Why, for the same song, I'd like one master compared to anothers?

[Nowhk]

Hi all,

I was watching this last night, and I was pretty amazed of how, for the same song, I really prefer one master compared to others (proposed in the same video):

In my case, there is no challenge: the mono one is far "superior" to others, and I really (really) love it.
The question is (a sort of self-reflection to myself? yes I think it is...): why?

Why the mono one is "superior" to my ear/brain?
Shouldn't the content of the song be the same (i.e. so enjoyable at the same level) at the expense of a "merely" technical intervention?
Could be considered another "version" of the song which impact very huge on my emotional response? Adding a significative layer to the Beatle's job?

What's your opinion about this?
Can we discuss together how human being react to "the same music" through these sound elaborations?

Thanks for any tips, reply and suggestions.

 

[anmpr1]

I was watching this last night, and I was pretty amazed of how, for the same song, I really prefer one master compared to others (proposed in the same video):

It's very common on remasters. And remasters of remasters.

 

[MRC01]

... I was watching this last night, and I was pretty amazed of how, for the same song, I really prefer one master compared to others (proposed in the same video):
...

The most obvious difference is tonal balance, which is part how the tracks are mixed, and part how the mix is mastered. Another obvious one is how much dynamic range compression (if any) is used. There may be other differences but they're smaller; most of what I hear falls into those 2 categories.

 

[fpitas]

It's very common on remasters. And remasters of remasters.

View attachment 227422

Yes, they do. But often the engineer is "instructed" by management, against his wishes.

 

[digitalfrost]

I'm not a big beatles fan, but I agree just from my first listen that the mono version sounds the best. Sure it lacks the space the others have, but especially in the 2018 version the placing of stuff is just weird.

 

[DanielT]

Tip:

Album list - Dynamic Range DB

 

[digitalfrost]

Tip:

Album list - Dynamic Range DB

According to this the 2018 Bluray stereo has the most average and max DR: https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/1/dr/desc?artist=The Beatles&album=white

 

[jae]

A lot of these beatles stereo "masters" I've found have a lot of the content hard panned right or left. Might not be as bad on speakers but on headphones it is headache inducing.

 

[fpitas]

In defense of reasonable compression, it can help a mix travel better on inexpensive lo-fi systems like cars, radios etc. For rock and roll, it's considered de rigeur. Makes it more in-your-face. For some acoustic or light jazz stuff, they take it easy. As I recall, one of the Diana Krall albums pushed 20db DR.

Remember, your average listener does not listen in a noise-free environment, to a system with exceptional dynamic range. More like, they cranked up the Bose cubes to drown out the wife and kids.

 

[BJL]

In the case of the Beatles, and many other musicians from that period (through the early 1970s), the mono releases were completely different mixes (not remasters) and occasionally, used different takes from the stereo releases. Many musicians released stereo albums, but the singles were mixed differently into mono.

Some examples: the great Soul music releases of the late 1960’s (on Motown and Atlantic) had terrific mono singles (Temptations, Marvin Gaye, Four Tops, Aretha Franklin, Supremes, many others) and equally interesting (and different) stereo LP versions often including the same songs.

Most of this music has been reissued, lovingly remastered from the original mono and stereo masters, for compact disc and boutique vinyl reissues. Whether those remasters are better or worse than the original vinyl (7” or LP) is a matter of endless controversy, though I personally like the CD reissues very much but find the vinyl reissues to be superfluous where there is an available compact disc.


But going back to the Beatles, the mono versions are not remasters, they are separate mixes. The reissues are remasters, both mono and stereo.

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

Yes, they do. But often the engineer is "instructed" by management, against his wishes.

Who are 'management' in this case? And instructed to do what?

 

[SuicideSquid]

A lot of these beatles stereo "masters" I've found have a lot of the content hard panned right or left. Might not be as bad on speakers but on headphones it is headache inducing.

In the early days of stereo, this is simply how stereo mixes were done - vocals on one channel, instruments on the other. I believe Revolver was the first Beatles album to have what we'd now consider a "conventional" stereo mix.

 

[SuicideSquid]

Who are 'management' in this case? And instructed to do what?

Record companies are in the habit of producing new masters of classic albums every 10-15 years or so like clockwork. Album released in 1969? In 1984 you got a straight dump of the original master to CD, in the mid-90s you got a "16 bit digital remaster", in the mid-2000s you got a "24-bit hi-res remaster" and recently maybe a new remix/remaster for streaming and positional audio.

Typically there are two parts to these remasters - there's the clean up and conversion of old master tapes (or of the original individual tracks) to 24 bit PCM or to DSD for archival, and then a remaster (or more common recently, a remix from those converted tracks) which is usually done with an eye to bringing the sound in line with the tastes and listening habits of current listeners. So in the 90s that would be mastering to sound best on a CD on a home stereo, in the 2000s that might have been with more of an eye to portable devices, and now the current concern is making sure it sounds good on a variety of devices connected to streaming services.

 

[Nowhk]

The topic is taking the direction of "how master is done and who managed it" rather than "why the emotional response differs due to the change of technical artefacts rather than change in the art".

I mean: it seems that emotional response change thanks to engineering, not beatles themself, and this sounds weird, isn't?
A reply could be: they are able to send to the brain the meaning of the tracks faster and better, but its just an hypothesis...

 

[DSJR]

The tragic thing is that for many famous US artists alive and passed, the Universal fire wiped out the original session masters, so some living artists can't now go back to the studio session tapes to do remixes or whatever as they've been destroyed (I believe some UK multitracks of 1960's and maybe 1970's singles were erased and re-used once the single was mixed and completed).

It's lucky in a way that the Beatles' work has been preserved and carefully stored. I did an install once to a chap renting a house owned by a touring memver of a once quite well known band band and a load of 2" as well as 1/4" reels were under a tarpaulin in the garage, so subject to full UK weather differences.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I have a copy of the White Album in MFSL half-speed master. I wonder if that is the one listed as 1982 (which is approximately when I received it). I had the earlier stereo release, and the MFSL was so much better I didn't keep the older one. Also have a half speed master of Abby Road.

 

[Frgirard]

The tragic thing is that for many famous US artists alive and passed, the Universal fire wiped out the original session masters, so some living artists can't now go back to the studio session tapes to do remixes or whatever as they've been destroyed (I believe some UK multitracks of 1960's and maybe 1970's singles were erased and re-used once the single was mixed and completed).

It's lucky in a way that the Beatles' work has been preserved and carefully stored. I did an install once to a chap renting a house owned by a touring memver of a once quite well known band band and a load of 2" as well as 1/4" reels were under a tarpaulin in the garage, so subject to full UK weather differences.

If Dali could retouch certain paintings or Kundera corrected his novels?
A work of art cannot be retouched
A commercial product undergoes revisions

Sad musical world .

 

[goat76]

The topic is taking the direction of "how master is done and who managed it" rather than "why the emotional response differs due to the change of technical artefacts rather than change in the art".

I mean: it seems that emotional response change thanks to engineering, not beatles themself, and this sounds weird, isn't?
A reply could be: they are able to send to the brain the meaning of the tracks faster and better, but its just an hypothesis...

It's not just about technical artifacts caused by mastering, you prefer a completely different mix of the art. The music has to be mixed, otherwise, it can’t be reproduced in our homes. You simply prefer the mono mix over the others this time around.

 

[SuicideSquid]

If Dali could retouch certain paintings or Kundera corrected his novels?
A work of art cannot be retouched
A commercial product undergoes revisions

Sad musical world .

This is just not true.

Many authors go back and make minor changes to their novels or other written works when later editions are printed. JRR Tolkien did this extensively, for example.

Many composers made alterations to scores for orchestral works or operas after those works debuted.

Many directors re-cut their films to make minor corrections to pacing or restore a shot or scene they later realized should not have been cut.

And many works of art have been professionally restored as they fade over time, which is much more akin to a remaster, which typically does not alter the actual original recordings, but only tweaks their presentation slightly.

 

[Geert]

"why the emotional response differs due to the change of technical artefacts rather than change in the art".

Why does the sound of a Ferrari triggers a different response than that of a Ford Focus?