remastering

[BMXTRIX]

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

Remastering is an art, not a simple push-button process. There is a lot of technology available today which can get rid of noise in the background, which will clear up how notes sound.

It's also possible, that there may be segments of audio which just didn't sound good on the original, and they can be re-recorded and inserted into the mix as part of the remastering process. If they are working with original masters and multi-track recordings, then there will be a lot to work with and the ability to insert a new recording of drums or a guitar is fully possible.

For some remastered content, the goal would be to leave things as untouched as possible, but get rid of noise, and clean up the sound of vocals and instruments as much as possible without impacting anything else.
For OTHER remastered content, it may be close to a complete revamp of the sound. With new instruments, and potentially some new vocals put in. Levels may be adjusted significantly to make something stand out. This should generally be done due to listener feedback over the years, or artist feedback, or both.

Drawing a single line down the middle and saying "This is remastering, but that is not!" is incorrect. There are many ways to approach a remaster, and at times, any of them may be the best way of doing things.

 

[Dude#1279435]

It sounds like what you're saying then is the only way to make the notes more clear is by reducing background noise? The notes by themselves cannot be made improved?

My one gripe about digital today would be it's too clean or too professional sounding.

My guess is Steve Hoffman was more about adding things into his remasters.

 

[BMXTRIX]

It sounds like what you're saying then is the only way to make the notes more clear is by reducing background noise? The notes by themselves cannot be made improved?

I'm not saying that's the only way, I'm saying that is just part of the remastering process. Background hiss really isn't part of the noise of any instrument, so removing that creates audio that may be closer to the original intent. Once hiss is removed from all the tracks, then those tracks can be individually tweaked as desired. Instruments could be leveled differently. If the original recording didn't have enough dynamic range, or if it was recorded too quietly, the levels can be brought up and more dynamic range can be added within a remaster.

The entire product can move from the analog domain, into a purely digital domain, which gives the person (or group) handling the remaster a lot more flexibility.

If certain instruments were off, for whatever reason, that specific instrument could be completely redone and inserted brand new as appropriate.

I would say that removing noise, especially from analog originals, is absolutely one of the first steps in making things clearer, but that's background noise from the original recording tracks, not from the final mix. Which means the original must be mixed again, this time without the noise in it. If trying to keep things as close to the original as possible, but cleaner, then a lot must be done to ensure that the levels of all the tracks match the original as closely as possible. So, even a basic 'cleanup' would still be a lot of work.

 

[highfigh]

It sounds like what you're saying then is the only way to make the notes more clear is by reducing background noise? The notes by themselves cannot be made improved?

My one gripe about digital today would be it's too clean or too professional sounding.

My guess is Steve Hoffman was more about adding things into his remasters.

No, that's one way to make clarity better, but it's best if they have the multi-track tapes, rather than only the mono or stereo tapes. The multi-tracktapes also allow remixing for 5.1 (or more channels) because the multi-channel decoders at the time may only have been for Quadraphonic.

If you have heard the stereo version of 'Stop Making Sense', that was remixed in 5.1 by Jerry Harrison, who played keyboards and guitar in Talking Heads.

 

[fmw]

Remastering simply means mastering a recording that was mastered before. In either case it was accomplished to the preferences of the technician doing the job. not necessarily to your preferences or mine. There are no standards and I don't think there can be any standards since it is purely based on personal preference. It is what it is.

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.

 

[MrBoat]

Currently listening to Little River Band "Ultimate Hits" (Remastered 2022) and I must admit that it's pretty darned good. Also their "Masterpieces" (Remastered 2022) is also seemingly well done, at least as currently translated via amzon HD.

I know if I buy the CDs of these two mentioned above, that they would be as good or ever so slightly better at home. If I really think about it, I will be able to tell which (usually much older recordings) needed more work. Especially with a random greatest hits compilation over a broad time period on the same CD.

ETA: I did actually buy the Masterpieces CD a couple weeks ago. The era of recordings on that one were from some of their better recorded efforts, or better versions of older songs to start with.