I have lots of examples of music mastered for boom boxes, and I so wish we had the ability to reach back in time and shake those mastering engineers a little bit. :D
A remaster at least gives us the chance that more modern equipment was envisioned by the mastering engineer.
Honestly it can go either way, but would rather have options though I find most re-masters just boring and not significantly better.
The MoFI remaster of Pink Floyd DSotM though, awful. Eliminated a bunch of effects in the original
|
I agree. Giles Martin remastered Beatle records his father mastered as intended. What I hear is cranked up bass and accentuating vocals or instruments. I guess Giles needs the money.
|
Remasters were initially done to improve the early digital transfers to CDs. In the 1990s when digital technology improved there was often an improvement to the CD.
Loudness Wars ruined the intended sound of recordings, the only concern was to pump up the sound for playback in cars and iPods using earbuds.
|
You are right Voodoo....I bought the Ebbetts MFSL to CD box set and I bought 3 of the new Giles Martin remasters. I compared the same 3 CDs of each version over a period of time and conclude that the "redbox" (I guess that term means regular everyday CDs?) is overall just as good as....if not better. (and I lean towards better heavily) Ebbetts is going back on ebay tomorrow night.
MFSL Floyd....I agree with E_S.....not impressed with it either.
Think they were made to sound good on the radio of a basic factory car stereo.
|
That’s why I buy original analog from the 50s to the early 80s. Many times, once digitized, the tiny details that give music its nuance and soul are lost forever. Sat in on an Acoustic Sounds demo with Chad Kassem of original vs remastered vinyl. Apart from some cleaning up of the recording, the music lost its blackness and took on a grey hash and fine detail was smoothed over. They all thought this was great. I wasn’t convinced.
|
for many remastered is a marketing bait. that’s why. otherwise it’s literally nothing unless the original mastering is crap, but regardless, for some reason, the crappy original mastering is often more desirable than remastered and so on...
og triangle issue of DSOM sounds better than any audiophile remastered versions including UHQR.
|
I was fooled by the marketing bait into buying remastered CDs. After continually being disappointed by these ruined albums, I now buy only original pressings. Early Redbook CDs are what the albums are supposed to sound like.
|
I think it's a mistake to assume the original masters were intended by the artists. In the great majority of cases, artists had little to no control over such things. Record companies did.
|
What I meant by artist was composer or engineer.
|
@trentmemphis , that's true. The music business is very different today where you have mega stars having final say over their music..."use more Auto-Tune and add more compression."
In the past, the engineer and producer would record and mix the tracks and create a master. Before a record was cut, a mastering engineer would do his thing, then a test pressing was sent to a record label exec who would give final approval.
|
@voodoolounge
Fair enough. I'm not sure why the intentions of the person who happened to engineer the first master should be given priority over other, qualified mastering engineers' ideas, though. In general, the choice of the original mastering engineer was based largely on who happened to be available when your record was ready for mastering, and within the budget.
I don't think it was an artistic choice, or driven by who would make this or that particular record sound the best. I imagine there were specialists within genres of music -- this guy knows how to master orchestral recordings, that guy knows how to master pop band recordings -- but I doubt there was much to the choice beyond that.
And, as far as I know, the original masterings aren't being lost or thrown away. They're still around. If enough people like the original better than the remastering of a given record, somebody will put it into print sooner or later.
|
Let’s not forget that for vinyl anyway, the tapes used for the cutting were very often a copy with bass rolled of so the phono carts of the time could track it. New vinyl masters don’t require that since cartridges are better today and it’s a seen as luxury item with more spent on gear.
A to D converters back in the early days of digital were not nearly as good as now, and of course there’s higher transfers than 44.1/16.
I’m not saying some remasters don’t take a step backwards sonically, but there’s often no reason why it has to be that way.
A while back I heard the new Peter Gabriel remasters.
I would have bet that they were remixed from multi-track, since it was such a huge sonic upgrade from the first digital masterings. I posted on the Steve Hoffman forum about it and was told there was no remix, just a remaster.
Plus today we have better cables and power conditioning available, so if a remastering studio uses these, it should be beneficial.
|
I‘ll never forget the experience aeons ago when a friend brought his spanking new MoFi copy of Sticky Fingers over for a spin. We waited with baited breath for the needle to hit the vinyl and then……whoa…….we both looked at each other - was the stylus clogged with gunk? had the amp settings been changed? Nothing untoward detected, so I put my old British pressing on the platter and gave it a spin. Instant relief - there was real life in the music, we had greater clarity, bite and proper dynamics - it sounded like a proper rock and roll band was playing, The MOFi pressing was sanitised to the point of being insipid and anaemic.
Proves you can butcher things just as effectively at half speed as you can at full..
|
@pesky_wabbit
I haven't listened to MOFi of sticky, I have a survivor copy from years past that still sounds amazing. The original inner sleeve reads...
Engineers: Glyn and Andy Johns, Chris Kimsey, Jimmy Johnson and everyone else who had the patience to sit thru this for two million hours. After, so many hours someone 50 years later has the nerve to mess with it.
|
Because so many CD's that came out in the 80's and 90's and beyond sound like crap the way they were originally mastered? Midnight Oil and Iron Maiden are just two that come to mind immediately - the remasters sound GREAT; the original releases of their earlier CD's are awful.
|
emailists
there were speed wars, size wars, and equalization wars.
you seem to have a misunderstanding of the RIAA curve that won the equalization wars.
the EQ curve is identical today to the EQ curve that was normalized way back when. Cartridges then, and now, and bass signals then and now are cut, traced, and boosted the same progressive amount they always were. Same for highs, same now as it was.
LP = LONG play.
In order to get MORE material onto the 12" size that won (MORE material), at 33 rpm speed that won (to get MORE music per inch than a faster speed):
BASS was electronically CUT, to minimize the physical WIDTH of the grooves, so MORE grooves could be included, thus LONG PLAY!
Then, the reduced bass was electronically boosted to be EQUAL to the original prior to being cut.
The opposite was done to the highs.
any cartridge that was able to produce MORE bass, prior to the boost in Eq would produce exaggerated bass.
music with a ton of bass is recorded/mixed to be that way, and to end up that way after the good old eq curve does it’s thing. it ain’t the cartridge.
remastering to get more bass is simply pandering to current bass heavy trends.
.......................
aside from RIAA standard, just like Fletcher Munson 'Loudness' curves, any engineer or equipment maker may choose intentionally to vary something. a mistake could lead to a preference, but this has nothing to do with cartridge bass output then and now.
|
@elliottbnewcombjr
Yeah...I know all about that...Ahhh, the reason why my Zeppelin II Ludwig mastered vinyl skips.
|
had to go box searching for some megadeth Japanese cds and scorpions on mercury, not remastered.
they sound so much better.
not a fan of this remixing, changing time, adding?removing riffs, a fill added or taken away. LEAVE THE DAMN MUSIC ALONE !!!!!!
|
I just love reading all the pre release publicity on a lot of these remasters telling us how the originals have been enhanced in so many ways, followed by the gushing reviews from the you know who neophytes, It‘s just one big publicity machine in action getting us to buy something twice.
|
Do remasters count as a new work ?
Could be a way for record companies to extend copyright.
|
My experience has been extremely varied-- some remasters sound better to me and some sound worse. I made the mistake of buying the version of Layla most favored on the Steve Hoffman site (a Japanese SHM) and found it unlistenably bright. My system was quite warm and I failed to comprehend why the Hoffmanites liked it so much, given its (for me) fatiguing sonics. On the other hand, my Japanese DSD mastering of Blow By Blow sounds fuller and warmer than the generic domestic version. I prefer the Virgin remasters of Sticky Fingers. Let It Bleed and Exile On Main Street as well. These are just a few examples.
Everyone hears differently but my experience has definitely not been that all remasters have consistent sonics. Unfortunately, some albums were simply not well recorded to begin with.
|
Do remasters count as a new work ?
Could be a way for record companies to extend copyright.
Record labels do get a new copyright on a remaster.
|
@voodoolounge .Ahhh, the reason why my Zeppelin II Ludwig mastered vinyl skips.
I used to really want one of those. Now I'm not that fussed.
I have, somewhere, a version of the 1812 Overture that I haven't played for so long I can't remember what version it is. I fear damage.
|
I don't know how many times Jimmy remastered his compositions but his most recent Zeppelin III sounds outstanding on CD. I just received a copy a few hours ago. The stripped down companion disc sounds like they're in the same room. Does anyone have the vinyl of his last master? I'm curious does it get any better.
|
The "Big Fake" failed to convince me back in the 80's when it all started.
For us original LP nut jobs, the only reason to buy a reissue is because a period press is unobtanium due of price.
"the reason why my Zeppelin II Ludwig mastered vinyl skips."
RL Zep copy is the only way to listen-LOUD. No skips on a proper setup, just proper bass and impact.
"I don't know how many times Jimmy remastered his compositions but his most recent Zeppelin III sounds outstanding on CD. I just received a copy a few hours ago. The stripped down companion disc sounds like they're in the same room."
For the LP only Led Heads, a 1970 Presswell is the standard. The lucky ones have the tape.
|
It's time to purchase a reel to reel.
|
voodolounge-
My eyesight, along with coffee not kicking in made me realize it was Zeppelin 2!
Here's what we all want
|
@tablejockey
I'd love to spin and listen, but good plus for $1000, I'll pass
|
@voodoolounge
I agree. Giles Martin remastered Beatle records his father mastered as intended. What I hear is cranked up bass and accentuating vocals or instruments. I guess Giles needs the money.
As a Beatles fan it’s pretty frustrating that neither the 2009 remasters nor Giles’ efforts bear repeated plays.
You’d think with all of the technical advances since 1987 he could do just a little better than his dad?
I guess not.
Perhaps his job was simply to represent them in a slightly more modern light?
Perhaps his job was to keep milking the biggest cash cow that popular music has ever seen?
If so, then Giles has succeeded fabulously.
However, there will always be those like me who wished he’d keep his hands off the knob twiddling and present the albums as straight transfers, as I believe he did with the sonically excellent Esher Demos off the 2018 White Album set.
Unfortunately, I have found that the vast majority of remasters offer nothing over the original issues.
A few exceptions might include the most recent Jimmy Page Zeppelin remasters, perhaps some Mofi releases, the 2012 Dylan reissues, the Springsteen, or even the 2012 Johnny Marr Smiths reissues.
The key word is ’might’. There are many who prefer the earlier Barry Diament Zep remasters, the Rough Trade UK Smiths releases, or even the Springsteen Box etc etc.
Again, my opinion, but I can’t remember hearing many remasters that blew away it’s predecessor in terms of sonics. Ok, the 90s Dylan Street Legal was an improvement over the muddy original, but it was a remix.
The 2003 Blonde on Blonde was an improvement over the earlier version.
The jury is still out on whether the ISB, Kinks or Scott Walker remasters are any better than earlier efforts.
There’s no doubt that remasters might improve things, but obviously a lot of care and expertise is needed. Not to mention a strong desire to do as little knob twiddling as possible.
Just allow the technology to do its work.
|
I enjoy most remastered CD or lp to quote Robert Healey in his most recent TAS review " the best remastering jobs are transformative. You hear a new found clarity; each instrument or voice is distinct and sonically separate; the bass suddenly has depth, texture, pitch and naunce...." I completely agree with his assessment.
|
yes, but what about the MUSIC ?
|
A word like “Remastered” accompanying a release justifies that release. People buy. Labels keep releasing remastered stuff.
Sometimes this practice yields fortuitous results. Often it does not.
ideally, communities like like one can help music fans discern which releases are worth buying.
|
don't know how many times Jimmy remastered his compositions but his most recent Zeppelin III sounds outstanding on CD. I just received a copy a few hours ago. The stripped down companion disc sounds like they're in the same room. Does anyone have the vinyl of his last master? I'm curious does it get any better.
@voodoolounge , I own all the LZ 2014, 15 remasters on vinyl. The sound is very good, much better than I expected. Sound is as good if not better than other modern remasters. Even Bonzo's kick drum has impact, which is lacking in all previous remasters.
I also have all early release CDs pressed in Germany (1984, 85) which have outstanding sonics. Separation of instruments is better than the vinyl remasters and the kick drum has realistic tone and impact. Still, Jimmy's latest work on vinyl is worth owning.
|
I'm amazed how many 1950-1960's treasures I've found in the thrift stores. Nothing can compare to the sound of these old records. The engineers knew what they were doing back then, a lost art, gone forever....scoop up that old vinyl.
|
@audioguy85
I found a 60's Dave Brubeck at the thrift for $2.50. I didn't have high hopes but it sounds amazing. Save those snails.
|
Remastering is a pretty broad term. Some remasters are actually remixes using the multitracks or stems from them. But in any case, it's down to the taste and equipment used by the mastering engineer. Even back in the analogue days there were quite substantial difference in sound between LPs depending on where they were mastered and cut. It was not uncommon for US and European records to be cut from different generations of mastertape. As well as generational issues other factor in remasterings is the fact that the mastertapes (assuming that the original master and not a copy of it is actually available). Tape deterioriation can apply to early digital recordings as well as analogue since the latter were tape based - DASH and VCR based systems like the PCM F1. However, for recordings that were originally mastered to digital from one inch 30ips Studer/Otari etc. analogue machines, there is the potential for remastering on modern ADC's to make a very substantial improvement in SQ.
|
@tylermunns
"ideally, communities like like this one can help music fans discern which releases are worth buying"
This is what the Steve Hoffman site is purportedly focused upon. However, what I've encountered over there is that participants fail to disclose their systems and so, discussions are focused entirely upon comparing one mastering to another, as though everyone is listening through the same system, in the same room, which doesn't make sense to me.
|
@elliottbnewcombjr RIAA is not part of the discussion. It’s been a standard for a long time and not a variable regarding the remastered vs. original. What I referred to was the the actual production process for making LP’s and the practice of making an eq’d Dub that LP’s in the past were often made from. I have no idea of the percentage of releases used these dubs, or if it was mostly on rock/pop recordings. Also for popular albums that sold well, multiple pressing plants were used in different regions of the country and world. Each of these plant’s received a dub to master from, which would be second or third generation or worse.
A new mastering today could more likely come from the master itself. In any instance it’s highly unlikely a new mastering would use the old technique of a specially eq’d vinyl dub that was meant to keep LP’s from skipping, etc. on mass market turntables/carts of the past.
|
@audioguy85
"I'm amazed how many 1950-1960's treasures I've found in the thrift stores. Nothing can compare to the sound of these old records. The engineers knew what they were doing back then, a lost art, gone forever....scoop up that old vinyl."
Yes, there must have been some very talented folk working on the production side back in those days.
Those records might be going cheap nowadays, but at the time they were quite expensive prestidge items. It's no exaggeration to say that some of them sound fabulous.
Especially many of those recorded with a string section. It was almost an art form in itself.
|
@cd318
"Those records might be going cheap nowadays, but at the time they were quite expensive prestidge items."
betterrecords.com is selling some of these records for hundreds of dollars...even on ebay the prices are sometimes crazy. I like it when I find some of these old records still in great shape in the thrift store for a buck. They are getting a bit harder to find In good shape, as a lot of them have been trashed. I’ll never understand how someone could have been so careless with some of these gems.
Just a few examples, got a NM Sheherazade Fritz Reiner RCA white dog pressing for 12 bucks on Discogs. Today, at local thrift store, I picked up a vg++ to NM copy of Capital records rainbow -mono- Carousel, with a young Shiley Jones, one dollar.
|
voodoolounge
Good thread. No doubt that there is a cash-grab aspect to this business. On the flipside, probably not a bad idea to have a modern back-up on file. I tend to collect 1st pressing CD and SACD discs. As above, some Remasters sound better while others do not. I do not mind a little tape hiss on those flat transfers from the 80's.
Yes, I do own many variations of the CD/SACD except MQA coded titles.
New is not always better.
Happy Listening!
|
Great question - I used to think along the same lines. There are legal reasons, however. It's a method for artists to get the ownership of their work back - if it is remastered, it counts as an original copyright. Otherwise all the music belongs to the record companies.
|
emaillists
this from your post is why I make my remarks about RIAA:
" the tapes used for the cutting were very often a copy with bass rolled of so the phono carts of the time could track it. New vinyl masters don’t require that since cartridges are better today"
that's just wrong, it was about 'long play'
|
I don't have a lot of re-masters or re-mixes (mostly Beatles) but I haven't heard one yet that I didn't like. I'm sure there are some out there.
I much prefer the Beatles in stereo. I know the stories about the mono vs. stereo mixes. For me, listening to something in mono when I could be hearing it in stereo is like watching a movie with one eye closed. YMMV.
|
i have a "remastering" of a 1957 recording, "a lovely afternoon" that sounds to my ears like it came off of a somewhat worn LP specimen copy. a disappointment considering that the original stereo master tape still exists somewhere [MCA studios?] in SoCal. OTOH, recent long-belated remasterings/reissues of selections from the stereo mix of the Phil Spector Christmas Album, are sonic revelations compared to the original mono release.
|
Remastering is done for three reasons.
- The first is to boost the highs to make them irritating.
- The second is to compress out all the dynamics to get a modern sound.
- The third is to sell more CDs. NEW! IMPROVED! BUY NOW!
|
Anyone hear the Stones DSD remastered vinyl? I haven't, and wonder why press a digital source to vinyl?
|
Re-Mastered recordings are Hit and Miss... much like Life itself. Many Original recordings are just fine as they were released and others sound way better with Modern reworking.
@voodoolounge , most music and recordings since 1995-2000 have been recorded in a digital format (as computers became ever increasingly affordable and adaptable). Pressing vinyl from a digital recording has been the Norm for 25 years. There are of course exceptions and they are usually noted on the reord itself. A great many Master Tapes from earlier recordings are also stored digitally and the Master Tapes are archived (and so never/rarely used for re-releases).
|
@audioguy85 You’re right.
There are bargains to be found but you need a bit of luck. A friend of mine picked up an original mono copy of Sgt Pepper for £5 at a charity shop. He also got a copy of the Beatles Oldies but Goldies for the same amount.
A few years back (pre-plandemic, 2017/8?) I managed to pick up a couple of Glen Campbell LPs for him that were part of a set for £1 each!
Even better, they were both in mint condition. I spent many, many hours browsing in record and comic shops/marts and I don’t regret any of them - but then came the internet...
Anyway, the best of luck in the future.
@mike_in_nc
Remastering is done for three reasons.
- The first is to boost the highs to make them irritating.
- The second is to compress out all the dynamics to get a modern sound.
- The third is to sell more CDs. NEW! IMPROVED! BUY NOW!
It’s all true!
Ok, not all remasters have irritating highs, but many do, and all are boosted.
Even worse, I have yet to hear ANY remaster that didn’t have some form of dynamic compression added, even if was just a hint.
Why oh why do they need to sound modern?
Oh hang on, your 3rd point explains it!
It might sound a bit cynical, but I should tell it like I see it.
I felt like a heretic when I compared the Steve Hoffman remastered Nat King Cole to the earlier Bear Family releases, and, shock horror, preferred some of the earlier transfers.
Steve did an excellent job on sourcing the original tapes no doubt, but even his ingenuity couldn’t quite replicate the famous Capitol Studios echo chamber.
https://www.acontinuouslean.com/2013/12/02/secret-capitol-studios-sound/
|
With two DAC's in place, a chip and an R2R, the A/B between is somewhat shocking. Remasters from Qobuz through Roon sound tuned for the chip DAC and when played through the R2R, the horror!
I keep the R2R in NOS mode and what is heard when 44.1 comes through is far more pleasing. My selections are now curated to the original 44.1 when I have the choice and wish the selection was available between the two when adding albums to my library.
|
