MASTERS: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

[PortaStudio]

Hello everybody,

I've seen it come up in a discussion on buying CDs, that remasters often are not the recommended versions for high fidelity listening. I'v heard about this in a couple of examples before, but I wasn't aware that it is such a common complaint. Since I am very interested what is regarded as quality audio production, I'd love to hear your perspectives on what makes a master great and what makes it bad. Sometimes it's hard to put into words describing the qualities or it is just personal preferenaces, but I'd like to hear all of it.

If you can provide examples (like youtube links etc.) for everyone to get an impression that would be very apreciated.

I knew that the megadeth remix/remasters were quite controversial and disliked.

I have to agree that the original version sounds best. It is more rich and open to my ears and has nice top end and mid range, qualities I miss in the other versions. Also I think everything falls better into place.

 

[Zensō]

Many modern remasters are targeting mobile devices which is where a large majority of listening is happening today (annual sales of Airpods is approaching the total sales of the entire rest of the audio industry). High dynamic range masters, which we all prefer for listening on our high fidelity systems, can be problematic when on the go in noisy environments, hence the highly compressed remasters. Also, many now listen to playlists comprising music from various artists (as opposed to albums), so artists want their masters to be perceptually loud to stand out among the competition. Volume leveling and better noise cancelling tech is mitigating for some of this, but the industry as a whole hasn’t yet shifted back to creating more dynamic masters.

 

[HoweSound]

A number of Van Morrison CDs were remastered. I had copies of the originals and the remasters were superior. One that impressed me the most was the remaster of Veedon Fleece. I have looked for links. I think there are some flac downloads of the remasters.

Van Morrison – Veedon Fleece (Remastered) (1974/2020) [Official Digital Download 24bit/96kHz]

Van Morrison – Veedon Fleece (Remastered) (1974/2020)FLAC (tracks) 24 bit/96 kHz | Time – 56:30 minutes | 1,21 GB | Genre: RockStudio Masters, Official Digital Download | Front Cover | …

hdmusic.club

 

[Martini]

I remember replacing a few early 80's CDs with remastered ones and they were an improvement. Only ones popping in my head, at the moment are Billy Joel's - Stranger and 52nd Street albums. The Sony SBM "Super Bit Mapping" remaster/reissues clearly sounded better then the early releases. Of course, many of the early CDs suffered from boosted highs, to tout the detail of the new format. Much of the stuff released or remastered now, is just overly compressed, loud crap! In Jazz, almost all of the Rudy Van Gelder (RVG) reissues were just made louder. I don't notice any additional compression, but there may be some clipping occurring. I recently downloaded the 24/96 release of Klemperer's Mahler - Sym. #2 and noted some improvement over the Redbook issue - I heard some low level instrumentation that I had not previously heard.

 

[Martini]

Many modern remasters are targeting mobile devices which is where a large majority of listening is happening today (annual sales of Airpods is approaching the total sales of the entire rest of the audio industry). High dynamic range masters, which we all prefer for listening on our high fidelity systems, can be problematic when on the go in noisy environments, hence the highly compressed remasters. Also, many now listen to playlists comprising music from various artists (as opposed to albums), so artists want their masters to be perceptually loud to stand out among the competition. Volume leveling and better noise cancelling tech is mitigating for some of this, but the industry as a whole hasn’t yet shifted back to creating more dynamic masters.

I wish they would label them as such. It would be nothing to create a good version and then compress the life out of it for the masses. Storage is cheap, and I'd bet they would sell more of the good, wider dynamic range files, then they expected.

 

[ronniebear]

With the very widespread adoption of music streaming, few non-audiophiles are buying or listening to CDs. Why not give the "niche market" of CD buyers the full, undiluted dynamic spectrum and frequency which the 16/44 Red Book format is capable of reproducing? Leave the adulteration to the mainstream streaming market -- and Qobuz should offer users a choice between brickwalled and full-dynamic-range versions of pop music.

 

[levimax]

I learned about the "Loudness Wars" from Nirvana Nevermind. I had the original CD which is very dynamic and well recorded for popular music, and bought the "Hi-res" remaster which is super compressed. I didn't understand why I didn't like it and then starting reading up on what was going on with remasters. Almost without exception the original CD's from the early 1990's "grunge" scene (Nirvana, Soundgarden, Meat Puppets, etc,.) are better than any later compressed mastering.

 

[krabapple]

Hello everybody,

I've seen it come up in a discussion on buying CDs, that remasters often are not the recommended versions for high fidelity listening. I'v heard about this in a couple of examples before, but I wasn't aware that it is such a common complaint. Since I am very interested what is regarded as quality audio production, I'd love to hear your perspectives on what makes a master great and what makes it bad. Sometimes it's hard to put into words describing the qualities or it is just personal preferenaces, but I'd like to hear all of it.

If you can provide examples (like youtube links etc.) for everyone to get an impression that would be very apreciated.

I knew that the megadeth remix/remasters were quite controversial and disliked.

I have to agree that the original version sounds best. It is more rich and open to my ears and has nice top end and mid range, qualities I miss in the other versions. Also I think everything falls better into place.

Historically the complaints since at least the late 80s, when the first remasters appeared -- in response to the finding/belief that the first generation of CDs were sourced from the wrong tapes, and now we'd go back to the original master tapes and make everything better -- can be summed up a three things:

too much noise reduction
too much compression
unpleasant re-EQ


The first one doesn't seem to be as big an issue anymore as it was early on.

The second one is the basis of the infamous 'Loudness Wars' that continue to plague us. On the basis of louder='sounds better'.

As for the third, adjusting the EQ for commercial release is basically what 'remastering' seems to be, in essence -- after all, the 'mastering engineer;' has to do something, right? The alternative is to do virtually nothing -- I have seen 'remasters' where the only measurable difference compared to the first CD is a slight overall level increase or decrease -- or to *expressly* do nothing, which is the case when the remaster proclaims itself to be a 'flat transfer' of the original master tapes, presenting the native EQ and dynamic range 'as is'. Which, contrary to purist belief -- I myself have been surprised -- doesn't always result in the best-sounding version.

 

[krabapple]

I remember replacing a few early 80's CDs with remastered ones and they were an improvement. Only ones popping in my head, at the moment are Billy Joel's - Stranger and 52nd Street albums. The Sony SBM "Super Bit Mapping" remaster/reissues clearly sounded better then the early releases. Of course, many of the early CDs suffered from boosted highs, to tout the detail of the new format.

Did they? And if so, you're sure that was the reason?

 

[SIY]

FWIW, I'm very impressed with the Steven Wilson remasters of a pile of my favorite prog-rock albums. Lots of stuff that was sort of barely discernable is clarified. Downside is that the studio manipulations in recording are glaringly obvious.

 

[krabapple]

For many years audiophiles have yearned for a 'two tier' release system for remasters -- added compression for the masses listening on portable devices or in cars as tier 1; no added compression for the golden ears as tier 2.

This actually happens sometimes now, though I've yet to see any company advertise it. I found it by accident when I downloaded the same Van Halen remastered album twice from HDtracks. Often on HDtracks , for the same release, you get several tiers of sample rate/bit depth, from 'standard rez' 44/16 up to 192/24 'hi rez'. What I ultimately found was that the only download that had fully dynamic range, was the 192/24 version. The lower-rate versions, including 'hi rez' 96/24, had massive DR reduced mastering. This proved true for the entire early VH catalog on HDtracks.

(This was a few years ago. I just checked today and HDtracks now offer these downloads for the album

192/24
96/24
96/24
44/16

No idea what differentiates the two 96/24 offerings )

 

[krabapple]

FWIW, I'm very impressed with the Steven Wilson remasters of a pile of my favorite prog-rock albums. Lots of stuff that was sort of barely discernable is clarified. Downside is that the studio manipulations in recording are glaringly obvious.

I find his work -- it's remixing btw, he doesn't do (or like) remastering of original tapes, and doesn;t like his final mixes to be subsequently 'mastered' -- to be extremely hit or miss.

What you do usually get with his remixes of old prog albums, is a 'flat transfer' of the original stereo mix as a bonus. (Wilson doesn't do digital transfers and isn't involved with that part of the release.) Which can be revealing too, for better or worse.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

FWIW, I'm very impressed with the Steven Wilson remasters of a pile of my favorite prog-rock albums. Lots of stuff that was sort of barely discernable is clarified. Downside is that the studio manipulations in recording are glaringly obvious.

All the Steven Wilson remixes (starting from fresh with the multitrack) I've bought are excellent. I recently picked up his Songs From The Big Chair remix and it's a big improvement on the original LP and CD

 

[levimax]

Historically the complaints since at least the late 80s, when the first remasters appeared -- in response to the finding/belief that the first generation of CDs were sourced from the wrong tapes, and now we'd go back to the original master tapes and make everything better.

Maybe in some cases but in general I think the real reason for a remaster is "we need to sell the same music yet again so we need to change something".

 

[PuX]

in my experience the original release sounds best in 100 of 100 cases.
if you can't find it on ebay etc. - pirate it.
if pirating bothers you - buy the remaster, put it on the shelf and never touch it.

 

[DVDdoug]

There is a website with collected dynamic range information for many albums.

But beware that they might be using crest factor (the peak-to-average or peak-to-RMS ratio). Cutting/playing a vinyl record makes some waveform peaks higher and some lower (without affecting the sound of the dynamics) and that makes a "better" DR calculation for the vinyl by a couple of dB. A similar thing happens when you make an MP3. But it's OK to compare different releases of the same CD.

That's just one factor (and the biggest complaint with re-mastered versions). But a remastered CD may have better noise reduction (when the original recordings are on analog tape), or "better" EQ, etc. I read about some Led Zepplin recordings where the low frequencies were originally rolled-off for vinyl and those same masters were used when they were re-released for CD. Years later they went back to original tapes and made a new CD master with the full-bass.

 

[Travis]

I've seen it come up in a discussion on buying CDs, that remasters often are not the recommended versions for high fidelity listening. I'v heard about this in a couple of examples before, but I wasn't aware that it is such a common complaint. Since I am very interested what is regarded as quality audio production, I'd love to hear your perspectives on what makes a master great and what makes it bad. Sometimes it's hard to put into words describing the qualities or it is just personal preferenaces, but I'd like to hear all of it.

You have received many great responses thus far.

One thing you will find when you take this deep dive is the terminology. “Mastering ” Re-Mastered, Re-mixed have very distinct meanings. Many are unclear about what the “original master” is (and end users, us, get that completely wrong).

If you are merely interested in what sounds better and why, the original CD or a newer release (there can be many releases) then this Forum is a great source, especially on classical recordings, the Discogs Forums, and the Steve Hoffman Forum. HOWEVER, except in some very clear cases, be prepared for getting 10 responses with 15 different opinions.

If you are interested in understanding the technical background on why you prefer a re-mastered/Re-mixed CD by a particular engineer, then start reading Sound on Sound and Mix Magizine.

For example it was recommended to you in a previous post by @SIY to check out Steven Wilson’s “remasters” (actually Re-mixes would be more technically correct). That is a recommendation that I agree with (not that it matters), and there is an in depth Sound on Sound article and interview on the process he undertakes to re-mix an album. Look at the terms he uses for the source materials/tapes, mix masters, etc. Look at the stages he goes through to get to the final product, and what he can do with noise floors, hiss, etc. Some/many of those things cannot be achieved with just a Re-master, they require a Re-mix.

Here is the article on Steven Wilson’s remixes:

Steven Wilson: Remixing Classic Albums

Prog-rock wunderkind Steven Wilson is using his studio skills to give legendary rock albums a new lease of life.

www.soundonsound.com

 

[MaxwellsEq]

The Loudness Wars are common knowledge they seem to dominate many remasters, especially during the 90s. But there are many things wrong with early CDs. These include:

• The use of masters EQ-ed (LF roll-off, mono-ed LF etc.) for LPs
• Early generation ADCs
• Dither missing
• Pre-emphasis mistakes

I've never been convinced that early CDs are universally great. The Loudness Wars made the first round of remasters often poorer than the originals, which is a pity, because it missed opportunities: dither was better understood, proper non-LP masters were dug out and ADCs (and processing) was easier at greater than 14bits accuracy.

 

[PortaStudio]

You have received many great responses thus far.

I agree. Thanks for all the great responses.

One thing you will find when you take this deep dive is the terminology. “Mastering ” Re-Mastered, Re-mixed have very distinct meanings. Many are unclear about what the “original master” is (and end users, us, get that completely wrong).

If you are merely interested in what sounds better and why, the original CD or a newer release (there can be many releases) then this Forum is a great source, especially on classical recordings, the Discogs Forums, and the Steve Hoffman Forum. HOWEVER, except in some very clear cases, be prepared for getting 10 responses with 15 different opinions.

If you are interested in understanding the technical background on why you prefer a re-mastered/Re-mixed CD by a particular engineer, then start reading Sound on Sound and Mix Magizine.

That is good to know. I know the soundonsound youtube channel, that is really excellent as well. I have to make sure to check the other resouces that were mentioned as well.

For example it was recommended to you in a previous post by @SIY to check out Steven Wilson’s “remasters” (actually Re-mixes would be more technically correct). That is a recommendation that I agree with (not that it matters), and there is an in depth Sound on Sound article and interview on the process he undertakes to re-mix an album. Look at the terms he uses for the source materials/tapes, mix masters, etc. Look at the stages he goes through to get to the final product, and what he can do with noise floors, hiss, etc. Some/many of those things cannot be achieved with just a Re-master, they require a Re-mix.

Here is the article on Steven Wilson’s remixes:

Steven Wilson: Remixing Classic Albums

Prog-rock wunderkind Steven Wilson is using his studio skills to give legendary rock albums a new lease of life.

www.soundonsound.com

Thanks!

 

[PortaStudio]

It is an quite interesting artform on it's own remixing like Steven Wilson does it. He makes decisions and creates a new experience that is meant to be like the original, yet it is a different altered version at least technically speaking.

One said to me 'Oh, when we played that in the studio, we played it too slow. Can you speed it up?' I said 'No!

This made me laugh. I can relate to that. Choosing the right tempo is critical and it can be quite disappointing, if you find out during the process, that its not right. It becoming a classic eventually eventhough ot doesnt reflect the artists intention is great, but I can understand the want for modification anyways.