A controversial issue about remastering..."Pet Sounds"

a controversial issue about remastering...

That is an excerpt from Steve's reply about his Pet Sounds remastering... ...really, on a great system, the original "fairy dust" mono mix doesn't need tweaking at all. It needs leaving alone. It is a little bass heavy, but so be it. It will shine and blossom the best on a really great system that way...

I have submitted the reply to famous German mastering engineer Eroc and he replied to me:

"...whoever wrote this - he made a grand mistake... preserved music is no holy witness of time and documents. They were made for best knowledge and conscience to bring music to the people. They are nothing else but pure consumer goods. To keep their original sound is senseless, beacuse every equipment, and room sounds different. Also add the different listening habits... so there can be NO original fairy dust, because this was only there in the studio or recording, but the mastering isn't more than a weak joke of it...... music will not made for an elitist group, who can put an 80 Grand amp in their listening room, but for all people... also for people with low budget equipment... I'm a musician, studio engineer, producer and restaurator... in this order."


I know Eroc's philosophy is completely different from Steve's!!! He further said... at that time the production and recording techniques were limited... if you have the possibility today improving the record - why not? He doesn't speak about remixing, only about improving the sound of old records.


I can understand both sides... and I say both ways are legitimate. But only less mastering engineers understand to recreate the sound from poor records... and I say Eroc's Everly Bros and Yardbirds remasters are the arguments for his great job.

 

Hello Claus,

I ask in humble ignorance: Who is EROC. What are the Everly and Yardbirds remasters that you refer to? Thanks.

Jim W.

 

Re: a controversial issue about remastering...

Claus,

Certainly, I respect Eroc's right to express his opinion but, I simply and respectfully disagree with his opinion. This is not a question of "right or wrong" nor, should it be. Actually, I do not understand the motivation for his ascertain that "preserved music is no holy witness of time and documents." Whether we want to admit it or not, I believe, again respectfully, that it is a bit arrogant to say "To keep their original sound is senseless" when there are so many folks here that will stridently argue that they want to hear the original sound, neutrally-mastered and judge the artistic nature of the music on those standards. Certainly, for me that is why I cherish and embrace the DCC Pet Sounds as mastered by Steve. In fact, there in lies the real beauty in Steve's rendering. The real purity for my listening enjoyment is that Pet Sounds, as mastered by Steve, is historically "musical." Since I was alive and buying music in 1966, this pervasive quality is paramount to my listening enjoyment.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob

 

Isn't Eroc the guy who claims he can use NR and not have it affect the music? Enough said...

 

Re: a controversial issue about remastering...

I have wrestled with this point more than any other since I have been a member of this forum.
I have grown to have a tremendous respect for Steve's methods. I love what he does for the music. We especially need Steve because he is one of the few engineers who knows how to be true to the original.
While, I also want to hear multi channel, I would not wish for any engineer to deliberately add elements that were not on the original.
Give me Steve first, than let's have those resynchro'd remixes (preferably with Steve's supervision )

 

I for one wouldn't mind at all reading in more depth what Eroc has to say about his remastering methods. Easier then to judge whether he actually knows what he's talking about, or whether he knows how to hang himself with his own words....not enough info above to have an opinion...yet.

I'm with James: what are the CD's this guy claims to have mastered? Might even have one, for all I know. What I do know is, there's a burgeoning 'Hoffman Wing' on my shelves, but I don't see an 'Eroc' section as yet...

ED

 

Quick response to EROC (?/sounds kind of sexual)... Isn't it a nice, honest gesture of a listener to want to be able to listen to a recording that sounds as close as possible to the master. I can understand any person's goal of making something better (subjective) but in some cases, one man's symphony is another man's gas...

Todd

 

Re: a controversial issue about remastering...

I suppose that is the key difference in philosophy. It sounds like Eroc makes his mastering decisions with an eye towards compensating for low-fi playback systems through NR and other tweaks. I think Hoffman is primarily focused on producing something that sounds good on a quality system.

What sounds like making an "improvement" in a recording to one person's ears is wrecking it to another. That's why I myself prefer people who take a more subtle approach in mastering.

I'm curious... what Everlys stuff has Eroc done?

 

Well, I respect your opinions... I take the records which sounds at best!!! The Yardbirds remasters sound much better than all available records from any record companies... why I should take the pressing which sounds flat from the master, but it's not an improvement? The same goes for the T. Rex, James Gang, Everly Bros., Quicksilver Messenger service or Frankie Goes To Hollywood remasters... they all sound better than other pressings...
I do like Mofi's Guns N' Roses "Appetite For Destruction", but it's only a little improvement against the regular pressing... so if you have the possibility to improve the sound using special software... I thinks it's okay!


He uses equipment by AudioCube, Apogee, Studer, FM-Acoustics, Ortofon, Genelec, Massenburg, AKG etc. in its own mastering facility.

Masterings from Eroc:

records from: The Tornados – The Yardbirds – Johnny & The Hurricanes – Heinz – Roy Wood & Wizzard – The Move – Casey Jones & The Governors – Roy Orbison – Ralph McTell – Tom Jones – The Everly Brothers – Johnny Cash – Hank Mizell – The Soulful Dynamics – Harvey Mandel – Carl Perkins – Slik – The Chambers Brothers – Hawkwind – Frankie Miller – Del Shannon – The Small Faces – T. Rex – Jackie Wilson – Jerry Lee Lewis – Chickory Tip – Ashton, Gardner & Dyke – Hello – Flash & The Pan – James Gang – Barry Ryan – The Creation – Shocking Blue – Steamhammer – Amon Düül II – The Gun – Titanic – Ten CC – The Animals – Writing On The Wall – Terry Reid – Quicksilver Messenger Service – The Flowerpot Men – The Meters – Canned Heat – Robin Trower – Barry Blue – Ougenweide – Ian Gillan – Gary Brooker – Alvin Lee – Bakerloo – The Shangri-La's – Lee Clayton – Climax Blues Band – Thunder – Everon – The Inchtabokatables – Phantoms Of Future – Grobschnitt – Farfarello – Phillip Boa – Tic Tac Toe – Frankie Goes Go Hollywood – The Art Of Noise – Propaganda – Traceelords – Herman's Hermits – John Kay & The Sparrow – Moti Special – Blackbox – CCS – Pretty Things – Elektronische Maschine - Birth Control - Giorgio Moroder - East Of Eden - Little Richard und etliche andere…

...compilations from: Roger Daltrey, Gerry Rafferty, Jose Feliciano, Barclay James Harvest, Kate Bush, The Hollies, The Marbles, Uriah Heep, Leo Sayer, Nazareth, Dr.Hook, Walker Brothers, Bonnie Tyler, Deep Purple, Golden Earring, Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, Jethro Tull, Ten Years After, Whitesnake, Procol harum, Foghat, Rainbow, Ted Nugent, Iggy Pop, Guess Who, Status Quo, Johnny Winter, Manfred Mann's Earthband, Alex Harvey, The Knack, Rose Tattoo, Focus, Mountain, UFO, Motörhead, John Entwhistle, Family, Peter Green, Ian Dury, Madness, The Jam, Big Country, Undertones, The Rumor, The Pirates, The Fixx, Jona Lewie, The Clash, Tubeway Army, Joy Division, The Stranglers, Graham Parker, XTC, Elvis Costello, Psychedelic Furs, Bauhaus, Dr. Feelgood, Ivor Biggun, Nick Lowe, The Damned, Roy Buchanan, Jeff Beck Group, Fleetwood Mac, Santana, John Mayall's Bluesbreakers, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Love Sculpture, Frank Zappa, Bar Kays, Wilson Pickett, Four Tops, Sam & Dave, Arthur Conley, Supremes, Temptations, Shorty Long, Carla Thomas, Otis Redding, Percy Sledge, Edwin Starr, John Speaker, Lee Dorsey, Sly & The Family Stone, Aretha Franklin, Joa Tex, Stevie Wonder, Isley Brothers, Marquis Of Kensington, Chris Farlowe, P.P. Arnold, The Kinks, Sandie Shaw, Petula Clark, The Searchers, The Honeycombs, The Beatles, Crispian St. Peters, Vanity Fare, Chris Andrews, Smokie, Suzi Quatro, Tina Charles, Linda Clifford, M, Gary Numan, The Fall, The Icicle Works, Belle Stars, The Catch, King Kurt, Lene Lovich, Toyah, Dave Stewart, Bohannon, Linda Carr, Delegation, K.C. & The Sunshine Band, Nick Straker Band, Donna Summer, Francoise Hardy, Johnny Hallyday, Antoine, Jacques Dutronc, Brigitte Bardot, Paul Mauriat, Martine Clemenceau, France Gall, Jacqueline Boyer, Adamo, Richard Anthony, Mike Brant, Joe Dassin, Dalida, Bobby Solo, Alice, Umberto Tozzi, Ricky Shane, Angelo Branduardi, Lucio Dalla, Neil Sedaka, Patty Bravo, Catherine Spaak, Al Bano, Romina Power, Gianna Nannini, Milva, Ricchie & Poveri, Drupi, Gigliola Cinquetti and many others

 

Best argument yet.

 

That's quite a resume!

 

EROC sounds like a Peter Mew, Jon Astley, Bob Norberg type.

 

I have many CDs from these groups. They're almost all fake stereo with added reverb. Hmmm? I wonder if he was the one who "improved" them?

 

Something got misconstrued somewhere, and I feel Steve got the short shfift here, Claus. Did you explain that Steve was referring to that singular recording, and not his approach to mastering in general? Steve is no different from any other mastering engineer in attempting to do the best that he can to make any recording shine. He and Eroc just have different methods for obtaining their goals. From Eroc's response we should draw the conclusion that he'd have absolutely no qualms in tinkering with Buddy Holly's original masters, with the rationalization that what he's doing is best.

Let me ask you a question, Claus. Do you feel that you have as many Eroc masterings that meet or exceed the quality of Steve's masterings, or can you only point to a handful that sound as good or better?

 

Ahem.... . Anyway....listing the artists is fine, but some TITLES would be of more help. Those major acts have many, many titles from Europe kicking around, for gosh sake's. Titles, Claus, a few titles. The Everlys, for starters, if you please....

ED

 

Yeah, except that: he's sincerely enthused, whereas they, I think, just do as they're told without caring particularly. You decide which is worse.

 

He wrote:

"...whoever wrote this - he made a grand mistake... preserved music is no holy witness of time and documents. They were made for best knowledge and conscience to bring music to the people. They are nothing else but pure consumer goods. To keep their original sound is senseless, beacuse every equipment, and room sounds different. Also add the different listening habits... so there can be NO original fairy dust, because this was only there in the studio or recording, but the mastering isn't more than a weak joke of it...... music will not made for an elitist group, gooble goo gahh gubble blub blah be bonk boo bah frikking bizzle blob doo de doggie doo on Friday under a slivery moon."


Would it be thread crapping if I said that comment made would be something that not only boils my cheeze, but also coulnd't be imperically further from the truth. WTF?!? Sorry fellers.... This is just gooble!

Here's a simple example. When I was a kid, a music teacher at the time gave our class (at 7 years old) the biggest example of what happens when music is reassumed either artistically and/or technically:

He put us all in a circle, and whispered twice, a nonsensical phrase CLEARLY into the next kid's ear. The last kid in the circle's job, after this phrase passed through 14 kids' ears and mouths, was to speak out loud what he said originally at the start.

The kid blurted out something totally different. Surprised?

Pet Sounds was produced by Brian, as we all know. He WAS mostly deaf in one ear, and used monitors that aren't going to be anywhere close to most people's speakers by color.

What Brian DID do, even specifically with PS, is OBSCESS over the damn thing. Brian worked on everything and really concentrated on whatever came through. Sometimes he spent 3 hours on one thing, some of it was 2-3 months!

So, is someone going to tell me that if, for instance, Brian made PS as perfect as he knows, that EQ and digital work on it will make it better?

Try taking Steve's DCC Pet Sounds and take a dinky EQ and try it for yourself. It's like trying to save a bad mixed drink. If you add one thing, it ruins the flavor of the vocals. If you EQ against the bass (because your set isn't as sensitive), the ambiance in the room will sound like a baloon deflating.

The master tape of Pet Sounds as well as the sound and color of the work IS a part of the backbone of how the art is to be received by the listener. There are many master tapes that DO need a small, careful goose in the EQ department, but PS should be left the hell alone.

If I didn't know Steve at all, I would say the same thing, dammit. The ORIGINAL SOUND *IS* the point, not the variable.

No offense to this German gentleman, but if that isn't the biggest crock, I don't know what is. And it's a BIG BIG problem these days, TRUST me.

 

I do like the most remasters Steve did for MCA, DCC, Acoustic Sounds or Audio Fidelity... more than Eroc did for Repertoire Records. But the reason also is DCC did almost classics, while more of the half RR reissues are not my taste. I do very respect Steve work, but he's no mastering god like I've read in some postings here...


By the way Doug Hess did the right thread... "I wanted to bring up a topic that comes up on the www.stevehoffman.tv Forum once in awhile. How do you see yourself in all of this? There seems to be some differences of opinion on you. One group says that you're just a regular guy on the same level as a house painter who happens to master CDs and LPs for a living. And that the sound you like-- others happen to like it too. And so you are successful based on the work you do. Others think you are some attention seeking guy who thinks that if you didn't master it then it must suck and that you are better than anyone else in the business. A few people seem to get bent out of shape by the Forum posts that seem to worship the great STEVE and treating you like someone with a limo and body guards. They DON’T agree that if you didn't master it, then the CD must suck. Where do you see yourself in all of this? Especially since you personally pay out the money for the forum where these comments have been made-- so it's like people are bashing you and your guests in your own living room...."

 

Maybe I'm biased, but I don't think it's thread-crapping because Claus is asking us to discuss both opinions.

 

Without putting words in Steve's mouth and somewhat related to Claviusb's post above, from my understanding, the master is just a starting point as to what the final product will sound like.

Steve has stated many times how some masters needed a lot of "improving". One title that comes immediately to mind is 24K Elvis. One reason that the BMG issues don't sound nearly as good as Steve's is not the amount of futzing that went on, but the fact that Steve's futzing was BETTER.

From what I understand from what Steve has stated and other people in the business is that you wouldn't want to hear the way many masters sound without some finessing.


Steve, if I am misrepresenting anything, please put me in my place!!

- Gabe

 

Maybe not in this case, but I don't think that argument holds up in general. Brian wasn't necessarily obsessing over the EQ. Heck, he probably couldn't hear half the stuff on the tapes with the monitors they were using. In *this* case, things just happened to turn out right as-is, at least according to Steve. But that's not always the case. John Phillips and Lou Adler might have obsessed over the Mamas & Papas recordings for some time, but the final sound on tape is crap. Add some EQ and it starts to sound decent.

I mean, if the "perfect as-is" argument held true all the time, Steve would be out a job. Somebody would just have to go to the tape machine and hit "play". Who needs a mastering engineer when what's on the tape doesn't need to be mastered?

 

Steve doesn't refer to himself as a mastering god (more like inferrence when he needs us Gorts to wash his car, but I digress), but I think some people mistake admiration and loyalty with mindless hero worship.

Ironic that you mention that the reason you don't care for some Eroc masterings is because you aren't a fan of the music. I cannot tell you how many times I came to really like and enjoy groups I never really cared for in the past... once I finally heard the music sound musical. There are many discs that DCC did that could be considered classic, but there were many that were eclectic, too.

 

What Luke said above!!

The masters aren't necessarily "perfectas-is".

- Gabe

 

Remember, Steve works hard on most masterings to improve the sound--His way. His decision to leave PET SOUNDS alone was a unique one for him. That is the mark of a great mastering engineer to me. To know when to LEAVE SOMETHING ALONE!

Remember what he said in his post on the other PET SOUNDS thread?

Steve said:

Well, Martin, I don't really know how to answer your post. I'll just start typing.

In the beginning, I tried everything to get the master to sound more, I don't know, "Hi-Fi" sounding. I mucked about for a month. All I succeeded in doing was making it sound distasteful to my ears. And, since I had to sleep at night, I couldn't release ANOTHER version of Pet Sounds that sounded that way, especially at $29.00 a pop.

So, I came to a crossroads, as it were, and changed my strategy.

First of all, I decided to do a flat transfer of Pet Sounds; disconnecting all of the mastering equipment, including the console. It would be the only flat mastering of the mono mix in recorded history. (Every other version of that darn album be it LP, domestic and foreign, 45, Juke Box, EP, Cassette, 8-Track, Open Reel, Compact Disc, Hi-Rez, stereo remix, mono remaster, WHATEVER, has been tweaked in some way or another).

Really, on a great system, the original "fairy dust" mono mix doesn't need tweaking at all. It needs leaving alone. It is a little bass heavy, but so be it. It will shine and blossom the best on a really great system that way.

In my opinion, every attempt to "fix" that old tube mono Western Studio sound ALWAYS results in (pick one or some): Aggressive, brittle, blanched, thin, dulled, veiled, pinched sound.

Since there are PLENTY of those around, both new and old, those who don't really like the DCC version can have a treble field day with them!