When is it worthwhile to issue a new digital remaster of classical music that was originally recorded on analog tape?

[SoundsGood64]

In the 1960s and 1970s, classical music was recorded on analog tape and issued on stereo LPs. Many of these titles were reissued in the 1980s on CD. Starting in the 1990s and 2000s these were often reissued again on CD, for example the “The Originals” series from Deutsche Grammophon (DG) and Decca, or “Great Recordings of the Century” from EMI, as digital remasters. Now many of these recordings are again being reissued in file format (or streaming) at higher resolution (hi res) and frequency bandwidth, 24-bit /96khz or 192khz.

There’s a thread on “Master Tape Degredation Science” [https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/master-tape-deterioration-science.17408/]. By the 1990s, perhaps it felt urgent that 20+bit/96khz masters be made while the quality of aging analog tape originating decades before could be ensured. Urgent, to ensure cultural heritage would survive the generations in as intact a form as technology would allow. If reissues such as “The Originals” and “Great Recordings of the Century” could be made from those hi res masters, then this served the business end of making money. Purchasers of those CD reissues from 20-30 years ago effectively subsidized the long term archiving of that material at high res and hopefully (probably not always) benefited from a decade or more of experience in digital processing that had been new and unfamiliar at the time of the first CD issues [https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...he-80s-affect-the-sound-quality-of-cds.57005/]. For stereo playback there was at least some agreement that CD at 16 bit /44khz as a playback medium is more than adequate for any recording made now on digital or certainly from the analog 1960s and 1970s.[https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...t-actually-requires-24-bits-for-replay.59598/].

A more recent favorite for me has been the Pentatone “Remastered Classics” with both 2 and 4 channels on Super Audio CD (SACD). These are reissues in which 1970s performances had been intentionally recorded on analog tape with the goal of 4 speaker surround playback, but then contemporaneous issues on LP and later CD were necessarily stereo only. The higher res DSD 64 on hybrid SACD is a happy bonus that could have technical benefit in the context of downstream digital signal processing (DSP) for multichannel playback, preserving dynamic range and limiting noise propagation as the number of channels increases [post 126 @amirm https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...t-actually-requires-24-bits-for-replay.59598/].

Recently DG released a newly remastered vinyl set of recordings of Bruckner symphonies 1-9 [https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ajans-bruckner-for-deutsche-grammophon.56517/]. There is a nice video with DG and Emil Berliner Studio staff and two journalists discussing the careful and deliberate process by which the signal path for symphonies 4-9 was completely analog. In this video, they reveal that DG has a cache of many 4- and 8-track recordings from the 1970s that were originally intended for quadraphonic listening, but with the exception of some of the Pentatone “Remastered Classics” mentioned above, and perhaps a small number of releases for streaming, were never released as such. That cache is precious and could hold excellent candidates for future multichannel releases which just as well be in a high res digital format such as flac files, SACD, or Blu-ray audio. In a set up for multichannel listening, it’s not necessary to have compact digital file storage. For 24 or 32 bit DSP, a 16 bit PCM would be upconverted, so the file might as well be 24 bit in this use case that isn’t portable and given the decreasing cost of storage.

In contrast on my smart phone which is portable and limited to stereo listening without DSP, CD quality seems appropriate (and there’s always lossy streaming when needed).

Under what conditions do you think it worthwhile to issue a new digital remaster of classical music, originally recorded on analog tape?

Happy new year!

 

[raif71]

From a layman's perspective it is worthwhile to issue a new digital remaster from an analog tape as digital imho is a more robust method of preservation of a recording when more people have them and they are scattered throughout the world. Especially more so if they rip losslessly the digital recording for their own backup copy. In case of calamity happening in one part of the world especially where original analog tape are kept, the near replication of the digital copy will be available at other parts of the world.

 

[JSmith]

A digital remaster is more then just a format shift though...


JSmith

 

[StigErik]

To hear those recordings in multichannel format makes it worthwhile. Like this one that I have in 4-ch :

Mahler Symphony No 3 & Strauss Death and Transfiguration - Jascha Hore

Title: Jascha Horenstein, Conductor London Symphony Orchestra Norma Procter, Contralto Ambrosian Singers, John McCarthy, Conductor Wandsworth School Boys Choir, Russell Burgess, Conductor William Lang, Flugelhorn solo Dennis Wick, Trombone solo John Georgiadis, Concertmaster, and violin solo

www.highdeftapetransfers.ca

 

[Chrispy]

All depends on how well the remaster works out....and perhaps skill of those involved in working with old tapes.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Under what conditions do you think it worthwhile to issue a new digital remaster of classical music, originally recorded on analog tape?

There seems to be two questions - 1) when is it a good idea to make a new digital master of an analogue tape? and 2) when should consumers be offered new opportunities to purchase?

As has been discussed, analogue tape starts degrading from the moment of recording. Even when stored really well, it continues to degrade. Making a new analogue copy will be slightly lower quality than the original. Digital formats can be copied multiple times without degradation (which can be confirmed through hashing algorithms). So, it makes sense to digitise as early as possible. Even the earliest (1970s and 1980s) ADCs were pretty linear and low noise and so probably made excellent copies. Things were learned (including dither) and ADCs became even better (beyond audibility) so it made technical sense to make another digitisation round, this time with higher sample rate and more bits (allowing editing to be possible without degradation).

In terms of releasing to consumers - those are usually business and marketing decisions!

 

[Waxx]

I would prefer that they just try to clean out the noise from the original recording but not start remixing the thing. Those recordings were done in the mindset of that time and that documents also on how the musicians thought about the music and recording. I like them close to the vinyl version, but cleaner. I'm not against remixes, but keep also the original mixes and release those digital also and label them right.

It's the same with digital remasters of old pop music of that time. I don't want those to sound modern, they have to sound like original, only with less distortion if possible. Many of the modern remixes sound bad, because they try to make old recordings like modern music, while the original recordings and compositions were not done with that in mind. It mostly sound very artificial and forced. If you want them to sound modern, rerecord with modern methods (in an other version maybe), that can be great like the rework of this ska classic by the original artist (with diferent musicians altough).

the origina from 1964l:

The rework 53 years later

 

[Alexander Gödde]

Remasters make sense if they can improve the listening experience, rather than just being a marketing trick to get fans to buy another copy of an album. As an example, the remasters of the Bernstein Mahler recordings that Sony released as a "Bernstein century" box are markedly cleared and easier to listen to than the previous releases of those recordings. (You can easily compare this since both the remasters and an older transfer are available on streaming services, as well as for purchase on CD.)

 

[Mnyb]

Remasters make sense if they can improve the listening experience, rather than just being a marketing trick to get fans to buy another copy of an album. As an example, the remasters of the Bernstein Mahler recordings that Sony released as a "Bernstein century" box are markedly cleared and easier to listen to than the previous releases of those recordings. (You can easily compare this since both the remasters and an older transfer are available on streaming services, as well as for purchase on CD.)

There seems to be two questions - 1) when is it a good idea to make a new digital master of an analogue tape? and 2) when should consumers be offered new opportunities to purchase?

As has been discussed, analogue tape starts degrading from the moment of recording. Even when stored really well, it continues to degrade. Making a new analogue copy will be slightly lower quality than the original. Digital formats can be copied multiple times without degradation (which can be confirmed through hashing algorithms). So, it makes sense to digitise as early as possible. Even the earliest (1970s and 1980s) ADCs were pretty linear and low noise and so probably made excellent copies. Things were learned (including dither) and ADCs became even better (beyond audibility) so it made technical sense to make another digitisation round, this time with higher sample rate and more bits (allowing editing to be possible without degradation).

In terms of releasing to consumers - those are usually business and marketing decisions!

A third option should the remastering be done from the existing digital transfer done in 1990's ? if the tape degradation is such a problem and ADC's where better back then than most audiophiles imagine .

ADC was probably ( i guess ) better than the tape machine and tape itself ?

So new cool tools and plugins for noise cleanup and other editing can probably yeild a better version .

 

[JeffS7444]

In the case of Giles Martin's Beatles remixes, very worthwhile, I think: Among other trickery, demixing made the seemingly impossible a reality.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

ADC was probably ( i guess ) better than the tape machine and tape itself ?

So new cool tools and plugins for noise cleanup and other editing can probably yeild a better version

Yes, that sounds like common sense. However, if the original digitisation was done without dither, the artefacts will be baked in. Similarly sample rate can be much higher (in theory analogue tape exceeds 22.05kHz) and linear but depth has improved, so a 96kHz, 24bit master can be created that enables improved editing.

 

[SoundsGood64]

There seems to be two questions - 1) when is it a good idea to make a new digital master of an analogue tape? and 2) when should consumers be offered new opportunities to purchase?

I like how you separated my query into two component questions.

 

[SoundsGood64]

Thanks everyone so far for your comments. For reference, here are a few other related ASR postings:

Digital remasters - do they sound better or ..?

What is your take, when we see a note on CD stating "digitally remastered" do we generally get a better a sound or not? :)

www.audiosciencereview.com

Are There Any Good Remasters?

I have been trying to download CD versions of a bunch of the MP3s and/or LPs I have acquired over the years. However, so many classic albums are now only available as 2000s remixes. I have not heard any good remixes. Have you? Also, are there any remixes that we should all avoid? I hated to...

www.audiosciencereview.com

The Quality Of Tape: The new transfers of Decca’s Ring recordings

On the latest issue of the Sound on Sound magazine there is a piece about the legendary Decca recordings of Wagner operas from the 50s. I found the following very interesting and wanted to share with the members. The new transfers of Decca’s Ring recordings demonstrate that, in the hands of an...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Sometimes the remaster doesn't work out well. The last link here (see posts 37 and 58 in particular) is an interesting and unfortunate case in which the 2022-2023 hi res version of Wagner: Ring conducted by Solti (Decca) had greatly reduced dynamic range compared to Decca's three earlier digital releases from 1984, 1997 and 2012. I believe this is a case that was not worthwhile remastering to hi res. It takes up more data space but there's actually less audio info; so bad for the consumer and the environment (electricity, data storage, high streaming bandwidth for the hi res). The only advantages here besides sales is that it could introduce a new generation to this recording and that it's easier and safer to listen to it when driving a car.

Mahler came up twice above. Alexander G in post 8 mentioned an example of a remaster that was improved, Bernstein's Mahler recordings with Sony, and StigErik likes a 4ch SACD with Mahler 3 and Strauss: Tod, conducted by Horenstein circa 1970.

Do others have favorite classical remasters and why do you think it was worthwhile to remaster and/or issue to consumer?

 

[Chrispy]

Thanks everyone so far for your comments. For reference, here are a few other related ASR postings:

Digital remasters - do they sound better or ..?

What is your take, when we see a note on CD stating "digitally remastered" do we generally get a better a sound or not? :)

www.audiosciencereview.com

Are There Any Good Remasters?

I have been trying to download CD versions of a bunch of the MP3s and/or LPs I have acquired over the years. However, so many classic albums are now only available as 2000s remixes. I have not heard any good remixes. Have you? Also, are there any remixes that we should all avoid? I hated to...

www.audiosciencereview.com

The Quality Of Tape: The new transfers of Decca’s Ring recordings

On the latest issue of the Sound on Sound magazine there is a piece about the legendary Decca recordings of Wagner operas from the 50s. I found the following very interesting and wanted to share with the members. The new transfers of Decca’s Ring recordings demonstrate that, in the hands of an...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Sometimes the remaster doesn't work out well. The last link here (see posts 37 and 58 in particular) is an interesting and unfortunate case in which the 2022-2023 hi res version of Wagner: Ring conducted by Solti (Decca) had greatly reduced dynamic range compared to Decca's three earlier digital releases from 1984, 1997 and 2012. I believe this is a case that was not worthwhile remastering to hi res. It takes up more data space but there's actually less audio info; so bad for the consumer and the environment (electricity, data storage, high streaming bandwidth for the hi res). The only advantages here besides sales is that it could introduce a new generation to this recording and that it's easier and safer to listen to it when driving a car.

Mahler came up twice above. Alexander G in post 8 mentioned an example of a remaster that was improved, Bernstein's Mahler recordings with Sony, and StigErik likes a 4ch SACD with Mahler 3 and Strauss: Tod, conducted by Horenstein circa 1970.

Do others have favorite classical remasters and why do you think it was worthwhile to remaster and/or issue to consumer?

Somewhat curious why it is/may be so concentrated on this genre particularly?

 

[SoundsGood64]

Somewhat curious why it is/may be so concentrated on this genre particularly?

Not sure which genre you are referring to (classical?).

I wanted to specifically focus this thread on classical music recorded on analog because the practice of remastering resulting in decreased dynamic range seems a lot more common for non-classical genres such as pop, or at least there is more forum discussion on it (such as the first two links in post 13). As an aside example for larger context but beyond the scope of this thread, a favorite recording that was digital and non-classical is Midnight Oil: Blue Sky Mining. Here

https://dr.loudness-war.info/?artist=&album=blue+sky+mining

it's documented how a 2014 remaster has much reduced dynamic range compared to the original 1990. Unfortunately it looks like the practice spread into the classical genre with the 2022 hi res Solti Ring as an example above--hopefully unusual. This can be one aspect of this thread (if other classical remasters have a similar problem it would be good to mention), but I don't want us here to focus only on that because other threads covering non-classical genres such as digitally recorded pop already do.

 

[kemmler3D]

Under what conditions do you think it worthwhile to issue a new digital remaster of classical music, originally recorded on analog tape?

1) Audible sound quality improvements can be realized by repeating the mastering process.
2) There are enough people ready to buy the remastered version to pay for the remastering.

 

[Daverz]

Remasters make sense if they can improve the listening experience, rather than just being a marketing trick to get fans to buy another copy of an album. As an example, the remasters of the Bernstein Mahler recordings that Sony released as a "Bernstein century" box are markedly cleared and easier to listen to than the previous releases of those recordings. (You can easily compare this since both the remasters and an older transfer are available on streaming services, as well as for purchase on CD.)

The improvement in that set was so stark that it made it clear how lousy so many of those "Royal Edition" CD remasters really were (the ones featuring water colors by some upper-class twit who had no connection to Bernstein, musical or otherwise.)

However, since then Sony has done such an excellent job remastering hundreds of recordings I thought I'd never see again that all is forgiven.

From my sampling of a few things (e.g. Mahler 2) , the last Klemperer remasters from Warner are a definite improvement, though those recordings always sounded pretty good.

 

[Multicore]

Under what conditions do you think it worthwhile to issue a new digital remaster of classical music, originally recorded on analog tape?

It depends.

I should really leave it at that but ...

If it's not had a digital issue and it's a good or interesting performance and/or recording and you think you can recoup the costs or even profit.
If it's had prior digital issues but you think they are problematic and the situation should be remediated.
If you think you can persuade the market that your new remastering is worth money. But this might not be different from the previous justification.

Every case is different. Evaluation of the aesthetic/historic/etc value of the performance/recording of the master is complex, difficult and debatable enough. Add to that evaluation of the prior issues. And the commercial questions. I can't see how to provide general answers, hence: it depends.

 

[Robin L]

The real issue as of 2025 is how few Classical recordings are selling, specifically in physical formats. It's been something like ten/twenty years since there was a real push to remaster old classical recordings. I volunteer at the local library. We receive donations, sell CDs (and DVDs and Blu Ray discs) for $1 a disc. I'm the one who usually buys the Classical titles. Our community is small but still has two universities. There are very few classical music concerts in Olympia and Lacey Washington. The interest in Classical music in this neck of the woods is not as great as in Fresno California, a town usually thought of as more of a "Cowtown". But they have a symphony orchestra and a concert series of world-class pianists. And we don't.

The DGG LP reissue series is something of an anomaly; for the most part classical music recording companies are sending existing recordings to streaming, like Tidal and Spotify. I bought some reissues of Big-League titles recently. The Bernstein/NYPO/Columbia records Mahler cycle has a copyright date of 2012, but the remastering work for that set is from 2009. There's a fabulous Warner Classics (mostly HMV, a few Columbia recordings included) box of Adolph Busch and the Busch Quartet from 2015. However, the remastering work goes as far back as 1987. The sound of this set is pretty consistent. I've also got the Artur Schnabel set of Beethoven piano sonatas with remasters from 2015/2016 (though I have read from some sources that the remastering work is from earlier, touched up for the reissue). Note that in the case of these two reissues there are missing titles - Schnabel recorded most of the other solo works for piano along with the concertos, the Busch recorded other quartets that should have been in the Warner Classics box.

I could go on, but my point is that the current holders of these music catalogs have no economic reason to upgrade the bulk of their old catalogs. I've listened to some recent remastering of older (1950s/1960s) classical recordings from Sony (Columbia/Epic) and DGG on Tidal and they seem to have been improved, with reduced background noise and a smoother sound, though sometimes it appears to come from the addition of digital delay. But my fear is that there will come a time when these multinationals owning the masters of these recording will lose interest and stop properly reissuing classic recordings. I can see a lot of that happening already at Tidal. A lot of the back catalog titles from HMV are relegated to no-name reissues of dubious sourcing.

 

[SoundsGood64]

The real issue as of 2025 is how few Classical recordings are selling, specifically in physical formats.... But my fear is that there will come a time when these multinationals owning the masters of these recording will lose interest and stop properly reissuing classic recordings.

First, much appreciate Robin L for your comment here. I've read your posts in other threads and find them full of experience and wrote the OP here with some of those in mind. If I remember right (?) you've done recording and audio engineering, hosted a college radio show on classical music, and sold music recordings in various venues such as Tower Records and The Musical Offering Cafe in Berkeley, California, USA and now your local library (well maybe you buy more than you sell) in Olympia, Washington, USA. Maybe you caught a Sleater-Kinney show live while in Berkeley or Olympia, but that's a different genre.

Your comment that the companies that own the masters of classic recordings could lose interest in releasing these, especially in physical format makes sense based on some of my recent experience. When in Munich, Germany recently I was surprised to find a music recording retailer built into a department store, called Ludwig Beck. It had a lot of stock considering it's a physical store. There was a sales person there named Andres who would also sell at the National Theater (2 blocks away) when the Bayerische Staatsoper was on. I talked with him a few times and he thought that his store could be the last (big) one dedicated to classical music, saying that New York City was out, London was out. With streaming, I'm not sure how long that Munich store will be able to persist, and Munich is full of concert venues, classical players and listeners.

When I read your comment, a specific recording came to mind, Mozart: La Clemenza di Tito with Krenn, Teresa Berganza, Wiener Staatsopernorchester, and Istvan Kertesz conducting circa 1967. I found the 2 CD set from Decca (Grand Opera series, 1990 CD) at my local used store (books and discs) 4 years ago for $4, and later learned it is among the first recordings of this lesser known opera by Mozart. There are better recordings from pro reviews, but I can't get over what a great performance it is. When I listen to it, I feel like the singers knew they were putting something new and very special into the world, which they were. (Ok that's about as subjective as you can get.) Probably others heard this early recording and realized they needed to do one. As far as I can tell, this really important title is now out-of-print, not to be found in that store in Munich with such knowledgable staff, a major online retailer of physical media, or a major streaming service.

So I agree, the companies are already not reissuing some very significant recordings. If the tape is intact, the Krenn-Berganza-Kertesz Tito could be one to attempt a careful hi res remaster and if successfully improved, have a reissue, but as you wrote the market conditions are difficult.