remastering

[Dude#1279435]

What makes a remaster sufficient to say it's an improvement? How would you even know? Is there an industry standard with a criteria for it?

Also I've heard 90s albums as kind of this go-to by some. What did they do that made their mastering special?

I ask because I wonder if it's a word thrown out there to increase prices.

 

[BMXTRIX]

What makes a remaster sufficient to say it's an improvement? How would you even know? Is there an industry standard with a criteria for it?

Also I've heard 90s albums as kind of this go-to by some. What did they do that made their mastering special?

I ask because I wonder if it's a word thrown out there to increase prices.

The remastering process is audio magic. Some remasters are considered to be amazing, and some are considered to be garbage. Remastering is a term used for when an original recording master, is digitized and the audio is cleaned up. This can remove noise from the background, it can help level the audio out some tracks, it can bring up or down certain vocals or instruments, etc. The process of simply digitizing the original analog audio, then releasing everything again is simple enough to call it remastered. But, typically more is done to try to improve upon the original release.

Keep in mind that many older releases were recorded onto tape. Analog. So, they are degrading. At some point, many of these have been put into the digital domain, so they no longer degrade, but they may still have some issues with noise and levels that can be corrected.

The quality of a remaster is entirely subjective. Kind of like those who listen to vinyl because they like the way it sounds... whatever that means. Some people will love a remaster, some will not. There is no 'right' answer on this. It's kind of like a Director's Cut of a movie. Maybe it is better than the theatrical release, maybe it is worse. But, that's as much opinion as it is fact.

 

[MrBoat]

The remastering process is audio magic. Some remasters are considered to be amazing, and some are considered to be garbage. Remastering is a term used for when an original recording master, is digitized and the audio is cleaned up. This can remove noise from the background, it can help level the audio out some tracks, it can bring up or down certain vocals or instruments, etc. The process of simply digitizing the original analog audio, then releasing everything again is simple enough to call it remastered. But, typically more is done to try to improve upon the original release.

Keep in mind that many older releases were recorded onto tape. Analog. So, they are degrading. At some point, many of these have been put into the digital domain, so they no longer degrade, but they may still have some issues with noise and levels that can be corrected.

The quality of a remaster is entirely subjective. Kind of like those who listen to vinyl because they like the way it sounds... whatever that means. Some people will love a remaster, some will not. There is no 'right' answer on this. It's kind of like a Director's Cut of a movie. Maybe it is better than the theatrical release, maybe it is worse. But, that's as much opinion as it is fact.

Seems like they are getting better at it, though. At first it could sound like they were recovering the original from a disaster and that they were lucky to save it so we should be happy with what we got, kind of thing. I have both of some CDs and vinyl. With the vinyl, I haven't liked the remasters as much as the originals. CDs have been okay, but I wouldn't call any of them a noticeable improvement.

 

[highfigh]

Seems like they are getting better at it, though. At first it could sound like they were recovering the original from a disaster and that they were lucky to save it so we should be happy with what we got, kind of thing. I have both of some CDs and vinyl. With the vinyl, I haven't liked the remasters as much as the originals. CDs have been okay, but I wouldn't call any of them a noticeable improvement.

Listen to remasters of older Genesis LPS by Steven Wilson on YouTube- you won't be able to say there's no noticeable improvement. The original mastering was terrible, IMO and the remasters are much better.

 

[j_garcia]

Occasionally, they may re-record portions of the track, such as the vocals and the remaster includes the new version. While it often has better recording / sound quality, it doesn't always mean it is a better version of the song.

Also, sometimes it is along the lines of what BMX said, they are going back to the original tapes (or digital as it may be) and applying new techniques/equipment/software that didn't exist at the time to those masters and they are able to produce a better, cleaner result.

 

[MrBoat]

Listen to remasters of older Genesis LPS by Steven Wilson on YouTube- you won't be able to say there's no noticeable improvement. The original mastering was terrible, IMO and the remasters are much better.

With remasters it often ends up sounding like a repair over an improvement. I am sure there are plenty examples of those done well, but I am still pretty much living on my original CDs and vinyl. Everything new I have is newer, non-remastered CDs. A few I have replaced were known to be good to start with.

I think the remaster thing with new-old releases, is more because the modern equipment is digital, and it has to be remastered to work with that.

 

[highfigh]

With remasters it often ends up sounding like a repair over an improvement. I am sure there are plenty examples of those done well, but I am still pretty much living on my original CDs and vinyl. Everything new I have is newer, non-remastered CDs. A few I have replaced were known to be good to start with.

I think the remaster thing with new-old releases, is more because the modern equipment is digital, and it has to be remastered to work with that.

Old LP masters should have been re-jiggered in the first place- that's the reason people said the first CDs sounded bad and it's because the LP master is made to sound as good as it can from an LP and the inner part of the groove can't match the outer part because the linear velocity is so much lower. CDs start at 500RPM and gradually drop to 215 RPM (IIRC) and since it uses a digital format, that doesn't matter- it changes so the linear velocity is constant.

 

[lovinthehd]

I'm not likely to buy an album simply because it has been remastered, unless that's been into multich (like so many Steven Wilson remixes have been). I have had some pretty good experiences otoh. Can't think of one either 2ch or multich offhand that seemed worse particularly, either. In the end it's about whether it brings something to you that's positive if comparing to some other master (or media).

 

[MrBoat]

I'm not likely to buy an album simply because it has been remastered, unless that's been into multich (like so many Steven Wilson remixes have been). I have had some pretty good experiences otoh. Can't think of one either 2ch or multich offhand that seemed worse particularly, either. In the end it's about whether it brings something to you that's positive if comparing to some other master (or media).

I kind of wish they just didn't say. I mean everything has been mastered to start with. Who's to say which is the most true to form? I was ok not thinking about it. I tend to ignore it now after being used to seeing it. I can usually find originals if it mattered that much and sometimes I just do by not really trying, while shopping the used record store. The internet is what made me question it. Now I know not to go there for things that are not broken.

 

[highfigh]

I kind of wish they just didn't say. I mean everything has been mastered to start with. Who's to say which is the most true to form? I was ok not thinking about it. I tend to ignore it now after being used to seeing it. I can usually find originals if it mattered that much and sometimes I just do by not really trying, while shopping the used record store. The internet is what made me question it. Now I know not to go there for things that are not broken.

The master or, more correctly, the end product (LP, tale, digital disc of some kind) is a product and as such, it will be whatever the artist/producer/engineer(s) make it. I don't think 'correct' exists. Does that mean, 'capture the exact sound that was present in the room where the instrument or amp was mic'd'? Does it mean 'exactly the way it sounded on the bed tracks'? The first master may sound like crap (like most old Genesis) but whatever is on the multitrack tapes may have been able to be used for better sounding master if the equipment (specifically speakers, but whoever made the sonic decisions may have been a real tool) used for mastering was poor quality.

Mastering engineers can be worth their weight in gold- a bad one shouldn't have a long career unless they learn to do it properly, but the ones who are known by people outside of the music business have usually done something far better than the average.

 

[lovinthehd]

I kind of wish they just didn't say. I mean everything has been mastered to start with. Who's to say which is the most true to form? I was ok not thinking about it. I tend to ignore it now after being used to seeing it. I can usually find originals if it mattered that much and sometimes I just do by not really trying, while shopping the used record store. The internet is what made me question it. Now I know not to go there for things that are not broken.

It would be nice if it came with details as to just what the remastering entailed and who did it, etc....but could well be in the literature included with the cd but these days better to research before purchase?

 

[MrBoat]

The master or, more correctly, the end product (LP, tale, digital disc of some kind) is a product and as such, it will be whatever the artist/producer/engineer(s) make it. I don't think 'correct' exists. Does that mean, 'capture the exact sound that was present in the room where the instrument or amp was mic'd'? Does it mean 'exactly the way it sounded on the bed tracks'? The first master may sound like crap (like most old Genesis) but whatever is on the multitrack tapes may have been able to be used for better sounding master if the equipment (specifically speakers, but whoever made the sonic decisions may have been a real tool) used for mastering was poor quality.

Mastering engineers can be worth their weight in gold- a bad one shouldn't have a long career unless they learn to do it properly, but the ones who are known by people outside of the music business have usually done something far better than the average.

Many of us grew up EQ'ng the music, instead of the system. It's often hard to get that point across these days without screaming it in techies ears. . . we're not trying to EQ your ruler flat speakers, dammit. It's these crappy recordings that they are revealing more than ever.

 

[lovinthehd]

Running eq can be construed to be room or speaker or music, end results are end results. I used a graphic eq back in the day, as well as a dbx expander for much vinyl, particularly at lower listening levels. IMO the bass guys and some of the drummers simply got shortchanged by the "stars" up front

 

[isolar8001]

Many discussions on this forum concerning remasters...which ones are good, which ones arent.

Music Corner

The place to discuss music! Be it your favorite recordings, the mastering work of SH, or anything else related to music, this is the place to be.

forums.stevehoffman.tv

 

[isolar8001]

Running eq can be construed to be room or speaker or music, end results are end results. I used a graphic eq back in the day, as well as a dbx expander for much vinyl, particularly at lower listening levels. IMO the bass guys and some of the drummers simply got shortchanged by the "stars" up front

When I'm going through my music drive and come to some 70's and 80's stuff, I sometimes say to myself "Wait...did my subs just die ?"
That's OK...I just take those files into Foobar and bass boost them up a bit. A lot of that material had the low bass neutered to be more compatible with vinyl.

I had one of those Pioneer Dynamic Range Expanders eons ago...miss that thing.

 

[lovinthehd]

When I'm going through my music drive and come to some 70's and 80's stuff, I sometimes say to myself "Wait...did my subs just die ?"
That's OK...I just take those files into Foobar and bass boost them up a bit. A lot of that material had the low bass neutered to be more compatible with vinyl.

I had one of those Pioneer Dynamic Range Expanders eons ago...miss that thing.

It more reminds me of a friend of mine who is a musician about doing multiple acts at a club with a single stage setup, as to how often the low guy on the totem pole isn't going to sway the setup a whole lot compared to the headliner....and think the star system and the producers promoting the stars somewhat do the same thing to all that's what's going on....while I love lead singers and guitarists, I like the rest of the guys as much and just don't find mixes vs live performances offer the same balance/power....

 

[highfigh]

Many of us grew up EQ'ng the music, instead of the system. It's often hard to get that point across these days without screaming it in techies ears. . . we're not trying to EQ your ruler flat speakers, dammit. It's these crappy recordings that they are revealing more than ever.

And that was a failure by the people who sold the equalizers, although they probably ended up selling a lot of raw speaker drivers. Without understanding the reason for equalizers and the limits for setting them, the amplifiers from that time could never hope to keep up and the distortion cost a lot of people a lot of money. This really costs bar owners- someone ALWAYS "knows how it should be set", so they jacked the high & low end to make a happy face, then the staff cranked the volume at the end of the night, but NOBODY knew how the speakers blew out. I cover the equalizer after I'm done so people A (can't see that one is there and B) so they can't mess with it.

I went to see a band and the sound guy was struggling to get "his sound". He would fiddle with the controls on the mixer, walk into the area where the people would be sitting, listen, go back and screw it up in new and different ways. I asked if he had ever used an RTA and he smugly said (as they usually do) "I use my ears". I then asked, "Again, have you ever used an RTA?". Sounded like dog crap but at least he didn't mess with the 33 band 1/3 octave equalizers that were in the rack FOR THE ROOM.

I saw graffiti in the restroom a bit later and told him about it- on the wall, someone had written 'E=MC²±3dB' and he said "I have no idea what that means".

 

[highfigh]

It more reminds me of a friend of mine who is a musician about doing multiple acts at a club with a single stage setup, as to how often the low guy on the totem pole isn't going to sway the setup a whole lot compared to the headliner....and think the star system and the producers promoting the stars somewhat do the same thing to all that's what's going on....while I love lead singers and guitarists, I like the rest of the guys as much and just don't find mixes vs live performances offer the same balance/power....

Live sound PAs in small places exist so the rest of the band can keep up with the loudness of the drummer and then, even in a small place, some drummers want to mic their drums. Right- that will definitely help......

Drummer jokes exist for a reason- they're usually true.

Q- How do you get the drummer to leave your porch?
A- Pay them for the Pizza

 

[Dude#1279435]

Does the remastering make the notes more clear, clean up the background noise, or both?

 

[highfigh]

Does the remastering make the notes more clear, clean up the background noise, or both?

Depends on the tapes used and the skills of whoever is doing the remaster. Many are more clear, but I really haven't gone down that rabbit hole. The old remasters definitely were a step up from the original LPs, but now, we can have remastered CD as well. The background noise can be decreased too, but they need to make sure the effect doesn't intrude into the music.