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

[Robin L]

When a record company is under financial pressure to meet their profit forecast.

Which probably won't happen, no matter how beloved that recording may be. The biggest selling Classical recordings got more than enough remastering and reissuing when they had a chance of selling. Those days are gone. I'm sure Toscanini worked over with Mal software would be fascinating and receive major press, but I doubt that such reissues would financially justify the cost and effort.

 

[HammersRocco]

Which probably won't happen, no matter how beloved that recording may be. The biggest selling Classical recordings got more than enough remastering and reissuing when they had a chance of selling. Those days are gone. I'm sure Toscanini worked over with Mal software would be fascinating and receive major press, but I doubt that such reissues would financially justify the cost and effort.

True that, unfortunately the golden days of the commercial viability of Classical Music are long gone.

That said, reading the OP, it is a strange read. It seems to me that by "remaster", the OP is only thinking of transfer from analog to digital and/or format conversion, like the analog quad transfer to DSD for digital multi-channel.

First of all, to get it out of the way, I completely agree to imply any improvement in just re-transferring to a higher resolution is 100% incorrect. Anyone that believes that a transfer from analog to 384Khz will be distinguishable from a transfer from analog to 96Khz is just plain wrong.

BUT

To be fair, the record companies don't just do that. I will leave the judgment of the value of what they actually do to the people here. Note that I am also NOT talking about sound quality, but about obvious differences that are not related to any 'golden ears' claims.

1.- First, the EMI (RIP) GROC series. A very common complaint was about the series is the application of de-noise processing to the original tapes during the remastering process. A lot of people believed that it changed the recording too much. You might like it, you might not, but a lot of those recordings have been remastered again. This time, now Warner, did not apply the de-noise process. Result? THE RECORDINGS NOW HAVE AUDIBLE TAPE HISS! I was surprised that it doesn't really bother me, and those who disliked the GROC series now claim to like the new remasters.

2.- In another example, in the video accompanying the relatively recent issued remaster of Lenny's Beethoven Cycle, you see the remaster engineer applying (and talking about it of course) some digital reverb to the original recording. I don't remember top of my head which one was it, but the engineer was doing this to a recording he mentioned was done at the Jesus-Christus Kirche in Berlin, a recording venue generally acknowledge to give a great sound.

Now, people might like this remasters or not. In the spirit of ASR, I have to say that I am not making general statements re: sound quality or even that I could actually hear the extra/different digital reverb. But, and to connect it back to the OP and try to polish the question into something that IMHO makes more sense to ask, which is:

Does it make sense to manipulate recordings so much recordings that are generally acknowledged to be great in the first place? One thing is try to polish a 78 transfer or a 1930s radio broadcast, a very different one is to change the work of John Culshaw, Gordon Parry and many others whose names I am blanking out on right now.

IMHO, would love to get flat transfers of the original masters just to see if they are satisfactory as is.

Again, all relative, we might be able to hear the difference, hearing is fallible, etc. Just clarifying that is not just about format conversion. For good or bad, depending on your taste, classical record companies do things to the recordings.

Over the course of the thread, I see postings referencing recordings from popular music. Not sure if my ideas apply there. There are different values in recording popular music.

 

[Sal1950]

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

In a vinyl or digital format? Nearly always if it's done in quality digital.. Only when the condition of the master tape has deteriorated to a point the final product will have audible problems due to tape aging, print-thru, high freq loss, and all the rest. If the tape can be played back in close to original sound quality condition, or maybe some modern processing - handling processes used to repair-improve it; a digital copy will always be able to create a product that can deliver a reproduction of that said master than can ever be accomplished with vinyl. Nothing left to say beyond that.

 

[EERecordist]

I was just at a talk by a recording engineer who is also managing the archive of a deceased musician. What they said is that when digital entered the system in the 80s then CDs in the 90s, the converters were not as good as today. They also use iZotope on original multitrack tape when remixing, so better tools today.

 

[Sal1950]

I was just at a talk by a recording engineer who is also managing the archive of a deceased musician. What they said is that when digital entered the system in the 80s then CDs in the 90s, the converters were not as good as today. They also use iZotope on original multitrack tape when remixing, so better tools today.

Sort of irrelevant to the question. The digital tools of the 1980s were extremely good and what was archived back then is done, it's in the can.

Since then, with every passing year the old master tapes continue to deteriorate a little more. So while plugin tools like iZotope are improving it's a tightrope balance and any bodys guess where and when will be the "sweet spot" day will be. There undoubtedly will come a day when the playback of the old tapes is impossible.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

What they said is that when digital entered the system in the 80s then CDs in the 90s, the converters were not as good as today

That is absolutely the case. I was working in studios during the transition to digital recording (which of course pre-dates CD and domestic digital replay). Modern ADC are capable of astonishing performance, which was not available in the 1970s and early 1980s.

However, the these early professional ADCs and DACs were measurably and audibly better than professional analogue tape. They did not use dither, which, when introduced added further improvements.

 

[Sal1950]

However, the these early professional ADCs and DACs were measurably and audibly better than professional analogue tape.They did not use dither, which, when introduced added further improvements.

Amen

 

[EERecordist]

That is absolutely the case. I was working in studios during the transition to digital recording (which of course pre-dates CD and domestic digital replay). Modern ADC are capable of astonishing performance, which was not available in the 1970s and early 1980s.

However, the these early professional ADCs and DACs were measurably and audibly better than professional analogue tape. They did not use dither, which, when introduced added further improvements.

I left the industry as a job slightly before digital. I heard a rumor our studio was an early Sony customer. But following it from an EE view, the early anti-aliasing filters were a work in progress which affected the fidelity. Analog tape and Dolby were nonlinear, but some consider the nonlinearity pleasant. Timing linearity was greatly improved by digital.

 

[Sal1950]

Analog tape and Dolby were nonlinear, but some consider the nonlinearity pleasant

Maybe "pleasant" to some, but none the less a distortion of the input that at some point would be determined as terrible by all.

 

[EERecordist]

Maybe "pleasant" to some, but none the less a distortion of the input that at some point would be determined as terrible by all.

Yes. It was a necessary evil because of technology limitations of the time. It was a noise reduction technology, not a distortion reduction technology.

Tape acts like a soft compressor because of magnetic saturation. There is distortion throughout the electronics chain, including all the transformers common in the era of tape.

You and many ASR participants likely know Dolby A is a multiband symmetric compressor and expander. On record, the signal was compressed and the highs were boosted. Reverse on playback. It lowered the noise floor and allowed the music to overcome high frequency noise. But you can hear it pump. It was easy to hear in a concert going from minimal noise in the hall to start of music. It was nonlinear in many ways, but it seemed to work and be pleasing to listen to. Some people liked professional DBX.

 

[Sal1950]

Yes. It was a necessary evil because of technology limitations of the time. It was a noise reduction technology, not a distortion reduction technology.

Don't get me wrong, analog tape along with it's various attempts at noise reduction etc, it none the less captured some incredible sounding recordings over the decades.. I'm just so thrilled at the progress that digital recording brought to the table.
I'm dancin in the streets.