MASTERS: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

[MaxwellsEq]

"Loudness" is a tough thing to define. The best standard (IMO) is the EBU's R128 LOUDNESS NORMALISATION AND PERMITTED MAXIMUM LEVEL OF AUDIO SIGNALS

 

[Sal1950]

That's a great tool! So a higher score means more dynamic range and has a good chance of being the best version for high fidelity listening?

Yes

Which means that LPs frequently get an inaccurately good score compared to uncompressed PCM.

True, for a couple reasons LP's measure a bit differently than the digital files.
But to take the case of the Megadeth album I posted above you can see around 3 basic groups.
We have LP's in the 12-13 range, and CD's around 11 or in the 6-7s.
I believe you can safely say the the LP and CD 11 groups were mastered without any heavy compression applied
and are the sonic equals in dynamic range.
Then we have the CD's that drop into the 6-7 or lower range who's engineer should be castrated for butchering the album that badly.
If you look around the database you'll find the same situation of 3 basic groups (1 for LP & 2 for CD) for way too many modern releases. Sad but true.

 

[restorer-john]

??? I hate to break it to you John but Steven did remaster Seeds of Love back in 2020 with a BluRay release of 5.1 surround, and a most excellent job he did. I cherish my 5.1 copy.

The interview I read stated he did nothing to the stereo original, saying it was flawless. He only did a 5.1 version.

 

[Sal1950]

The interview I read stated he did nothing to the stereo original, saying it was flawless. He only did a 5.1 version.

Then we're both right.

 

[levimax]

I don't know why you are separating the two,. What are you calling 'subtle changes required for LP production" as opposed to gain riding, EQ, fades, fly-ins? They are all part of 'cutting' and the 'LP production master' is also called a 'cutting master'.

The changes required for LP cutting (mono base, etc.) are one thing and while not ideal they are subtle. Other changes a mastering engineer may make to try to "improve" on the sound of the master tape have nothing to do with LP production and in some cases can be very sucsessful in improving the sound quality of the master, in other cases not so much. That is why in some cases the LP cutting master can be preferred by some over the original master tape.

 

[Sal1950]

The changes required for LP cutting (mono base, etc.) are one thing and while not ideal they are subtle. Other changes a mastering engineer may make to try to "improve" on the sound of the master tape have nothing to do with LP production and in some cases can be very sucsessful in improving the sound quality of the master, in other cases not so much. That is why in some cases the LP cutting master can be preferred by some over the original master tape.

Maybe subtle and acceptable to you, totally unacceptable to me.
I would much rather listen to the un-altered sound of the original master without
all the compromises made to be able to drag a rock thru a ditch successfully. That technology became completely obsolete and irrelevant in the pursuit of High Fidelity 50+ years ago.

 

[charleski]

What I ultimately found was that the only download that had fully dynamic range, was the 192/24 version.

This raises a major gripe I have with remasters - it’s often incredibly difficult to be sure which version you’re listening to, especially when you source your material from streaming services.

Here’s a recent example: Gramophone rates the 1965 Karajan performance of Sibelius 4 very highly, but advises listening to the 2003 remaster.

That’s nice, but the accompanying photo is the cover of a box set that seems to be a physical release only. I had to dig around on Qobuz for half an hour, checking details on the store page, before finding a sample of this from 2003 that seems to be the initial release of the remaster and does indeed sound better than the other versions on offer.
Grrr! Both labels and streaming services need to label remasters much more clearly - it’s high time that streamers brought back catalogue numbers at least so that releases can be clearly identified in a web database. This situation is only going to get worse.

 

[somebodyelse]

I suppose a smaller band wouldn't have got mainstream press coverage of how bad their original master was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Magnetic#Compression

 

[levimax]

Maybe subtle and acceptable to you, totally unacceptable to me.
I would much rather listen to the un-altered sound of the original master without
all the compromises made to be able to drag a rock thru a ditch successfully. That technology became completely obsolete and irrelevant in the pursuit of High Fidelity 50+ years ago.

View attachment 294118

What does "snap crackle pop" have to do with an LP cutting master?

Some times the mastering engineer made mastering moves to a defecint master tape that improved it, other times they made it worse. I agree if the original master is good then a flat transer is preferable to a LP cutting master but things are not that simple and black and white in the real world of decades old recorded music.

 

[spiral scratch]

There’s a lot of older pre-CD recordings transferred to CD in the 80’s that are considered the gold standard for those digital recordings. Subsequent efforts just mess up the EQ or add too much compression. There are a growing number of remasters that seem to be getting it right now. The recent Blue Note/CTI reissues come to mind. They are really open and clear without the typical upper and lower frequency boost that makes a lot of remasters unlistenable. Bowie’s “Metrobolist” and “Divine Symmetry” sound as good as I’ve ever heard those recordings. A lot of these remixed recordings are still going to come up to personal preference as they will be mixed to somebody’s taste and it may not be to everyone else’s. I like some of Steven Wilson’s remix work, but then some of it becomes too removed from the way I am familiar with it sounding and then I don’t enjoy it so much. I think for those who prefer a light touch on the digital transfer a lot of those 80’s editions will continue to be the preferred versions.

 

[markanini]

I've got two words: Bob Ludwig.

 

[Sal1950]

I really wish someone would remaster this disc on CD.
Come the holidays, I very much miss being able to play it
since I dumped all my vinyl gear.

 

[krabapple]

The changes required for LP cutting (mono base, etc.) are one thing and while not ideal they are subtle.

Can be. Not always.

Other changes a mastering engineer may make to try to "improve" on the sound of the master tape have nothing to do with LP production and in some cases can be very sucsessful in improving the sound quality of the master, in other cases not so much.

You think this happened commonly in the *LP* era? Moves that were unrelated to cutting a generally playable disc?

I know that some master tape boxes came with cutting instructions.

In the CD era the idea that one of the mastering engineer's job was to 'improve' the sound of the source tape, certainly did become common.

 

[krabapple]

This raises a major gripe I have with remasters - it’s often incredibly difficult to be sure which version you’re listening to, especially when you source your material from streaming services.

Your gripe is with the metadata provided by the streamer...not with remasters per se.

 

[Sal1950]

This raises a major gripe I have with remasters - it’s often incredibly difficult to be sure which version you’re listening to, especially when you source your material from streaming services.

Those who have settled on using streaming as their only or main source of music are going to have to accept the fact that ton's of albums have bunches and bunches of masters/remasters in the wild. I don't think we can expect streamers to offer every version that's been made and I consider ourselves lucky if we can get both a stereo and multich version of each.
If your the kind of person like me that wants to have the best of what's available for any particular album, the only path will remain to maintain your own library, at least for the ones really important to you.

 

[levimax]

Can be. Not always.You think this happened commonly in the *LP* era? Moves that were unrelated to cutting a generally playable disc?

The more experienced / famous mastering engineers like Robert Ludwig when working on the original pressings often did work to "improve" / "compensate for LP limitations" in addition to the mandatory production mastering changes. This is one of the main reason original pressings are sought after... they are initialed by the mastering engineers in the dead wax.

 

[Leeken]

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.

Really into his Hawkwind “warriors on the edge of time” remix,sounds so fresh 50 years later

 

[spiral scratch]

I really wish someone would remaster this disc on CD.
Come the holidays, I very much miss being able to play it
since I dumped all my vinyl gear.

View attachment 294450

Bummer man

 

[LouB]

Recently bought a used CD Rolling Stones Some Girls album & it sounds horrible. I just checked that DR web site (Thanks !) and now I know why, 1978 cd & album great DR bothe very close in numbers. The 2020 remaster CD numbers are less than 1/2 of the original. Origanal CD & Vinly numbers are 14,12 & 16 our 06,07 & 06

 

[SIY]

Really into his Hawkwind “warriors on the edge of time” remix,sounds so fresh 50 years later

One of my audio buddies was a roadie for them- he has stories...