guess my shitty Emerson shelf system wasn't bespoke enough.

Edit: It's also really difficult for those earlier masters because if the studio doesn't have the original tracks from prior to the mastering stage, their options are really limited as far as what they can do on a remaster, and even then, a lot of drum recordings tended to be just two room mics aimed down at the kit, so you can't really go back and isolate kick/snare/cymbals/toms and apply different volume, panning, EQ, and compression to each track to give the other instruments more "space." Track extraction tooling has gotten pretty damned fancy in the past 3-5 years, though, so it might be possible now, if the digital artifacting isn't too obvious.