Numerous well-known professional mastering engineers that are well aware of the whole "Loudness War" issue stated that they are asked to do this either by the artist or by the record company. Or they supply several mastering versions with different levels of limiting, and almost always the most squashed gets chosen.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
"Remastered" Recordings - Marketing Gimmick?
- Thread starter Altitude
- Start date
One thing you have to keep in mind:
The source will always be the same.
If you have a perfect master tape, you can, in theory, yield a dynamic range of a bit under 80dB.
An LP has less than that, so a remaster from LP to CD (which has a dynamic range of 96dB) can yield a better result - at least in theory.
I'm not taking in account what gets lost during recording with microphones and what gets lost when you're dubbing the recording tapes to create the master tape. I'm talking about the perfect master tape.
But with CD, the quality of the medium surpasses the quality of the master tape.
So each time when you crack open the safe because a newer, higher resolution medium comes out and you re-master the tape source to that medium, you're basically selling snake oil.
At some point, people switched to digital.
You can easily convert a 16bit, 24kHz file to a 24bit 96kHz file on the priciest and best hardware known to mankind and you will get a shiny new version that takes up a lot more megabytes on the drive.
It will not sound any different, though.
The whole process only makes sense when the medium the original record is stored on has a higher quality than the medium it came out on for the masses.
The source will always be the same.
If you have a perfect master tape, you can, in theory, yield a dynamic range of a bit under 80dB.
An LP has less than that, so a remaster from LP to CD (which has a dynamic range of 96dB) can yield a better result - at least in theory.
I'm not taking in account what gets lost during recording with microphones and what gets lost when you're dubbing the recording tapes to create the master tape. I'm talking about the perfect master tape.
But with CD, the quality of the medium surpasses the quality of the master tape.
So each time when you crack open the safe because a newer, higher resolution medium comes out and you re-master the tape source to that medium, you're basically selling snake oil.
At some point, people switched to digital.
You can easily convert a 16bit, 24kHz file to a 24bit 96kHz file on the priciest and best hardware known to mankind and you will get a shiny new version that takes up a lot more megabytes on the drive.
It will not sound any different, though.
The whole process only makes sense when the medium the original record is stored on has a higher quality than the medium it came out on for the masses.
There are periods of fads/gimmicks in the music markets. Like adding sideband compression to favor the bass drum. Or vocals need to be the loudest so everybody can sing along. etc. A lot of this is pushed by the labels and not the artists.
In any case I think a good re-master to forget the current fad/trends and do what the original artists intended is a good deal. Listen to the half minute takes the streaming services let you hear and decide for yourself if you like the remaster. Wait 5 years, and new one will be out.
In any case I think a good re-master to forget the current fad/trends and do what the original artists intended is a good deal. Listen to the half minute takes the streaming services let you hear and decide for yourself if you like the remaster. Wait 5 years, and new one will be out.
Dynamics in music is lost on the modern audience. When something is being broadcast by most FM stations, they further compress the spit out of it. When you are listening through earbuds, it doesn't matter. That may be one reason I don't listen to any top 40. Regardless of the song, it just sounds crappy to me. If they are remastering to these same new standards, you get their desired results.
Unless the technology originally used to mix and master was far inferior to what is available today. For example, in a recent interview Brian May talked about how pitiful the mixing board was that was used to mix their first two albums. Later when the Queen catalog was moved to Hollywood records, they took the original mix (not master) tapes and remixed and remastered those tracks. While this didn't help what was originally recorded, it did result in a better-sounding mix.
Wilson also remixed one of my favorite albums of all time, Caravan's In The Land of Grey and Pink, for 5.1 systems and a new stereo mix. The box also comes with the original mix.
And... Something was lost in the remixes. They sound so much more sterile, and the bass is lower in the mix. Going 5.1 is barely noticeable, bit that's understandable. Would pop in the original mix any day of the week though.
With respect, there appears to be a number of differing processes conflated within the context of this thread.
Perhaps its sign of progressive, well-developed ongoing conversation. Something society in general would greatly benefit from.
The real point about the majority of re-masters, the reason they were introduced in the first place, is because of ongoing technological development in users listening habits.
When recordings were first mastered, although their level was maximised at that stage (mastering is the stage between the recording studio and record plants mass duplication), it was commonplace for there still to be a good amount of headroom in the master.
Further maximisation could result in needles on playback arms skipping. So, the playback medium dictated a need for headroom that allowed natural dynamics to be present. That resulted in excellent recordings that fell on the ear in an entirely natural manner, as dynamics are a natural element of musical sound waves.
Consumers would put an album on the turntable and utilise the volume control on their audio system, to control the level of playback to their taste.
On many of today’s audio playback devices, digital tracks are a highly customised mix. The singular preferences of one individual, often shuffled on a revolving carousel. Not the choice of an artist or producer.
Therefore, different artists, different studios, different mastering engineers, different musical genres, side by side, back to back. Often their levels are normalised to make them more even in volume level from track to track.
To the average human ear, louder sounds better. Thus, in the highly competitive recording field, a record company, knowing its recordings will often sit alongside other company’s recordings and be directly comparable. Remaster their back catalogues of older recordings to ensure their levels remain fashionably competitive and don’t sound wimpy by comparison.
There are other reasons why some recordings are re-mastered, one is because when digital recordings first appeared, it was a novel, immature technology, in the same way that the earliest analogue recordings once were, with their wax cylinders, trumpet horn speakers and needles one could use only once.
Therefore, as digital recording technologies matured, some artists elected to re-record and re-master their catalogue for posterity. As artists always want to sound their best, and also because they want their recordings to sound good competitively, as previously explained.
Kate Bush’s re-recorded (to analogue tape) and re-mastered back catalogue would be one example.
Re-recording can present many, many challenges and certainly did so for Kate. Keys were changed in certain instances.
However, re-mastering can also present challenges of its own. For instance, one day I had a phone call from a mastering engineer in New York.
He had been given the job of re-mastering the entire catalogue for “The Rolling Stone’s Anthology”. Unfortunately for him, certain of their early recordings had been taped, on a three-track machine.
Many of you will be unfamiliar with that format, so I should explain that early two track stereo recordings were extremely ping pong, to coin a phrase. The sound was good to the left or right, but these recordings, lacked a strong central image.
Ultimately, this problem was overcome with advancing electronic design incorporated into Large Format Recording Consoles, and pan controls appeared. But in the interim, three track machines were developed, so there could be a left and right track, with the third track greatly strengthening the central image.
The problem is today, three track machine are extremely rare indeed. Even if one could locate such a machine, the chances that it would be fully serviced, in good working order, able to be utilised to playback the original master tapes is highly doubtful. The rubber wheels wear which the tapes pass through and disintegrate over time etc.et al.
The Mastering Engineer was given to understand, I could be likely to possess such a machine, thus I was contacted by him.
The salient point is, technologies change.
All too often record companies and recording studios alike sell or throw away their outgoing technologies, dispensing with them completely.
A small number, keep everything and maintain everything, but that presents ongoing costs and valuable storage space; so very few, usually, only the very best of the best, are thus inclined and can afford to.
In addition, record companies tend to see their huge back catalogues as a wonderful cash cow. No artist to pay or composers royalties, its money for old rope. Re-mastering? Engineers have regularly suffered from ridiculously low budgets, so have developed cost effective methods to approach these tasks, to remain commercially viable.
Thus, the traditional time and effort that would go in mastering, tends to be reserved for the most commercially successful artists. Or those with a following that possess remarkably acute, aural sensibilities. Along with the ludicrously high-priced, designer playback systems, necessary to deliver the sonic delights, they are normally accustomed to.
Others may have re-masters derived from all sorts of less than ideal sources, dependant upon the unrealistically low budget the Engineer was presented with.
Various hardware and software solutions exist today, that facilitate the effective cleaning up of the disadvantages, such deplorable situations always will present.
But it explains why there is a great disparity in the quality of various re-masters, some being great, others appallingly bad, and many of course, lying somewhere in-between.
Finally, when 5.1 technologies were first introduced, a much admired, dear colleague, sadly no longer with us, had the foresight just in case the system became popular and for posterities sake; to create 5.1 mixes of whatever recording he had just mixed for stereo reproduction.
Few had his foresight, or indeed his great talent, and thus as with previous bouts of re-mastering, less than ideal, but efficiently workable methods of re-mastering for a new format, can come into play. Dolby ATMOS will involve further re-mastering of back catalogues in a similar fashion.
Perhaps its sign of progressive, well-developed ongoing conversation. Something society in general would greatly benefit from.
The real point about the majority of re-masters, the reason they were introduced in the first place, is because of ongoing technological development in users listening habits.
When recordings were first mastered, although their level was maximised at that stage (mastering is the stage between the recording studio and record plants mass duplication), it was commonplace for there still to be a good amount of headroom in the master.
Further maximisation could result in needles on playback arms skipping. So, the playback medium dictated a need for headroom that allowed natural dynamics to be present. That resulted in excellent recordings that fell on the ear in an entirely natural manner, as dynamics are a natural element of musical sound waves.
Consumers would put an album on the turntable and utilise the volume control on their audio system, to control the level of playback to their taste.
On many of today’s audio playback devices, digital tracks are a highly customised mix. The singular preferences of one individual, often shuffled on a revolving carousel. Not the choice of an artist or producer.
Therefore, different artists, different studios, different mastering engineers, different musical genres, side by side, back to back. Often their levels are normalised to make them more even in volume level from track to track.
To the average human ear, louder sounds better. Thus, in the highly competitive recording field, a record company, knowing its recordings will often sit alongside other company’s recordings and be directly comparable. Remaster their back catalogues of older recordings to ensure their levels remain fashionably competitive and don’t sound wimpy by comparison.
There are other reasons why some recordings are re-mastered, one is because when digital recordings first appeared, it was a novel, immature technology, in the same way that the earliest analogue recordings once were, with their wax cylinders, trumpet horn speakers and needles one could use only once.
Therefore, as digital recording technologies matured, some artists elected to re-record and re-master their catalogue for posterity. As artists always want to sound their best, and also because they want their recordings to sound good competitively, as previously explained.
Kate Bush’s re-recorded (to analogue tape) and re-mastered back catalogue would be one example.
Re-recording can present many, many challenges and certainly did so for Kate. Keys were changed in certain instances.
However, re-mastering can also present challenges of its own. For instance, one day I had a phone call from a mastering engineer in New York.
He had been given the job of re-mastering the entire catalogue for “The Rolling Stone’s Anthology”. Unfortunately for him, certain of their early recordings had been taped, on a three-track machine.
Many of you will be unfamiliar with that format, so I should explain that early two track stereo recordings were extremely ping pong, to coin a phrase. The sound was good to the left or right, but these recordings, lacked a strong central image.
Ultimately, this problem was overcome with advancing electronic design incorporated into Large Format Recording Consoles, and pan controls appeared. But in the interim, three track machines were developed, so there could be a left and right track, with the third track greatly strengthening the central image.
The problem is today, three track machine are extremely rare indeed. Even if one could locate such a machine, the chances that it would be fully serviced, in good working order, able to be utilised to playback the original master tapes is highly doubtful. The rubber wheels wear which the tapes pass through and disintegrate over time etc.et al.
The Mastering Engineer was given to understand, I could be likely to possess such a machine, thus I was contacted by him.
The salient point is, technologies change.
All too often record companies and recording studios alike sell or throw away their outgoing technologies, dispensing with them completely.
A small number, keep everything and maintain everything, but that presents ongoing costs and valuable storage space; so very few, usually, only the very best of the best, are thus inclined and can afford to.
In addition, record companies tend to see their huge back catalogues as a wonderful cash cow. No artist to pay or composers royalties, its money for old rope. Re-mastering? Engineers have regularly suffered from ridiculously low budgets, so have developed cost effective methods to approach these tasks, to remain commercially viable.
Thus, the traditional time and effort that would go in mastering, tends to be reserved for the most commercially successful artists. Or those with a following that possess remarkably acute, aural sensibilities. Along with the ludicrously high-priced, designer playback systems, necessary to deliver the sonic delights, they are normally accustomed to.
Others may have re-masters derived from all sorts of less than ideal sources, dependant upon the unrealistically low budget the Engineer was presented with.
Various hardware and software solutions exist today, that facilitate the effective cleaning up of the disadvantages, such deplorable situations always will present.
But it explains why there is a great disparity in the quality of various re-masters, some being great, others appallingly bad, and many of course, lying somewhere in-between.
Finally, when 5.1 technologies were first introduced, a much admired, dear colleague, sadly no longer with us, had the foresight just in case the system became popular and for posterities sake; to create 5.1 mixes of whatever recording he had just mixed for stereo reproduction.
Few had his foresight, or indeed his great talent, and thus as with previous bouts of re-mastering, less than ideal, but efficiently workable methods of re-mastering for a new format, can come into play. Dolby ATMOS will involve further re-mastering of back catalogues in a similar fashion.
Anybody with tape or other analog media should get it transferred to digital.
Digital doesn't age or wear out.
Digital doesn't age or wear out.
For me: Gentle Giant albums by Steven Wilson, great. As for Chicago II, I don’t know as I don’t have the vinyl…
The Beatles by Giles Martin: so accustomed to my old vinyls that I find the new ones lifeless, sorry! I don’t like the way they messed the hard panned faux-stereo neither
One album that I really like that sounds bad and muffled I would like to be revisited: Selling England by the Pound by Genesis. I have three vinyl pressings and they sound equally awful!
The Beatles by Giles Martin: so accustomed to my old vinyls that I find the new ones lifeless, sorry! I don’t like the way they messed the hard panned faux-stereo neither
One album that I really like that sounds bad and muffled I would like to be revisited: Selling England by the Pound by Genesis. I have three vinyl pressings and they sound equally awful!
I agree with part of this.
It's a great idea to transfer analog copies to a digital format, simply to have redundant backup copies that can be digitally recopied without any degradation.
But digital files are only as robust as the medium they're copied to. Almost all early digital music was recorded onto tape, but in a digital format. Those tapes are subject to loss from noise and deterioration the same as analog tape.
Hard drives suffer from errors as well as deterioration. They're particularly vulnerable to "burst errors" which happens when a bad spot develops on a hard drive, due to dust, for example.
Now, with solid state drives no one knows how robust the sound files may be. But SSDs do fail. There's no way I'd trust a SSD or SD card to accurately preserve digital music more than a few years, much less decades.
I have a home RAID array.
Still I Backup to the cloud. It is cheap redundant storage for things I need to access less often. Or when I need to access it on the road.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Post a funnier picture than the one above - Parallel Universe Edition
- Latest: BassicJazzy
-
-
