What's wrong with remasters?

[jgstudios]

I'm noticing more albums I've listened to over the years are being remastered. I've also noticed negative comments about remastering on various online resources. Some of the stuff I've heard doesn't sound that bad to me. As one example, some old Rock, Jazz, Fusion Jazz and Prog Rock albums from the 70's lack bass. It sounds almost like it was an afterthought, or they put the bassist and bass drum in the back room. On some remasters, the bass has been brought out. To me it sounds more normal, like what I would hear at a concert. Maybe the singer doesn't like it that much, but I'm sure the bassist and drummer like the idea, and I think it sounds better. I like to hear everybody's chops. Also I've got a few old Fusion Jazz and Rock albums that sound pretty bad, poor recordings altogether. I hope someone remasters these someday, cleans them up and brings out more clarity and punch than the old recordings. I liken it (in some cases) to when an art conservator cleans up an old masterpiece, you finally get to see the original colors; what the artist originally intended. I'm curious why people dislike remasters so much?

 

[highfigh]

Want to name some of the remasters? Are these all LPs, or is it mixed between those and CDs?

Most speakers at the time sounded somewhat similar, if you compare those made in various regions- East Coast, West Coast, German, British, Scandanavian, Asian etc had a 'sound' that made them different. Japanese speakers often were referred to as 'boom/crash' because the midrange was lacking. Micro-Acoustics made speakers with almost no midrange at all, yet they made some nice-sounding cartridges.

That allowed studios to use the monitors of choice without people hearing a huge difference, especially when they used small ones to find out how it sounded through a car radio (if you don't think that was a consideration, look it up).

Fast forward to more recent times and the differences are glaring- many LPs that were very popular sound like absolute garbage.

BTW- unless someone was a huge star or also the producer, the mastering engineer (in name only), producer and engineer determine how it will sound and where people are located. Doesn't mean they knew/know what they're doing, though.

 

[killdozzer]

I'd like to chip in on this subject with two comments:



There are some very good explanations and info (on Audioholics) about how older material was prepared for vinyl (as a medium) and this preparation took the shortcomings of that medium into account and if you use that prepared material to print CD's, you'll get bad results. Furthermore, if the original master is lost (and this happened more often than one would think, because there was demand for the prepared material as it would save the time and effort for the publisher who wants to buy the rights),in these cases LP’s can really sound better than CD’s as CD's would need the original master to show what they can do.

My other comment is about sentiment, much the same way people like tubes. I heard this a thousand times over; people telling me that they don’t mind crackling, wow or flutter. They see them as genuine or “as it use to be when everything was better”. This type of crowd will bash almost all remasters no matter what. Even if you explain that medium shortcomings (crackling, wow & flutter) weren’t originally meant to be a part of the preformed material, that they just couldn’t be avoided and that even the artist would probably prefer his songs without these distortions, often they still stick to the original bluntly saying original is always better no matter what.

I really appreciate when the recording is done well, as good as possible and whenever a remaster manages to raise the quality I would immediately replace my old copy for the better one.

 

[slipperybidness]

A lot of remasters are simple money-grabbing.

A small few are done right.

 

[killdozzer]

As one example, some old Rock, Jazz, Fusion Jazz and Prog Rock albums from the 70's lack bass. It sounds almost like it was an afterthought, or they put the bassist and bass drum in the back room. On some remasters, the bass has been brought out.

In the link above Floyd talks about the bass as well. I forgot to mention this.

Here's a quote from the linked post:
It is a sad fact, as I was told by Phil Ramone - a renowned engineer - that it one of the great crimes of the audio industry that the music archives are full of LP cutting-master tapes not the original master tapes. So for a lot of our historical music we have lost the art that was created, and are left with manipulated, in effect predistorted, master tapes intended to be used to drive cutter heads on lathes making LPs. When CDs came along there were technical problems in the early days, but hidden, unmentioned, is the reality that a lot of the archival music that was put on CDs was inappropriate for CD playback - it could not sound as good as the original master tape because that was long gone. When one compares a master tape with what comes out of a modern CD player, or any of the wider bandwidth options, it is a struggle to hear any difference at all.

 

[highfigh]

In the link above Floyd talks about the bass as well. I forgot to mention this.

Here's a quote from the linked post:
It is a sad fact, as I was told by Phil Ramone - a renowned engineer - that it one of the great crimes of the audio industry that the music archives are full of LP cutting-master tapes not the original master tapes. So for a lot of our historical music we have lost the art that was created, and are left with manipulated, in effect predistorted, master tapes intended to be used to drive cutter heads on lathes making LPs. When CDs came along there were technical problems in the early days, but hidden, unmentioned, is the reality that a lot of the archival music that was put on CDs was inappropriate for CD playback - it could not sound as good as the original master tape because that was long gone. When one compares a master tape with what comes out of a modern CD player, or any of the wider bandwidth options, it is a struggle to hear any difference at all.

One of the reasons I have heard for the actual master tapes no longer existing is that they wanted to save money, so they erased and recorded over the original music. I find that pathetic. Others were lost to fires, plumbing problems, being tossed in the trash and bad storage.

To be sure, a lot of recordings came out of the '70s and '80s that really were bad. They could have been so much better but part of the cause was drug use. I know of one band that had a short-lived contract with Electra Records and one of the band members told me the producer had parties and bought coke, paid for with the money from the band's budget. They were really good, too. Somehow, a third party got the master tapes and remastered them to re-release them on CD. The original recording on LP , produced in SE Wisconsin at a decent studio, was very strange-sounding WRT the drums. It was anything but 'open-sounding', but the other instruments were OK. The remaster is much better and the drums don't sound the same, only similar. The original drum sounds weren't very good, unfortunately. If I were to describe the sound for the snare drum beats, it would be 'splut'.

 

[killdozzer]

One of the reasons I have heard for the actual master tapes no longer existing is that they wanted to save money, so they erased and recorded over the original music. I find that pathetic. Others were lost to fires, plumbing problems, being tossed in the trash and bad storage.

To be sure, a lot of recordings came out of the '70s and '80s that really were bad. They could have been so much better but part of the cause was drug use. I know of one band that had a short-lived contract with Electra Records and one of the band members told me the producer had parties and bought coke, paid for with the money from the band's budget. They were really good, too. Somehow, a third party got the master tapes and remastered them to re-release them on CD. The original recording on LP , produced in SE Wisconsin at a decent studio, was very strange-sounding WRT the drums. It was anything but 'open-sounding', but the other instruments were OK. The remaster is much better and the drums don't sound the same, only similar. The original drum sounds weren't very good, unfortunately. If I were to describe the sound for the snare drum beats, it would be 'splut'.

Interesting story although still anecdotal. It all boils down to lack of care for the original master; if someone's idea for saving money was to overwrite the original master and not the one prepped for cutting, it goes to show the different appreciation those two masters had.

I don't doubt cases like you've described were real, but whatever the specific destiny of some of those original masters was it only goes to show that back in the day when people were operating under the impression that LP's are all that, the choices of what to archive and what to overwrite were wrong. The prepped material was considered the end product and the original master was considered a step on the way.

 

[highfigh]

Interesting story although still anecdotal. It all boils down to lack of care for the original master; if someone's idea for saving money was to overwrite the original master and not the one prepped for cutting, it goes to show the different appreciation those two masters had.

I don't doubt cases like you've described were real, but whatever the specific destiny of some of those original masters was it only goes to show that back in the day when people were operating under the impression that LP's are all that, the choices of what to archive and what to overwrite were wrong. The prepped material was considered the end product and the original master was considered a step on the way.

Ideally, the tape(s) used for the original tracking exist(ed). That way, a new master that's dedicated for any new format could be made and they weren't stuck with only a two-channel master for LP when CDs came around. The bands that had control over their music and more forward-thinking kept theirs. Talking Heads did 'Stop Making Sense' in 1984 and when it was remastered years later, it earned Jerry Harrison awards for the 5.1 remix, which would have been impossible without the basic tracks.

 

[Ponzio]

I'm noticing more albums I've listened to over the years are being remastered. I've also noticed negative comments about remastering on various online resources. Some of the stuff I've heard doesn't sound that bad to me. As one example, some old Rock, Jazz, Fusion Jazz and Prog Rock albums from the 70's lack bass. It sounds almost like it was an afterthought, or they put the bassist and bass drum in the back room. On some remasters, the bass has been brought out. To me it sounds more normal, like what I would hear at a concert. Maybe the singer doesn't like it that much, but I'm sure the bassist and drummer like the idea, and I think it sounds better. I like to hear everybody's chops. Also I've got a few old Fusion Jazz and Rock albums that sound pretty bad, poor recordings altogether. I hope someone remasters these someday, cleans them up and brings out more clarity and punch than the old recordings. I liken it (in some cases) to when an art conservator cleans up an old masterpiece, you finally get to see the original colors; what the artist originally intended. I'm curious why people dislike remasters so much?

Well first of all you will always have the "purists" among us who state that anything less than a straight transfer from mater tape to CD without any remixing/remastering is an abomination.

I am not one of those folks. Remastering done correctly without gobs of compression is a beautiful thing.

 

[highfigh]

Well first of all you will always have the "purists" among us who state that anything less than a straight transfer from mater tape to CD without any remixing/remastering is an abomination.

I am not one of those folks. Remastering done correctly without gobs of compression is a beautiful thing.

Good luck finding that. The average headroom on a CD is a lot lower than what was on the better LPs.

https://www.audioholics.com/editorials/the-dumbing-down-of-audio

 

[Ponzio]

Good luck finding that. The average headroom on a CD is a lot lower than what was on the better LPs.

https://www.audioholics.com/editorials/the-dumbing-down-of-audio

No doubt sins have been committed ... I'm thinkin' of the 2009 Japanese remasters of the New York Dolls album series; ear bleeding ... but .. there's always a but, right? ... on the whole I think they've done yeoman's work on restoring the magic on some of the original masters ... check out the 2009 Beatles or Bowie's 1999 Japanese/European remasters. Jaw dropping good with plenty of headroom to spare.

Not all mind you but enough to keep me in the recycling chain. Call me impressed overall.

 

[Ponzio]

A must read if you're a music collector. Make sure to have some Tums nearby.
The Day the Music Burned

 

[MR.MAGOO]

Remastering can preserve / improve damaged media. In the case of the 1939-1946 Universal / Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies, they were at risk of being lost forever when the nitrate film masters began to deteriorate over time, until the UCLA film school remastered them from 16 & 35mm stock assembled from Britain, France, and USA sources.

 

[highfigh]

Well first of all you will always have the "purists" among us who state that anything less than a straight transfer from mater tape to CD without any remixing/remastering is an abomination.

I am not one of those folks. Remastering done correctly without gobs of compression is a beautiful thing.

What if the original master sucked? I was never impressed by the sound of most Genesis albums, but Steven Wilson did some nice work on them.

 

[Ponzio]

What if the original master sucked? I was never impressed by the sound of most Genesis albums, but Steven Wilson did some nice work on them.

Exactly. That's why for me, the more the merrier. Remasters, remixes that is.