MASTERS: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

[krabapple]

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".

Back then I subscribed to something called ICE Magazine, a newsletter of upcoming CD release news -- albums never before on CD, and ones that were being re-released on CD as 'remastered'. Company reps were commonly quoted, either to flak an upcoming release, or to address the constant stream of reader complaints about the sound or packaging quality of existing CDS.

I'm reporting what the public rationale from record companies was, at the time.

 

[krabapple]

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.

The amount of bass on a mastering also affects that 'DR'.

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.

As I wrote, the most common rationale offered by record companies for disappointing sound in the first CD generation was that they were made from the 'wrong' tapes, namely, LP (vinyl) production masters, not original mixdown masters.

Such tapes have rolled off and mono'd bass, adjustment for inner groove versus outer, and any other tweak deemed necessary at the time to cut a record playable on all sorts of systems.

 

[krabapple]

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.

Well before S. Wilson entered the picture, excellent surround remixes of classic albums were being made by Eliot Scheiner (Queen, Steely Dan), Greg Penney (Elton John), Tony Visconti (T Rex, Bowie), others. Giles Martin has done stellar surround work on the Beatles albums. And of course there's a whole trove of quad remixes from the 1970s to consider.

As for remixes of a stereo mix....they generally leave me cold in proportion to how well I know the original mix.

 

[levimax]

the most common rationale offered by record companies for disappointing sound in the first CD generation was that they were made from the 'wrong' tapes, namely, LP (vinyl) production masters, not original mixdown masters.

Such tapes have rolled off and mono'd bass, adjustment for inner groove versus outer, and any other tweak deemed necessary at the time to cut a record playable on all sorts of systems.

As with anything to do with older recordings and mastering there are no hard rules and it is very hit or miss and every mastering from what ever time period is an individual case. In some cases the LP production masters can sound "better" (subjective) than the mix down tapes because the mastering engineer did a good job and made up for defciencies in the original. A good mastering engineer could do "real time" gain and EQ changes, fade ups and fade downs, and sometimes even "fly in" additional sound. Much of this was undocumented. Compared to the subtle changes required for LP production these "mastering moves" have a much bigger effect on the final sound for better or worse. This is one reason some people prefer some of the original CD's. In other cases the LP masters were degraded from poor mastering, damage, and tape generation loss. About the only generalization you can make is that masterings have gotten louder over time.

 

[Sal1950]

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

If you want a good shot at separating the good, bad, and ugly in recordings
visit the Dynamic Range Database for the album you have interest in.
In the Megadeth case you bring up you can see there are some good releases on
vinyl and CD and some absolutely horrid CD's
Unfortunatly the genre of grung, hard rock areas of music are the most hard hit by the loudness craze.

Album list - Dynamic Range DB

 

[restorer-john]

I recently picked up his Songs From The Big Chair remix and it's a big improvement on the original LP and CD

What is improved specifically?

(asking as I have several copies of 1st release CDs and a few early LP copies of the album)

 

[restorer-john]

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.

 

[restorer-john]

Glad to see that Wilson character stayed away from The Seeds of Love album. I've always regarded that as a brilliant production and it seems he thought it flawless enough to leave well alone.

I'm conflicted with remixers messing with classic albums. It's the same as George Lucas f#cking with Star Wars.

The original releases, sold in vast numbers, played and loved by millions, with whatever flaws they may or may not have had, are the definitive versions. They are what is etched into our collective memories- warts and all. No remaster, reissue or random loungeroom guy's remix does it for me.

Which would you rather have?

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Glad to see that Wilson character stayed away from The Seeds of Love album. I've always regarded that as a brilliant production and it seems he thought it flawless enough to leave well alone.

I'm conflicted with remixers messing with classic albums. It's the same as George Lucas f#cking with Star Wars.

The original releases, sold in vast numbers, played and loved by millions, with whatever flaws they may or may not have had, are the definitive versions. They are what is etched into our collective memories- warts and all. No remaster, reissue or random loungeroom guy's remix does it for me.

Which would you rather have?

View attachment 293937

well...I don't think most of us would prefer the clownish work done by the completely unqualified individual on the right.

However, I'd suggest there's a difference between musical recordings and a painting. It seems to me that the initial recording (which some would argue is always the best) is already an interpretation of the piece of art - like the image on the right in the example above. The art is the piece of music - the notes and rhythm and so on. We aren't talking about re-writing the music. We're talking about presenting it in a new way via a recording. There's no particular reason to assume that the engineers who assembled the first-released recording of the art got it exactly right. Heck, maybe the initial recording was like the image on the right already...

 

[Sal1950]

Glad to see that Wilson character stayed away from The Seeds of Love album. I've always regarded that as a brilliant production and it seems he thought it flawless enough to leave well alone.

??? 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.

HiRez Poll - Tears For Fears - THE SEEDS OF LOVE [Blu-Ray Audio]

At long last, please post your thoughts and comments on this 2020 reissue of the classic album "The Seeds of Love" by Tears for Fears. This 2020 reissue features a brand new 5.1 surround mix of the album from Steven Wilson on the Blu-Ray audio disc included in the super deluxe edition box set...

www.quadraphonicquad.com

 

[ommadusk]

BTW Jriver Media Center, which isn't free, can analyse your music collection and display the dynamic range of tracks. I find it very useful.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

What is improved specifically?

(asking as I have several copies of 1st release CDs and a few early LP copies of the album)

From a subjective "HiFi" perspective instrument separation is improved and in general, all the instruments sound more like normal instruments do in a studio. Dynamic variations, especially in the vocals are much more obvious (which leads to surprising emotional transfer that was not there before).

Reverting to the original, it has a subjective mushy layer of grunginess to it, the instruments sound more "processed" and vocals are surprisingly unvarying in terms of level, whether singing loudly or quietly. It's quite clear that the new mix is made from the same recordings, but the result is something more "natural" sounding and much closer to how you would expect singers to sound. This can be disconcerting occasionally when you really know the original mix.

 

[Sal1950]

BTW Jriver Media Center, which isn't free, can analyse your music collection and display the dynamic range of tracks. I find it very useful.

The free Foobar2000 does the same.

 

[Robert C]

As I wrote, the most common rationale offered by record companies for disappointing sound in the first CD generation was that they were made from the 'wrong' tapes, namely, LP (vinyl) production masters, not original mixdown masters.

Such tapes have rolled off and mono'd bass, adjustment for inner groove versus outer, and any other tweak deemed necessary at the time to cut a record playable on all sorts of systems.

These tapes are still used as the starting point for some modern remasters.

 

[Sal1950]

These tapes are still used as the starting point for some modern remasters.

I doubt any engineer worth his salt is using LP mastered tapes for their base
to remaster unless the original mixes no longer exist and he's forced to.

 

[krabapple]

These tapes are still used as the starting point for some modern remasters.

I don't doubt it. It would be nice if it was always noted in the packaging.

 

[PortaStudio]

If you want a good shot at separating the good, bad, and ugly in recordings
visit the Dynamic Range Database for the album you have interest in.
In the Megadeth case you bring up you can see there are some good releases on
vinyl and CD and some absolutely horrid CD's
Unfortunatly the genre of grung, hard rock areas of music are the most hard hit by the loudness craze.

Album list - Dynamic Range DB

View attachment 293867

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?

 

[krabapple]

As with anything to do with older recordings and mastering there are no hard rules and it is very hit or miss and every mastering from what ever time period is an individual case. In some cases the LP production masters can sound "better" (subjective) than the mix down tapes because the mastering engineer did a good job and made up for defciencies in the original. A good mastering engineer could do "real time" gain and EQ changes, fade ups and fade downs, and sometimes even "fly in" additional sound. Much of this was undocumented. Compared to the subtle changes required for LP production these "mastering moves" have a much bigger effect on the final sound for better or worse.

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'.

 

[krabapple]

Dynamic ran

BTW Jriver Media Center, which isn't free, can analyse your music collection and display the dynamic range of tracks. I find it very useful.
View attachment 294024

Dynamic range can be measured in several ways and it's good to know what is actually being calculated by any such tool.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

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 and no. As @DVDdoug explained in post 16 above:

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.

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