 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 3, 2020 - 1:05 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
.
(Member)
|
If I want to edit the music on a CD I own, then that CD is my master. If I then edit out a couple of extraneous background clicks or reverse the playing order of two tracks to my liking, no matter how incompetently, the amended audio file I stitch together can be legitimately described as my "remastered" version of the original CD, can't it?
No, that's editing and cleanup – not mastering. Mastering is the process of affecting the sonic quality, the shape of the sound. See Bruce's post above.
OK. Then in addition to what I described above, if I added a touch of reverb throughout or changed the sound from stereo to mono, or boosted the bass by 4db, could the resulting audio file then be fairly described as my "remastered" edition?
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I want to edit the music on a CD I own, then that CD is my master. If I then edit out a couple of extraneous background clicks or reverse the playing order of two tracks to my liking, no matter how incompetently, the amended audio file I stitch together can be legitimately described as my "remastered" version of the original CD, can't it?
No, that's editing and cleanup – not mastering. Mastering is the process of affecting the sonic quality, the shape of the sound. See Bruce's post above.
OK. Then in addition to what I described above, if I added a touch of reverb throughout or changed the sound from stereo to mono, or boosted the bass by 4db, could the resulting audio file then be fairly described as my "remastered" edition?
You demean people who work very hard at what they do and equate it with being an amateur. Not a good look, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mastering for CD is its own art. You are working from whatever the source you're given. You are mastering (preparing) that source for CD, creating codes for it, etc. Great mastering engineers take what they're given and will put the finishing touches on it, like the whipped cream on a hot fudge sundae. They'll smooth out any volume problems, they'll EQ to perhaps make the bass a little tighter, a little more or less prominent, they'll open up the high end to give it some transparency and air, they'll smooth out the mid-range - they'll SHAPE the sound for the best possible result (IF they're good at it). But they cannot change the mix, they cannot change the source or what's on it, they can be very, very helpful - James Nelson being a great example of someone who really knows his business, or harmful - Erik Labson comes to mind.
Trouble is, if they are working with an existing lousy digital master, there is not much they can do with it. And inferior source is an inferior source.
So the word "remaster" is inherently deceptive.
No, there's bad mastering and good mastering. But yes, the source is the source - it can be helped hugely or not. What Chris Malone did on It's a Wonderful Life and A Place in the Sun, both at one time to be thought unreleasable, was a miracle. So, he took terrible sources, cleaned them up brilliantly, and then mastered that wonderfully. I honestly don't understand what people are trying to say or do in this thread.
Every time I see "new 4K restoration" on every Blu-ray that comes out, I just have to laugh, because doing a 4K transfer is not a "restoration." That is a very specific thing, but words can be subverted and are all the time. Those of us who have worked with great mastering engineers know and respect what they do because we can hear the difference with this thing we have called ears. I've worked with two of the best - Joe Gastwirt during the Varese days, and James Nelson on almost all the Kritzerland titles. But also Chris and Mike Matessino have mastered for us and they know what they're doing, too.
Isn't it funny - I lay out exactly the process and then it becomes about other things. I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You demean people who work very hard at what they do and equate it with being an amateur. Not a good look, I'm afraid.
I do no such thing. I appreciate beautifully remastered soundtrack CDs as much as anyone, and have spent thousands of dollars on them over the years, including plenty of yours.
Then perhaps I and others are missing your point in your two posts, the last of which read: "OK. Then in addition to what I described above, if I added a touch of reverb throughout or changed the sound from stereo to mono, or boosted the bass by 4db, could the resulting audio file then be fairly described as my "remastered" edition?"
Please let me know exactly how to interpret it because I'm clearly not "getting" the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, before these videos were posted here, Beethoven's Ninth was literally the furthest thing from my mind. But now I'm looking at the new CD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly don't understand what people are trying to say or do in this thread.
I can't speak for the other participants, but I can say from experience that the word "remaster" has been used deceptively, even by major labels. If you are using the word appropriately, - and I have no reason to doubt that you are, based on the many Kritzerland albums I have - that's fine. But I think you are painting a rosy picture of how other labels have used the term, and too many of us have been had along the way.
Not really painting any kind of picture other than to try and clarify what mastering actually is, and as I said, there's good mastering and there's bad mastering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 3, 2020 - 9:08 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
.
(Member)
|
I honestly don't understand what people are trying to say or do in this thread.
I can't speak for the other participants, but I can say from experience that the word "remaster" has been used deceptively, even by major labels. If you are using the word appropriately, - and I have no reason to doubt that you are, based on the many Kritzerland albums I have - that's fine. But I think you are painting a rosy picture of how other labels have used the term, and too many of us have been had along the way.
Exactly. And I recall discussion elsewhere in the past when the boot Red Bitch label's release of The Unforgiven by Montenegro was described as remastered. But they had remastered nothing of course – they simply stole the music from the previous Kritzerland release (or was it the FSM? Can't recall).
And are Membran's boots still being described on eBay as "Membran remastered CDs"?
Even among well intentioned and honest labels, the word "remastered" cannot always be trusted as a sign of improved quality. For example, many folks here will be aware of brick-walled remastered discs that are inferior to what came before. I cannot swear to it, but I think I recall Haineshisway being in agreement with this observation in the past.
Then there is a label I shall not mention by name (because I've already done so enough times) that coated many of its remastered releases in a treacle-like coating of way-over-the-top reverb.
Needless to say, the above has nothing to do with our finest remastering experts and the immeasurable and continual contribution they make to our film music joys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly don't understand what people are trying to say or do in this thread.
I can't speak for the other participants, but I can say from experience that the word "remaster" has been used deceptively, even by major labels. If you are using the word appropriately, - and I have no reason to doubt that you are, based on the many Kritzerland albums I have - that's fine. But I think you are painting a rosy picture of how other labels have used the term, and too many of us have been had along the way.
Exactly. And I recall discussion elsewhere in the past when the boot Red Bitch label's release of The Unforgiven by Montenegro was described as remastered. But they had remastered nothing of course – they simply stole the music from the previous Kritzerland release (or was it the FSM? Can't recall).
And are Membran's boots still being described on eBay as "Membran remastered CDs"?
Even among well intentioned and honest labels, the word "remastered" cannot always be trusted as a sign of improved quality. For example, many folks here will be aware of brick-walled remastered discs that are inferior to what came before. I cannot swear to it, but I think I recall Haineshisway being in agreement with this observation in the past.
Then there is a label I shall not mention by name (because I've already done so enough times) that coated many of its remastered releases in a treacle-like coating of way-over-the-top reverb.
Needless to say, the above has nothing to do with our finest remastering experts and the immeasurable and continual contribution they make to our film music joys.
Yes, the word can be used stupidly and is every day. That was not my point. My POINT was to correct the misinformation about what mastering actually is. I'm not sure why everything veered off into a whole other ball of potatoes, but it did. Yes, I HATE brick walling and have named the mastering engineer who does it right in this very thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what is happening in these videos has anything to do with remastering. They're making a new mix, not remastering. Remastering does not involve remixing - that's not what mastering is about at all. I always have to correct people when they call my release of Follies a brilliant remastering. I have to tell them there's no amount of brilliant remastering that could help the original album masters because they suck. I remixed the album from scratch, making it sound as it always SHOULD have sounded. Then we mastered THAT for CD release.
Well, you cannot make a new mix without making a new master, so remixing always involves remastering, but remastering not always a new mix.
The intention of Deutsche Gramophon here is to get a new master (remaster) of previously released recordings of the Bernstein/Beethoven recordings, but they are going to the length of creating a new mix for the new master.
In the end, you will still have a new CD with the exact same recording in your hands, but remastered (and remixed).
Nooo... you got that all backwards. Did you not read Bruce Kimmel's post?
DG is creating new stereo mixes and new first-time masters from old multi-track recordings.
If DG took fully mixed albums and poked at the EQ & boosted the levels, then that would be a re-master.
I thought the point was was perfectly clear an not even controversial. :-)
But it is funny how this thread has grown. The DG videos above explain quite well what may be involved when releasing re-mastered editions.
Obviously, if DG creates a new stereo mix and a NEW master, it still IS a RE-master (by definition), as the music was mastered before. That is what "RE" means: mastered again. Any master of the same music other than the first master is a RE-master. By definition. That is what RE (coming from Latin") means: "again". So to re-master a recording is to make a new master of the recording. Whether a new mix is involved or not is a different issue.
That's why when it says "re-mastered" on a new CD, it might mean an already released album master was "tweaked", or a completely new master was made from a new mix. BOTH are correctly called "RE-master". Which is why you can release a score remastered without a new mix, but you cannot release a new mix of the score without also re-mastering it.
That's why LaLaLand can correctly state about their SUPERMAN release "remixed and remastered".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the arguments and definitions, but on a more basic level, I'm always happy to see old, culturally significant tapes get a high quality digital transfer. Especially high res. That's the only way they're going to survive in the long run.
And it's a pleasure to see the attention to detail this guy at Grammophon is taking. If you watch all three videos, he's an engineer and an artist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the arguments and definitions, but on a more basic level, I'm always happy to see old, culturally significant tapes get a high quality digital transfer. Especially high res. That's the only way they're going to survive in the long run.
And it's a pleasure to see the attention to detail this guy at Grammophon is taking. If you watch all three videos, he's an engineer and an artist.
Yeah, they know what they are doing. I recently heard the (remastered) 4th Beethoven Symphony from Karajan's famous 60s cycle and his (remastered) 9th from the 1970s cycle, and they both sounded spectacular. I was especially surprised by how clear and natural the old recording from the 1960s now sounds in current re-masterings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 4, 2020 - 6:55 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
OnyaBirri
(Member)
|
I honestly don't understand what people are trying to say or do in this thread.
I can't speak for the other participants, but I can say from experience that the word "remaster" has been used deceptively, even by major labels. If you are using the word appropriately, - and I have no reason to doubt that you are, based on the many Kritzerland albums I have - that's fine. But I think you are painting a rosy picture of how other labels have used the term, and too many of us have been had along the way.
Not really painting any kind of picture other than to try and clarify what mastering actually is, and as I said, there's good mastering and there's bad mastering.
There is also deceptive remastering, which you don't seem to acknowledge. This is different from "bad" remastering.
An example would be mildly tweaking the previous remaster and hyping a release as "newly remastered" to move units. That is deceptive, regardless of whether the result is particularly "good" or "bad."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are making a digital copy from a two track tape, then its a remaster.
No. Mastering is not a noun, it's a verb. Mastering (or remastering) is not the act of making of a physical copy – it's the act of making changes to a program sonically.
Subtle or pronounced, it's an interpretive process hopefully made by an artist trained as an engineer. More akin to a great session player who's asked to bring life to a composer's work on the stage (if you should be so lucky.)
Saul, no one wants to understand the difference and that's fine. We tried 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone listen to Saul and Bruce lol.
To OnyaBirri's point, yes, there are some crappy remasters. However, it is possible to bring substantial improvements to old recordings using modern technology. Recording studio monitors back in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s were notoriously poor; modern mix monitors from Genelec, JBL and the like are MUCH more accurate and revealing of what was actually in the recording so proper tweaks can be made. For example, if a 60s recording was mixed or mastered on a monitor speaker that had severely rolled off treble and boomy bass, the resulting CD o/ LP would have artificially boosted highs and reduced bass since the mastering engineer would have made those EQ tweaks in order to get the recording to sound good on those old speakers.
So the potential for better sound is there, it's all up to the mastering engineer and the quality of the equipment he / she mixes on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
