|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not film music on the tapes but the process is the same. Indeed. The main difference that the original session tapes of Deutsche Grammophon recordings should on average be in much better condition than some film score session tapes -- if they are found at all. DG session tapes are usually kept in temperature controlled storage vaults. With film score session tapes, it's obviously a hit and miss. :-) Thanks for posting this, very interesting stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do the videos also reveal that the latest "remaster" may simply involve taking the previous remaster and simply boosting the levels? The word "remaster" is very vague, and people shouldn't get excited every time they encounter it. That's quite true, but "boosting the levels" is fortunately not the Deutsche Grammophon remastering philosophy so far. But indeed, often times, unfortunately, "remastering" only means "hotter". Just because something is remastered does not at all mean it will sound better.
|
|
|
|
|
I've viewed the first video so far, and I'm really enjoying this peek behind the scenes. I didn't know they took all those pains to check and adjust the tape machines before playback. Thanks for posting these, Ed.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. 'Remo Williams The Adventure Begins' has been released on CD 4 times- a promo, and label releases by Intrada, Perserverance, and NoteForNote. For the Promo, Intrada, and Perserverance release, a 2-tr stereo mix stored on a DAT was mastered (or remastered) for CD 3 different times. NoteForNote took the original multitrack tapes, created a new mix well apart from that DAT, and then mastered their new mix for CD for the first time. There is a distinct difference between the first three releases of Remo, and the NoteForNote release. That said, even our favorite labels will hide behind terms like 're-mastering' and have been known to get a bit vague about just what they did to create some albums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. You seem to be saying that you cannot "re-master" a new mix. You can only "re-master" a master of an old mix. A new mix results in a "new master" not a "re-master." If we are going to split hairs between a "new master" and a "re-master" that way, it seems like you cannot do a "re-mix" at all, because by definition every "re-mix" is "new mix." So, the term "re-mix" should be dropped. I agree with Nicolai P. Zwar that "you cannot make a new mix without making a new master, so remixing always involves remastering, but remastering not always a new mix." To avoid confusion, perhaps it is best to drop the terms "re-mix" and "re-master" and just talk about "new mixes" and "new masters." That tells the buyer whether something has changed from the old release. Even if all you do to a old master is adjust levels and equalization, you have still created a "new master."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 3, 2020 - 7:45 AM
|
|
|
By: |
OnyaBirri
(Member)
|
The hardest part with film music, though, seems to be the detective work involved in finding original tapes, or determining if they exist in the first place. They may be with the movie studio, they may be with a record company or the independent production company, or they may be in the basement of someone related to the composer! You don't need the original tapes for a remastering credit. Just take the latest digital remaster, boost the highs or lows a little, bring up the levels slightly, and that earns you a remastering credit. It is a very misleading word, and too many consumers fall for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. 'Remo Williams The Adventure Begins' has been released on CD 4 times- a promo, and label releases by Intrada, Perserverance, and NoteForNote. For the Promo, Intrada, and Perserverance release, a 2-tr stereo mix stored on a DAT was mastered (or remastered) for CD 3 different times. NoteForNote took the original multitrack tapes, created a new mix well apart from that DAT, and then mastered their new mix for CD for the first time. There is a distinct difference between the first three releases of Remo, and the NoteForNote release. That said, even our favorite labels will hide behind terms like 're-mastering' and have been known to get a bit vague about just what they did to create some albums. Clearly, few here understand what mastering for CD is. You do. I can't explain anymore. Mastering for CD (let's just use that full term, or mastering for any type of release) has nothing to do with making a new mix or new album masters - entirely different things and I recommend learning about the differences. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 3, 2020 - 12:30 PM
|
|
|
By: |
OnyaBirri
(Member)
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|