 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The subject pretty much sums it up. I'm curious to know why remastered scores released these days are often such improvements on previous versions of only 10 or so years ago. I'm sure that the record labels aren't necessarily lavishing more care now than they used to (although I'm sure that may be true in some instances) so I can only assume it's the technology that's improved. Is it the way that the information is taken from the original tapes? Or the ability of mixing software to dial out hiss and improve clarity? Easier to edit (in a literal cut and splice sense) with modern software? Sure there are some experts out there who know why we are often getting recordings made in the 60's and 70's (and some in the 50's) which sound like they were recorded yesterday but had they come out a decade ago would have shown their age so much more.
Cheers in advance!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's Varese's way of remastering their deluxe editions:
TURN IT UP TURN IT UP LOUD AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's Varese's way of remastering their deluxe editions:
TURN IT UP TURN IT UP LOUD AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pretty much. Thankfully it is rarely as bad as Japanese releases that have been horribly clipped but I wish everything was done as well as Kritzerland and Intrada releases.
Here is a novel thought...
Has anyone gone to the folks who master these albums and ASKED them about their work?
Anyone?
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's Varese's way of remastering their deluxe editions:
TURN IT UP TURN IT UP LOUD AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pretty much. Thankfully it is rarely as bad as Japanese releases that have been horribly clipped but I wish everything was done as well as Kritzerland and Intrada releases.
Here is a novel thought...
Has anyone gone to the folks who master these albums and ASKED them about their work?
Anyone?
Ford A. Thaxton
Yes because Varese is going to respond nicely to "why must you make your release so LOUD!??"
Who said anything about going to VARESE or another label?
If you look at the credits on these albums, as a rule you'll find the person who mastered the album listed right there.
Do a web search and see if they have a Facebook page or official site?
If they do, send them a POLITE AND SHORT email asking him a few questions you wish answered about what they do and if it's alright to post them if they answers.
You might be surprised about the answers you get.
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a novel thought...
Has anyone gone to the folks who master these albums and ASKED them about their work?
Anyone?
If I compare two versions and hear the difference with my ears, I don't need to ask. My ears can discern between unprocessed and processed sounds.
Ah, someone who clearly has a CLOSED mind.
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, he has a point. The work always speaks for itself (unless for those who don't hear it, of course). If the remastering sounds good then very little has been done to the original to so-call improve on it (no brickwall limiting, no noticeable EQ, ...) . When dealing with analog recordings, good remastering often means a better source, like the original master tape and, if possible played back with the original tape recorder, boosting the original levels (which often are way below zero dB) without hurting the original dynamics. EQ-ing should always be 'invisible', otherwise you're changing the original sound. You can't make a bad recording sound good with remastering anyway, but it's very easy to damage it.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 15, 2014 - 1:11 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
John-73
(Member)
|
Here is a novel thought...
Has anyone gone to the folks who master these albums and ASKED them about their work?
Anyone?
If I compare two versions and hear the difference with my ears, I don't need to ask. My ears can discern between unprocessed and processed sounds.
Absolutely. There are myriad reasons why many releases sound compressed, or brick-walled. To be fair, many are asked against their wishes by 'the powers that be' to make it sound good for the iPod or car stereo, which is utterly deplorable especially for the soundtrack genre, where it's all about the subtle musical nuances, and dynamic contrasts. Thankfully, I've only a few soundtracks which sound truly bad; by and large we're lucky compared to many pop/rock/indie/metal etc. releases which just sound loud & lifeless on a normal hifi system without the background noise of a car or noisy environment to mask the shortcomings. Anyone who has a reputation for brick-walling & compressing the life out of music for the ipod/car, I simply don't buy their releases these days. I'm not paying for mediocrity...
Some interesting points raised in this thread, and I agree whole-heartedly with Mr Fake:
http://www.intrada.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5924
I don't see why every release/genre can't have high quality mastering applied, and instead a special 'filter' button on car stereos and ipods that one can turn on or off to make the music sound 'better' when competing with travel noise. Once the sonic damage is done, and is 'built into' the CD release, it cannot be undone. So a switchable filter seems like the ideal answer; good sound on the move, and when listening on a hifi in a quiet environment (when I do most of my listening).
In terms of improvements in remastering over the past decade, I think that analogue to digital converters (ADCs) that are used to digitise the masters have improved greatly. And the downsampling software (i.e. For converting 24/192 or 24/96 etc. down to CDs 16/44.1 level) has gotten extremely transparent too. The Star Trek The Motion Picture release is a fine example of how things have improved. The old release(s) didn't sound bad at all, but the new version is just utterly stunning in its clarity, and the mixing. I've actually fooled people into thinking I was playing a high-res release! One of those releases which keeps on surprising and sounding better & better as your system improves/evolves. High fidelity done right and not at the expense of any sonic damage done to pandering to the iPod/car systems.
Thank goodness many post samples of their releases these days; a good way to potentially hear for any lousy mastering before paying your hard-earned, and reading these forums too of course 
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, he has a point. The work always speaks for itself (unless for those who don't hear it, of course). If the remastering sounds good then very little has been done to the original to so-call improve on it (no brickwall limiting, no noticeable EQ, ...) . When dealing with analog recordings, good remastering often means a better source, like the original master tape and, if possible played back with the original tape recorder, boosting the original levels (which often are way below zero dB) without hurting the original dynamics. EQ-ing should always be 'invisible', otherwise you're changing the original sound. You can't make a bad recording sound good with remastering anyway, but it's very easy to damage it.
Alex
The sad thing is that most everyone who has posted hasn't a clue about mastering and the art of it.
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, he has a point. The work always speaks for itself (unless for those who don't hear it, of course). If the remastering sounds good then very little has been done to the original to so-call improve on it (no brickwall limiting, no noticeable EQ, ...) . When dealing with analog recordings, good remastering often means a better source, like the original master tape and, if possible played back with the original tape recorder, boosting the original levels (which often are way below zero dB) without hurting the original dynamics. EQ-ing should always be 'invisible', otherwise you're changing the original sound. You can't make a bad recording sound good with remastering anyway, but it's very easy to damage it.
Alex
The sad thing is that most everyone who has posted hasn't a clue about mastering and the art of it.
Ford A. Thaxton
And you've come to that conclusion because...?
I'm also just a stupid fanboy, but most arguments posted here makes me think that the people here have more clue about mastering than some in the industry. Otherwise they wouldn't release the hazardous waste they do. I've heard Bob Norberg's Sinatra - enough said. Unfortunately, some soundtrack releases are also affected by "modern mastering"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
