PMU 2007 remix; why does JLB sound off-pitch?

[hefdaddy42]

I don't think there is anything quiet or hollow about I&W.

[TheGreatPretender]

I don't think there is anything quiet or hollow about I&W.

Compared to their subsequent albums?

[BlobVanDam]

I don't think there is anything quiet or hollow about I&W.

Well it is their most quiet album (aside from WDADU), because it's not very compressed, and is in line with the volume of most albums from that era. Of course, it's only relative, and once you crank the album, it can be just as loud, except more dynamic to boot.
It definitely sounds "different" in sound to all of their other albums, so I can understand that it doesn't appeal to everyone, although personally I think albums from that era generally sound better than modern recordings.

[TheGreatPretender]

It definitely sounds "different" in sound to all of their other albums, so I can understand that it doesn't appeal to everyone, although personally I think albums from that era generally sound better than modern recordings.

Well, I don't know why, but I'm just a stickler for consistency. I'm not saying that every album has to be mixed and mastered exactly the same, but when put on shuffle, I don't like to hear songs sounding like they were mixed completely differently. This is a problem I get with a lot of bands that have been around for ages, and have had long legacies spanning from like 1970's, through 2000's. That's why I think it's good when at least the compilation albums are remixed to sound consistent in themselves. Which is why the I&W songs being remixed made sense for that particular compilation.

[slycordinator]

I'm very much the opposite. I'm one who likes variety between albums. I always thought that was DT's big strength, that the albums each had a bit of different sounds/styles and I think some of that comes from different mixes between the albums.

[TheGreatPretender]

I'm very much the opposite. I'm one who likes variety between albums. I always thought that was DT's big strength, that the albums each had a bit of different sounds/styles and I think some of that comes from different mixes between the albums.

I think that mostly comes from different concepts and ideas. I never noticed a significant difference in the mixes. At least not in terms of volume and the fullness of the sound. Going from a song on Six Degrees, to a song on Octavarium, to a song on Black Clouds, to a song on FII, I've never felt like anything sounded off. But whenever a song from Images & Words comes on, it's jarring how different that mix is.

[MoraWintersoul]

I'm not saying that every album has to be mixed and mastered exactly the same, but when put on shuffle, I don't like to hear songs sounding like they were mixed completely differently.

There's a simple solution to this - don't shuffle

[wasteland]

I'm not saying that every album has to be mixed and mastered exactly the same, but when put on shuffle, I don't like to hear songs sounding like they were mixed completely differently.

There's a simple solution to this - don't shuffle

There's also a difficult solution to this - sneak into MP's vault, steal everything you see in form of CDs, DVDs and HDs, find the original tracks of each album, make a satisfactorily uniform mix by yourself for yourself, avoid jail. 

[MoraWintersoul]

I'm not saying that every album has to be mixed and mastered exactly the same, but when put on shuffle, I don't like to hear songs sounding like they were mixed completely differently.

There's a simple solution to this - don't shuffle

There's also a difficult solution to this - sneak into MP's vault, steal everything you see in form of CDs, DVDs and HDs, find the original tracks of each album, make a satisfactorily uniform mix by yourself for yourself, avoid jail. 

That's brilliant, why didn't I think of such a simple solution

[TheGreatPretender]

There's a simple solution to this - don't shuffle

Well, every once in a while, I only feel like listening to certain types of DT music, or just not listening to each album in proper sequence.

So yeah, wasteland's solution is the only viable one.


Or, you know, I could always enjoy the remixes. And all those who don't like them, can simply not listen to them. It's not like the originals disappeared from Images and Words. Which is what perplexes me the most. Why complain about them, when you can still enjoy the original versions?

[?]

I'm not saying that every album has to be mixed and mastered exactly the same, but when put on shuffle, I don't like to hear songs sounding like they were mixed completely differently.

There's a simple solution to this - don't shuffle

Oh hi Steven Wilson

I shuffle a lot, but I don't mind the differences in production, loudness, etc. between albums at all. Each album is a picture of its time and DT have probably tried their best to make them all sound good, no matter what the circumstances are (see: WDADU), although the results haven't always been the best.

[MoraWintersoul]

I'm not saying that every album has to be mixed and mastered exactly the same, but when put on shuffle, I don't like to hear songs sounding like they were mixed completely differently.

There's a simple solution to this - don't shuffle

Oh hi Steven Wilson

I shuffle a lot, but I don't mind the differences in production, loudness, etc. between albums at all. Each album is a picture of its time and DT have probably tried their best to make them all sound good, no matter what the circumstances are (see: WDADU), although the results haven't always been the best.

It's funny that you just called me Steven Wilson because look what I wrote in the chat thread

I think the people who are disappointed in the remixes are the ones who expected more of them. I only found out they existed a year ago anyway I gave them a listen, and, you know, they're okay - they certainly don't hurt my ears - but I am just used to the "regular" IAW sound and I love it. It's good to hear it with the "real" snare and what not, but if people are so bothered by production quality and producers' choices of an album that came out in '92 that it spoils the objectively best prog metal album of all time to them, I can't help but think their musical library must be top quality only, but very, very limited. I don't think we have a lot of those people here.

[hefdaddy42]

I don't shuffle very often, but even when I do, the differences in production between different eras is very appealing to me.  I would hate it if they all sounded the same.  That wouldn't make sense, and would be completely artificial, since they were all recorded in different times, and different places, and even with different personnel in the band itself.

[BlobVanDam]

Every album is a product of that particular moment in time, and the mix/production is a very important part of the character of the album, for better or worse.
IaW sounds like an early '90s album because it is an early '90s album, and that's what fits the music. It wouldn't sound right with the production of a different album, even the closest album chronologically, Awake. And by the same token, Awake wouldn't sound at all right with the production of IaW. They both have what fits the music, and the mix and production are specific to what that album needed. ToT wouldn't sound right with the production of FII and vice versa, etc.

There is no "one size fits all" solution here. And I wouldn't want the albums any other way than what they are. I've never had a problem going from one album to another. I love that the sound of each album sets it apart, instantly conveying the feel of the album. And if I'm going from ToT to IaW, I just turn up the volume. No biggy.

[hefdaddy42]

Yeah.

[King Postwhore]

I don't shuffle very often, but even when I do, the differences in production between different eras is very appealing to me.  I would hate it if they all sounded the same.  That wouldn't make sense, and would be completely artificial, since they were all recorded in different times, and different places, and even with different personnel in the band itself.

The most shuffling man in the world drinks Dos Equis.

[hefdaddy42]

[TheGreatPretender]

There is no "one size fits all" solution here. And I wouldn't want the albums any other way than what they are. I've never had a problem going from one album to another. I love that the sound of each album sets it apart, instantly conveying the feel of the album. And if I'm going from ToT to IaW, I just turn up the volume. No biggy.

Images and Words is the only one that stands out. I just think it could use a little more chutzpah.

But even if you disagree, I think it's good to hear some songs with a different perspective, whether it's a live version or a remixed version (just as long as it's not a Dubstep version).

[slycordinator]

But even if you disagree, I think it's good to hear some songs with a different perspective, whether it's a live version or a remixed version (just as long as it's not a Dubstep version).

Home would have lots of "womp womp."

[richzen]

I don't mind the remixes apart from one thing in TTT that really gets my goat... The little bass break at 5:10 (where it does that slide up to the diminished chord and the other instruments cut out) that they decided to put drums over. WHY?! The breaks and little twists and turns are what make that section so great for me, then the drums just plow over the top of it with this "my first drum beat" sounding rhythm. When I first heard that I had to play it back a few times to make sure I wasn't hearing things...

...Other than that, they're pretty cool though.

[KevShmev]

I don't shuffle very often, but even when I do, the differences in production between different eras is very appealing to me.  I would hate it if they all sounded the same.  That wouldn't make sense, and would be completely artificial, since they were all recorded in different times, and different places, and even with different personnel in the band itself.

Every album is a product of that particular moment in time, and the mix/production is a very important part of the character of the album, for better or worse.
IaW sounds like an early '90s album because it is an early '90s album, and that's what fits the music. It wouldn't sound right with the production of a different album, even the closest album chronologically, Awake. And by the same token, Awake wouldn't sound at all right with the production of IaW. They both have what fits the music, and the mix and production are specific to what that album needed. ToT wouldn't sound right with the production of FII and vice versa, etc.

There is no "one size fits all" solution here. And I wouldn't want the albums any other way than what they are. I've never had a problem going from one album to another. I love that the sound of each album sets it apart, instantly conveying the feel of the album. And if I'm going from ToT to IaW, I just turn up the volume. No biggy.

I agree with both of these posts.

No offense, The Great Pretender, but this idea that a band's entire discography should sound about the same is very silly to me.  I can just imagine a band going, "Dang, look at all of these advances in modern technology! But it sucks cause we want all of our albums to sound the same, so we can't use any of them."

[TheGreatPretender]

I agree with both of these posts.

No offense, The Great Pretender, but this idea that a band's entire discography should sound about the same is very silly to me.  I can just imagine a band going, "Dang, look at all of these advances in modern technology! But it sucks cause we want all of our albums to sound the same, so we can't use any of them."

I didn't say it has to sound the same. Does Awake, SFAM and ADTOE sound the same? No, but if you listen to them in a single playlist, they'll at least have some consistency in volume and fullness. That's all I want out of I&W.

And yeah, a band wouldn't say that, but they might say, "Look at all of these advances in modern technology! Let's have our earlier albums remixed to give them the modern treatment." Megadeth has done it, and I vastly prefer their Remixed and Remastered series to the original releases.

But that applies especially when talking about compilation albums. Not only do I think they gave these songs a new, more powerful flavor by remixing them, but they actually showed that they put some effort into the compilation album. I think it's extremely lazy to just throw a bunch of songs together, especially if the mixes don't all sound consistent. So frankly, I think what MP did with the I&W songs was a very good thing. Not only did it give us a different flavor to the actual songs, and allowed us to have a slightly different perspective on them and frankly I actually prefer those mixes. Not only that, but with all the alternate takes, B-Sides and Single Edits, Greatest Hit ended up having enough material on it that was different from the albums, to make it worth the money even to someone who already has all the albums.

[KevShmev]

Remixing albums to give them the modern treatment is often a bad idea, even on compilation/greatest hits albums. What if you are a casual fan who has no interest in buying every album, but would get a compilation, and you buy it thinking you are getting that hit you remember liking, and then all of a sudden it is a different version?  That is annoying as hell.  Of course, that was more of a problem back in the day before we could buy individual tracks from amazon, iTunes, etc., so I am speaking from the standpoint of having been burned like that before, but still, a "best of" should theoretically, IMO, have the original versions of songs (not remixed versions).  DT is different in that I am guessing most fans are not casual fans, so it can work in their case, I guess, but I am speaking more generally here.

And again, like many of us have said before, including Blob just several posts up, each album, each song, is a snapshot of the band at that point in time.  Trying to redo it years later is like trying to take a picture of yourself from when you were 20, had a bad mullet, and bad fashion sense, and photoshopping your current hair and clothing on that old picture of yourself; it is not a true and accurate picture of yourself at that moment in time, or the song in the case of what we are talking about.  It is best to leave it as is, warts and all.

[BlobVanDam]

IaW is the Star Wars original trilogy, and removing the triggered snare was Greedo shooting first.

[hefdaddy42]

IaW is the Star Wars original trilogy, and removing the triggered snare was Greedo shooting first.

Fucking THIS.

[TheGreatPretender]

Remixing albums to give them the modern treatment is often a bad idea, even on compilation/greatest hits albums. What if you are a casual fan who has no interest in buying every album, but would get a compilation, and you buy it thinking you are getting that hit you remember liking, and then all of a sudden it is a different version?

But it's still the same song. I honestly can't imagine someone saying, "I used to listen to this song back in the day, but now it sounds different," just because it sounds a little louder and maybe with a little more emphasis on the guitar. It's still the same song. I've heard to remixed songs after years of not hearing the original, and never did I go, "Well, it's louder and more dynamic now, than it sounded on the vinyl years ago. My listening experience is not ruined.

Considering how much of a difference in sound it could make, just buying  different set of headphone and/or a different music player/audio system/sound card, etc. Chances are, if you hadn't heard a song in a while, it's not gonna sound the same anyway, because what you heard before, if it was years ago, was probably on an inferior sound system. And if it was on a SUPERIOR sound system, then it's not even going to sound as good anymore. So you're going to let that ruin your listening experience?

And again, like many of us have said before, including Blob just several posts up, each album, each song, is a snapshot of the band at that point in time.  Trying to redo it years later is like trying to take a picture of yourself from when you were 20, had a bad mullet, and bad fashion sense, and photoshopping your current hair and clothing on that old picture of yourself; it is not a true and accurate picture of yourself at that moment in time, or the song in the case of what we are talking about.  It is best to leave it as is, warts and all.

I don't think your picture analogy works. Remixing a song in a sense that we're talking about, is more like remastering a movie. You color correct it, get rid of the film speckles, smooth out the grain, while making the picture a little more crisp. I'm sorry, but that always, always makes the movie better. And if I watch the remastered version of an old movie, you'll never, ever hear me say, "Man, it was better before, with all the grain and speckles."

You say it's best to leave it as it is. But those people who want to hear it a little differently now get deprived of that. Whereas you, and all the other purists still get your original version. See, that's what bugs me. Like, what's the problem with giving people a choice? Maybe somebody likes the actual composition of Pull Me Under, but doesn't actually like the way songs were mixed in the early 90's. Just as an example. And they'd rather hear it the way it is on the remix. Are you gonna tell them, "No, it's better the way it was!"
I have my remixes and frankly, I prefer them to the originals. If you don't want to hear them, you have the original album.

IaW is the Star Wars original trilogy, and removing the triggered snare was Greedo shooting first.

No. That is so not the same thing.

[Dellers]

The remixes sound both better and worse at the same time really. The drums don't sound as bad as on the originals, but the bass is barely audible at all on the remixes. The bass groove on Take The Time for instance is completely lost in the remix, which is quite an accomplish in itself considering that there's not exactly a wall of sound surrounding it. I could have done it much better myself while sleeping.

[KevShmev]

Remixing albums to give them the modern treatment is often a bad idea, even on compilation/greatest hits albums. What if you are a casual fan who has no interest in buying every album, but would get a compilation, and you buy it thinking you are getting that hit you remember liking, and then all of a sudden it is a different version?

But it's still the same song. I honestly can't imagine someone saying, "I used to listen to this song back in the day, but now it sounds different," just because it sounds a little louder and maybe with a little more emphasis on the guitar. It's still the same song. I've heard to remixed songs after years of not hearing the original, and never did I go, "Well, it's louder and more dynamic now, than it sounded on the vinyl years ago. My listening experience is not ruined.

Considering how much of a difference in sound it could make, just buying  different set of headphone and/or a different music player/audio system/sound card, etc. Chances are, if you hadn't heard a song in a while, it's not gonna sound the same anyway, because what you heard before, if it was years ago, was probably on an inferior sound system. And if it was on a SUPERIOR sound system, then it's not even going to sound as good anymore. So you're going to let that ruin your listening experience?

And again, like many of us have said before, including Blob just several posts up, each album, each song, is a snapshot of the band at that point in time.  Trying to redo it years later is like trying to take a picture of yourself from when you were 20, had a bad mullet, and bad fashion sense, and photoshopping your current hair and clothing on that old picture of yourself; it is not a true and accurate picture of yourself at that moment in time, or the song in the case of what we are talking about.  It is best to leave it as is, warts and all.

I don't think your picture analogy works. Remixing a song in a sense that we're talking about, is more like remastering a movie. You color correct it, get rid of the film speckles, smooth out the grain, while making the picture a little more crisp. I'm sorry, but that always, always makes the movie better. And if I watch the remastered version of an old movie, you'll never, ever hear me say, "Man, it was better before, with all the grain and speckles."

You say it's best to leave it as it is. But those people who want to hear it a little differently now get deprived of that. Whereas you, and all the other purists still get your original version. See, that's what bugs me. Like, what's the problem with giving people a choice? Maybe somebody likes the actual composition of Pull Me Under, but doesn't actually like the way songs were mixed in the early 90's. Just as an example. And they'd rather hear it the way it is on the remix. Are you gonna tell them, "No, it's better the way it was!"
I have my remixes and frankly, I prefer them to the originals. If you don't want to hear them, you have the original album.

Um, yes.

[TheGreatPretender]

Um, yes.

Well then...

[slycordinator]

Considering how much of a difference in sound it could make, just buying  different set of headphone and/or a different music player/audio system/sound card, etc. Chances are, if you hadn't heard a song in a while, it's not gonna sound the same anyway, because what you heard before, if it was years ago, was probably on an inferior sound system. And if it was on a SUPERIOR sound system, then it's not even going to sound as good anymore. So you're going to let that ruin your listening experience?

And people are clearly unable to do A/B comparisons on the same equipment.

I don't think your picture analogy works. Remixing a song in a sense that we're talking about, is more like remastering a movie. You color correct it, get rid of the film speckles, smooth out the grain, while making the picture a little more crisp. I'm sorry, but that always, always makes the movie better. And if I watch the remastered version of an old movie, you'll never, ever hear me say, "Man, it was better before, with all the grain and speckles."

BULLSHIT
In fact, attempts to mess with the grain of movies often makes it less crisp. Digital Noise Reduction (DNR) can definitely make an image worse as the point of it is to clean out the grains which also removes the detail of the image (since the grain of the film is what gives it its detail).

You say it's best to leave it as it is. But those people who want to hear it a little differently now get deprived of that. Whereas you, and all the other purists still get your original version. See, that's what bugs me. Like, what's the problem with giving people a choice? Maybe somebody likes the actual composition of Pull Me Under, but doesn't actually like the way songs were mixed in the early 90's. Just as an example. And they'd rather hear it the way it is on the remix. Are you gonna tell them, "No, it's better the way it was!"
I have my remixes and frankly, I prefer them to the originals. If you don't want to hear them, you have the original album.

There's nothing wrong with giving people a choice. But there's a difference between choosing between getting an album you know to be remixes and a remix album masquerading as the band's greatest hits. The greatests hits thing tends to imply that it contains the bands classic songs that people know/love.

[TheGreatPretender]

And people are clearly unable to do A/B comparisons on the same equipment.

You're missing the point. The point is that with every sound system, it's going to sound different. So it's not likely that you'll be able to recapture the precisely exact sound that you've heard on those old speakers/headphones back in 1990's. And frankly, I doubt anyone could even remember sound that precisely anyway.

BULLSHIT
In fact, attempts to mess with the grain of movies often makes it less crisp. Digital Noise Reduction (DNR) can definitely make an image worse as the point of it is to clean out the grains which also removes the detail of the image (since the grain of the film is what gives it its detail).

Well, I don't know what movies you speak of, but I'm talking about, let's say, Blu-Rays, where they went to original film, despeckled it, and gave it better colors, which they've done with tons of old 1980's and 1990's movies, and they all look absolutely fantastic. Better than they looked in theaters, and DEFINITELY better than VHS and DVD. My point is that I'd rather watch a remastered, gorgeous looking HD Blu-ray of something like, let's say, A Nightmare On Elm Street, than an old VHS tape of it, even though VHS is what I initially grew up with. I don't care about getting that 'grainy old TV feeling and the jittery quality of a VHS tape', I care about the actual content and experiencing it in the best possible way.

Same with music, I don't care about how it was mixed in the 1980's, or 1990's, I like the way they started mixing it later on, and I'd rather experience those old songs that way. As great of a song as Juke Box Hero by Foreigner is, that song needs a serious volume boost and yes, even a little bit of compression wouldn't hurt. I like the song for the actual song, not for how retro it sounds.

There's nothing wrong with giving people a choice. But there's a difference between choosing between getting an album you know to be remixes and a remix album masquerading as the band's greatest hits. The greatests hits thing tends to imply that it contains the bands classic songs that people know/love.

Wait, are you talking about the alternate take of Through Her Eyes? Because other than that, everything else on the album was pretty much exact same songs. The PMU remix wasn't masquerading as anything. It's still the same song. It's the same composition, same arrangement. The drums just sound a little better and the sound is more full. But it's still the same song that people know and love.

[slycordinator]

You're missing the point. The point is that with every sound system, it's going to sound different. So it's not likely that you'll be able to recapture the precisely exact sound that you've heard on those old speakers/headphones back in 1990's. And frankly, I doubt anyone could even remember sound that precisely anyway.

And I responded the way I did because I think your point is erroneous. I don't need to remember what it sounded like to me back in the 1990s to know that when I listen to both I prefer the original mix, just like I don't need to remember what it was like to first listen to the Machine Head album to find that I like Roger Glover's remixes better (esp since it came as a two-disc set of the original and the remixes).

Well, I don't know what movies you speak of, but I'm talking about, let's say, Blu-Rays, where they went to original film, despeckled it, and gave it better colors, which they've done with tons of old 1980's and 1990's movies, and they all look absolutely fantastic. Better than they looked in theaters, and DEFINITELY better than VHS and DVD. My point is that I'd rather watch a remastered, gorgeous looking HD Blu-ray of something like, let's say, A Nightmare On Elm Street, than an old VHS tape of it, even though VHS is what I initially grew up with. I don't care about getting that 'grainy old TV feeling and the jittery quality of a VHS tape', I care about the actual content and experiencing it in the best possible way.

1) I was talking about blu-rays. Or were you unaware that the DNR I referred to is the method used for blu-ray transfers for removing (although really, just smearing out) the film grains? And on some occasions people have gone to an extreme on removing it. Removing film grain can remove important stuff like skin texture, so that people can sometimes look kinda waxy/pasty. Remember, that most movies transferred from film don't have someone photoshopping each frame to remove the damage. Most use automated stuff like DNR, which if set "correctly" can adversely affect the image.
2) I guess I'll have to disagree on the claim that every Blu-Ray digital transfer/alteration looks good.
3) I'm not saying that every movie with DNR looks bad but some do

Wait, are you talking about the alternate take of Through Her Eyes?

No.

The PMU remix wasn't masquerading as anything. It's still the same song. It's the same composition, same arrangement. The drums just sound a little better and the sound is more full. But it's still the same song that people know and love.

1) There's clearly been disagreement on the drums sounding better
2) I never said that the remix of that song was masquerading as anything. I said the *album* was, though (although I was exaggerating). It just feels strange because the casual listener who picks up a greatest hits album will believe that the hits contained became hits *as presented* when clearly that is not the case.

And remember that this is an example where full choice was given and if you want to think of the remixes as a "bonus for fans" consider the Deep Purple example as such (since the remixes were included as being a bonus). You can't choose between the "Dream Theater's greatest hits" and "an album containing remixes of songs from their most famous album."

[TheGreatPretender]

1) I was talking about blu-rays. Or were you unaware that the DNR I referred to is the method used for blu-ray transfers for removing (although really, just smearing out) the film grains? And on some occasions people have gone to an extreme on removing it. Removing film grain can remove important stuff like skin texture, so that people can sometimes look kinda waxy/pasty. Remember, that most movies transferred from film don't have someone photoshopping each frame to remove the damage. Most use automated stuff like DNR, which if set "correctly" can adversely affect the image.
2) I guess I'll have to disagree on the claim that every Blu-Ray digital transfer/alteration looks good.
3) I'm not saying that every movie with DNR looks bad but some do

Well, all right then. Maybe you can give me some examples, because every Blu-Ray I have looks significantly better than any other format I've previously seen.

From old school Rambo and Terminator, to The Shining, to whatever. And mind you, originally, the first Terminator was released without a proper remaster, and it looked pretty bad, they recently made a remastered version where they did all the things I mentioned, used the original film, color corrected, etc, and it looks so much better.

I really can't think of a single movie I have where the picture looks worse than it was on DVD or even in theaters back in the day. Because remember, back then, theaters didn't have digital projectors, so everything was significantly more blurry. To the point where I can't even enjoy that kind of projection anymore.

1) There's clearly been disagreement on the drums sounding better
2) I never said that the remix of that song was masquerading as anything. I said the *album* was, though (although I was exaggerating). It just feels strange because the casual listener who picks up a greatest hits album will believe that the hits contained became hits *as presented* when clearly that is not the case.

And remember that this is an example where full choice was given and if you want to think of the remixes as a "bonus for fans" consider the Deep Purple example as such (since the remixes were included as being a bonus). You can't choose between the "Dream Theater's greatest hits" and "an album containing remixes of songs from their most famous album."

Well, DT isn't a mainstream band anyway. Clearly MP wanted to focus on giving the fans something new and different, over presenting the newcomers with material that accurately represented the original mixes.

But maybe you're right. Maybe the compilation album should have contained the original mixes and they simply should have remixed the entire Images and Words the way they did the three songs, and re-released the Remixed album. I'd certainly be a lot happier with that, and then people would truly get a proper choice.

I'm just thankful that I at least have those three remixes. But honestly, I'd kill for a version of Metropolis with the same treatment.

[slycordinator]

And mind you, originally, the first Terminator was released without a proper remaster, and it looked pretty bad, they recently made a remastered version where they did all the things I mentioned, used the original film, color corrected, etc, and it looks so much better.

Except they didn't do everything you mentioned. Both versions of the movie have grainy images. Why didn't they remove more grain? Because that would make the movie look worse in that it would remove detail of the original source since the original film source stores its detail in the grain.

And on color timing of the movie, have a look at the following screen shots. The third shot in each was done by a guy who apparently did color timing of 35mm prints at the time the movie was shot and was trying to show how it'd actually look the way it was originally shot. Personally, I do like his version of the shots even if the remaster was an improvement in and of itself.

https://www.tle-films.com/TEST/T1_BDcom_2.jpg
https://www.tle-films.com/TEST/T1_BDcom_1.jpg
https://www.tle-films.com/TEST/T1_BDcom_3.jpg

I really can't think of a single movie I have where the picture looks worse than it was on DVD or even in theaters back in the day. Because remember, back then, theaters didn't have digital projectors, so everything was significantly more blurry. To the point where I can't even enjoy that kind of projection anymore.

Ummm... no.
1) Digital can be out of focus/blurry.
2) Film isn't inherently out-of-focus/blurry.
3) I think the reason that people like yourself can't stand film projection is because you never got a chance to see it at a place that did it properly (which, sadly, was most theaters), most places left that couldn't afford the upgrade are the ones that tend to be even worse than average, plus these days they do extremely high-speed printing. Oh and 35mm film is currently mostly printed from movies that use a 2K digital intermediate even if it was shot in 35mm. Oh and out of the labs printing 35mm movies in the US/Canada, the only lab left doing it is the one that was the worst out of all of them. Oh and by now the only lab left printing movies is the one that routinely did the worst job...

The conversion to digital made an improvement in the vast majority of converted theaters, because most of those were doing a bad job (plus the issues of high-speed printing and digital intermediates).

[TheGreatPretender]

Well, if MOST theaters did it wrong, then what's the difference, when the average movie theater experience would have been inferior to a Blu-Ray anyway? Which means MOST people would have experienced those movies in this less-than-optimal way.

In any case, all that stuff you said has virtually nothing to do with my original point.

But clearly as you can see the Terminator remaster looks so much better than the original issue. My point is that remixing/remastering music albums is the same thing. It can improve them and make them more enjoyable. Remastering the Terminator movie doesn't make it any less of a 1980's movie. So remastering, let's say, Images and Words wouldn't make it any less of a 1992 album, just make it sound better.

And I'm not even talking about the drums, even if I like the drums better. I'm just talking about how they gave the rest of the instruments more meat. I'm not crazy about the trigger snare, but I could take it or leave it.

Another example would be the covers that DT did for BCSL. Frankly, due to the quality of the recording and the mixing, I enjoy all of those covers vastly more than the originals. I like the songs for their actual compositions. I don't care if Larks' Tongues in Aspic doesn't have that 1970s sound anymore, the DT version is more crisp and clean, and I'd rather listen to that than the original King Crimson version.