Are There Any Good Remasters?

[levimax]

There is also the issue that the dynamics and EQ settings were not automated on those consoles. They still relied on engineers marking their settings by hand on template sheets for each track. I wonder how many of those were archived with the multi-tracks?

I'd really love to get some insight into how Steven Wilson makes his decisions. Is it all by ear? If so, then much respect!

A lot of what the famous mastering engineers did was purposely undocumented for trade secret / job security reasons. One of the biggest appeals of "original pressings / first pressings" is that a skilled mastering engineer like Robert Ludwig worked with the artists to tweak the master tape recording to "sound better" as well as adapt it to the limitations of vinyl. Even later versions of the same vinyl record can sound different as after the original stampers wore out the replacement stampers were mastered by someone else. Going back to tapes with cryptic notes decades later to transfer to CD's it is not surprising that they often sound different.... which is not to say that they don't sound closer to what is on the master tape. Personally I usually like to hear what the original sounded like even if not perfect.... it's not like the remasters are perfect either.

Here is an interesting story about Steven Wilson's approach https://www.soundonsound.com/people/steven-wilson-remixing-classic-albums

 

[Mnyb]

It’s probably true about the deteriorating master tapes ?

Would not a first gen digital transfer from the 80’s or 90’s be a good starting point if the sounds only needs some better balance. ie a original master tweaked for vinyl that sounds weird on digital media ?

Or did anyone actually had the intelligence to start to transfer to hirez digital or better digitised the multitrack back in the days “just in case”.

Any record company executive that had that much foresight to realise that perpetual remastering and transfer to new media format is a goldmine . And send the minions to the vaults to digitise everything before it rotted away ?

I think SR ( Swedish public service radio ) had a long running project to digitise everything they had in their archive especially old formats where even functional playback equipment is scarce

 

[valerianf]

"Or did anyone actually had the intelligence to start to transfer to hirez digital or better digitised the multitrack back in the days “just in case”.
Apart with the originals from the Capital Records warehouse that burned a few years ago, Amazon Music is digitizing all the old records, sometime adding a re-mastering.

 

[Pluto]

I think SR ( Swedish public service radio ) had a long running project to digitise everything they had in their archive

In general, public service broadcasters have taken a serious view of the notion that the archive is public property that should be preserved for the benefit of future generations.

Record company execs see little further than their next bonus cheque.

 

[Pluto]

send the minions to the vaults to digitise everything before it rotted away

Record companies, usually, have very little in the way of in-house technical resources so the practice, typical within state broadcasters, of getting the elves to work on archiving, when they have no more urgent work, simply does not happen.

For record companies, archiving has to be justified along with every other financial outgoing. It can be tricky to defend a thousand dollar spend on archiving your latest flop merely on a hunch that it might be interesting to some possible future buyers.

 

[Mnyb]

Yes during production you don't have hindsight it's just another rock song , you cant know that's its going to be a cultural icon 50 years later.
And early on music industry was even worse .
Many early records was pressed in required quantities for a batch in the record stores and a lowly paid artist and there is not even master that's rotting away to begin with .

Just like todays youtube video's are regarded as disposable entertainment for today not something someone is going to enjoy decades later . That is pure serendipity of it becommes a classic staple .
Yesterdays singles was pretty much the same consume it now then forget about it

 

[SIY]

What's the mechanism by which this happens according to Nichols? And has it been measured?

Honest questions btw - I don't know much about tape.

Don't know about Nichols, but this is a very well-known phenomenon. The drivers include fields from vicinal domains and thermal effects.

Second the various recommendations of the Steven Wilson remixes. I have those for the first three (and best!) Jethro Tull albums and a couple of Gentle Giant albums. These are ridiculously better than the originals since the limitations of tape mastering and analog record production are no longer constraints.

 

[pma]

A lot of what the famous mastering engineers did was purposely undocumented for trade secret / job security reasons. One of the biggest appeals of "original pressings / first pressings" is that a skilled mastering engineer like Robert Ludwig worked with the artists to tweak the master tape recording to "sound better" as well as adapt it to the limitations of vinyl. Even later versions of the same vinyl record can sound different as after the original stampers wore out the replacement stampers were mastered by someone else. Going back to tapes with cryptic notes decades later to transfer to CD's it is not surprising that they often sound different.... which is not to say that they don't sound closer to what is on the master tape. Personally I usually like to hear what the original sounded like even if not perfect.... it's not like the remasters are perfect either.

Here is an interesting story about Steven Wilson's approach https://www.soundonsound.com/people/steven-wilson-remixing-classic-albums

Frankly, I have Jethro Tull Aqualung issued on Chrysalis in 1971 and also the Wilson’s vinyl remaster and I like the 1971 version better. It has more dynamics not only perceived, but also measured as DR. The remaster’s peak amplitudes are equalized and the impact has gone away.

1971 vinyl

Wilson's remaster - see the dynamic range compression. It is on a "mellow" sound side.

 

[SIY]

Frankly, I have Jethro Tull Aqualung issued on Chrysalis in 1971 and also the Wilson’s vinyl remaster and I like the 1971 version better. It has more dynamics not only perceived, but also measured as DR. The remaster’s peak amplitudes are equalized and the impact has gone away.

Sigh.

 

[pma]

Sigh.

So you prefer, as many others do, dynamic range compression. It Sounds “fuller”, “more bass”, right?
See the plots in my post above.

 

[SIY]

So you prefer, as many others do, dynamic range compression. It Sounds “fuller”, “more bass”, right?
See the plots in my post above.

So you prefer, as many others do, wow, flutter, inner groove distortion, tracing error, compromised signal-to-noise, summed bass, and pre-cutter compression?

I prefer technically correct masters, not vinyl.

 

[tmtomh]

It’s probably true about the deteriorating master tapes ?

Would not a first gen digital transfer from the 80’s or 90’s be a good starting point if the sounds only needs some better balance. ie a original master tweaked for vinyl that sounds weird on digital media ?

Or did anyone actually had the intelligence to start to transfer to hirez digital or better digitised the multitrack back in the days “just in case”.

Any record company executive that had that much foresight to realise that perpetual remastering and transfer to new media format is a goldmine . And send the minions to the vaults to digitise everything before it rotted away ?

I think SR ( Swedish public service radio ) had a long running project to digitise everything they had in their archive especially old formats where even functional playback equipment is scarce

Analogue master tapes can be in widely varying condition after many years in storage. Some of it depends on the condition in which they were stored; some if it depends on how rarely or often the tapes were used; and some of it depends on what type/vintage tape it is. On the latter issue, apparently the binder in some late '70s Ampex(?) tapes deteriorates over time, requiring low-heat "baking" of the tapes to prevent the magnetic oxide layer from shedding completely upon playback. Once "baked" these tapes need to be digitized and then basically never played again.

As for digitizing analogue tapes as a precautionary measure, yes, this has been done a lot since about the late 1990s/early 2000s, but not uniformly or systematically. My understanding is that it tends to be artist/catalogue based.

Also, there are some oversights, losses, and hidden gems involved in such archiving projects, because of poor or misleading tape documentation done during the vinyl era, when LP cutting masters were marked "master" and the true 2-track mixdown masters were marked "do not use" (because the latter were not appropriate to use for cutting vinyl). For all the criticism of Steve Hoffman as an overrated and/or self-aggrandizing mastering engineer, he did do some good work by tracking down a number of these "do not use" true master tapes - he was kind of in the right place at the right time, apparently being one of the first people to realize that in the CD era a good number of vinyl cutting tapes were being used to master CDs because of the "master/do not use" labeling issues.

 

[Burning Sounds]

The Barry Diament remasters of the Bob Marley Island catalogue are excellent. DR for most of the CDs is between 12-17. And Carly Barrett's hi-hat is in the right place , unlike some of the other Island Wailers re-releases. Last time I looked they weren't ridiculously expensive, either. https://www.discogs.com/Bob-Marley-The-Wailers-Exodus/release/6440511

 

[ShadowFiend]

My main listening music is Classical. In my experience, the Japanese exclusive remastered version on CD/SACD is generally better than international release. For example, the Grandmaster Series of EMI Toshiba remastered by Yoshio Okazaki is superior to EMI counterpart and even the SACD/HiRes release 15 years after. The Japanese SHM-SACD version of Tchaikovsky's symphonies 4-6 (Mravinsky conducts Leningrad Philharmonic) is far superior to the both CD versions as well as the 24-96 version of Deutsche Grammophon. Some new SACD from Tower Records (licensing 24-96 digital tapes from DG, Decca) also sounds better than the CD and 24-96 from DG/Decca counterpart. I don't know why but somehow the Japanese normally do better even with the same source. Too bad their SACD is always pricey, 40 USD not to mention postage

 

[Martini]

I'm waiting on Roxy Music/Bryan Ferry to be redone in hi-res. I have few Roxy CDs that are labeled HDCD, but I don't think it was utilized in the mixing process or done weakly. I'd also, love to hear some Jimmy Buffett remastered.

 

[Robin L]

I'm waiting on Roxy Music/Bryan Ferry to be redone in hi-res. I have few Roxy CDs that are labeled HDCD, but I don't think it was utilized in the mixing process or done weakly. I'd also, love to hear some Jimmy Buffett remastered.

I have a 5.1 SACD of Avalon.

 

[Snarfie]

I have a 5.1 SACD of Avalon.

I have the releas of Roxy music - Remake Re-model remaster from Steven Wilson sounds more detaild an thight in the lows

 

[Wes]

I heard that somebody got Sony MiniDisc versions of Talking Heads albums in 5.1 and downmixed them to stereo.

Has anyone heard those? If so, how did they sound?

 

[Guermantes]

Here is an interesting story about Steven Wilson's approach https://www.soundonsound.com/people/steven-wilson-remixing-classic-albums

That's just what I needed to read! Thanks, @levimax.

So he gets the multi-tracks transferred to digital in their entirety by the record companies. Then he reverse engineers the mix by deep listening of the master. Must be painstaking. Looking at the plots posted by @pma of Aqualung, I think he has actually done a good job of preserving the original shape of the mix. He particularly mentions in the Sound-on-Sound article that some prefer the original warts-and-all sound of that album. So be it.

I've been doing a deep dive into different masterings/remixes of Tubular Bells recently and found a lot of variation, even in versions of the "original" mix. Oldfield's remix from 2009 is interesting in its differences. For example, the original tubular bells part was replaced on the multi-track at some point so they sound markedly different to the original mix.

Tubular Bells Part One -- Earlier CD pressing with "EMI Swindon" marked on hub (there may be pre-emphasis on this):

Mike Oldfield 2009 stereo remix:

 

[levimax]

That's just what I needed to read! Thanks, @levimax.

So he gets the multi-tracks transferred to digital in their entirety by the record companies. Then he reverse engineers the mix by deep listening of the master. Must be painstaking. Looking at the plots posted by @pma of Aqualung, I think he has actually done a good job of preserving the original shape of the mix. He particularly mentions in the Sound-on-Sound article that some prefer the original warts-and-all sound of that album. So be it.

I've been doing a deep dive into different masterings/remixes of Tubular Bells recently and found a lot of variation, even in versions of the "original" mix. Oldfield's remix from 2009 is interesting in its differences. For example, the original tubular bells part was replaced on the multi-track at some point so they sound markedly different to the original mix.

Tubular Bells Part One -- Earlier CD pressing with "EMI Swindon" marked on hub (there may be pre-emphasis on this):
View attachment 101249

Mike Oldfield 2009 stereo remix:
View attachment 101250

I have also been trying to take an "objective" look at different mastering's but these "level" graphs don't show much besides the loudness, compression, and clipping. Lately I have been looking at "frequency analysis" of a song as I think EQ differences are more audible that compression differences. I first equalize the level to be the same and then run the analysis. See attached 3 versions of Donald Fagan I.G.Y. one is the original LP, one is the original CD, and the 3rd is the new "Tidal Master" version. Clearly the LP and early CD use the same mastering (original CD probably used the LP tape) but the Tidal Master is definitely different. ABX in foobar2000 I can't tell the CD from the LP needle drop but the Tidal Master I can tell from the other two. Preference is something else but I am old and grew up with the original mastering so I tend to prefer those.