SH Spotlight Compact Disc mastering: 1980's vs. "newly remastered"--Steve's thoughts in 2003 and 2018

I would have to agree with you. The quality of of the original is very important and what was done with it. I purchased a lot of Doug Sax's cd's when he was in business and for the most part I liked them. Some of his albums are breath taking. I have compared some of the DCC jazz and the Mobile Fidelity cds to the JVC XRCD directly. The XRCD seem to have something missing. Technically they are really good reproductions but they seem to rip the soul out of the music. How the heck they managed that I have no idea. I own a few of the XRCD but look for the same material on labels like Analogue Productions, DCC, Mobile Fidelity etc. These labels as well as others seem to have done a better job at capturing the soul of the music rather than just the music.

P.S.: There are some unnamed labels in the marketplace that don't capture any of the artists intentions. They are strictly profit orientated. Why would music sales be in a slump???? HMMMM!!! Bad Quality - Bad Music - High prices usually means POOR SALES.

Just my humble opinion.

 

Steve

I think you may have been missing my point. I do want my CDs to sound like the original tape if they were recorded and mixed well. I know I would want people to hear the music that I've recorded sound just like my mastered mix tape and not some vinyl copy of it.

If a tape was properly recorded and mixed, that master tape will show the "sonic taste" of the engineer. Some engineers prefer drums to be a little bright, while I know some engineers who prefer drums very dull, with not much top. Some engineers prefer lots of exaggerated bass, while others, etc. Depending on the music, sometimes I do like a little extra top end. That being said, I really do like the new Steely Dan remasters and believ I did exhaustive A-B comparisons (Genelec S-30 Reference Speakers) before deciding this and I prefer the sound of the new ones. I guess this is my personal "sonic taste." Not meaning to offend anyone, but it seems that most of the people on this forum prefer only flat transfers, even if the original tape might be sonically lacking. I don't see anything wrong with a little sonic tweaking if the tape needs it and still retain the integrity of the original recording.

I don't like to my own master my own mixes because I prefer to bring in a pair of fresh ears to do the work so I can focus just on the sound. I know when I do a mix that I'm happy with, I hardly ever add any EQ while mastering. I usually just slightly compress certain sections to tighten up the low end or to soften some harshness. The only other thing I do is to match the levels between tracks (which I usually like to do by ear because there should be a certain dynamic "feel" to the sequence), and never any noise reduction.

Sometimes my clients will call me and complain when they check out their reference CD at home, "This doesn't sound as loud as my other CDs." Once, for the hell of it, I did do a test master to simulate the current over-compressed CD trend and I was appalled. I lost all of the space and "ambient feel" to the songs that I had gotten so used to while working on the project.

I guess I just wanted to say it's great that we all have different musical and sonic preferences (which is why we all have different amps, speakers, etc.) and that's what makes the banter on this forum so interesting.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I'm still not sure what you mean by "RMS normalized the CD to the LP levels." Are you matching peak levels, or matching RMS average levels? The latter would tend to obscure mastering differences, I would think.

Obviously, the audio world suffers from having very few reference points. Even Steve and Kevin have to contend with tapes that don't have proper set-up tones. At least Steve has heard and worked with enough of the original analog master mixdown tapes for the albums many of us love most that we can use his experience as a reference ... and I do!

 

Doug Sax is still in business.

 

I'm in the middle w/ this whole discussion. I think some remastered catalogs sound great:
Led Zep- I know some people think the older ones are better but I disagree. I have the Gutar World interview w/ Jimmy Page and George Marino and they put a lot of love and care into these remasters. You can hear the squeak of Bonham's kick drum in some songs. It's like you're right there!
Bad Company & Foreigner (mid-90's remasters- I don't like the sound of the newer 2CD anthologies that much).
Kiss
Rolling Stones
Peter Gabriel
AC/DC (mid 90's remasters)

But..I have learned not to rush out and get CD's when they become remastered again. There's no reason for me to buy the new remasters of AC/DC and Foreigner. It's a waste of $$.

 

Let me see if I can get at my bottom lines here:

1. I want something as close to the original artifact as possible, since that's the thing that makes the magic happen for me.

2. "Original artifact" CAN include judicious tweaking of the sound at any stage, including remasters, so long as the judicious tweaking is part of the artistic process and serves the music, not merely a marketing strategy.

3. The consistent trend toward brighter and (in some cases) bassier remasters that have been digitally compressed/limited to stick out as "louder" has to do with marketing, not music, and thus does not qualify as judicious tweaking. The new SD remasters aren't destroyed the way some others have been, but to my ears the tweaks have gone beyond judicious and have begun to harm the music.

Here's an analogy from the world of video. Most US televisions have hyped their color temperature so that "white" is up around 9000 degrees Kelvin or in many cases as high as 13,000 degrees Kelvin. Sometimes "white" is so high that it can't be measured reliably. Why? Same reason that the factory-set contrast levels are pushed up so high the picture tube burns out prematurely. Same reason the sharpness is up so high that you can see artifacts on DVDs. The goal is to sell televisions, not to reproduce the carefully calibrated transfer that has an industry-standard "white" of 6500 degrees Kelvin. The picture may seem "better," but in reality it's distorted, and you end up watching a marketing strategy, not your favorite movie as created by a team of professionals.

So:

4. It's about the art, not the marketing. I think we can all agree here. I know that marketing is a part of any artist's consideration, but I trust them to make that call a lot more than I trust some remastering engineer who's been told "make it brighter! make it louder!" by the suits who wouldn't know art if it bit them on the nose.

 

I sent my post prematurely. It really is a case by case basis. Aerosmith's remaster are 10x better than the 80's CD's. Those sound like crap.
I guess I'm more of a fan of early 90's CD's & remasters before there was loads of compression and just screwing w/ the masters they way they do know.

 

There is one key reason why a comparison to the original vinyl is essential: More often than not, it is an accurate representation of the sound that the artist and producer wanted. A serious evaluation of any album released prior to the late 80's should ideally involve the original vinyl pressing, since for better or worse that is the "official" version.

 

No. All RMS does is get the average loudness regardless of where the peaks fall. In other words, I did level matching via digitally to eliminate any volume differences that would throw off the perception of one being better that the other because of loundess.

 

I'm still not sure I follow.

Let's say Song A on an LP (or CD) has a peak level of -1 db and an average RMS level of -19 db. That's a peak-to-average dynamic range of 18 db.

Now let's say the same song on CD 2 (a remaster) has a peak level of 0 db and an average RMS level of -14.5 db, for a peak-to-average dynamic range of 14.5 db.

These dynamic ranges, assuming that there's no clipping in the needle drop, are signatures of the original mastering.

While it's true that one should match levels carefully to avoid the "louder is better" trap, if you raise the average RMS level of the LP to match the CD, and the peaks don't go beyond 0 db (as they can't in digital recording), you're digitally compressing/limiting the LP wave file. This will match apparent loudness, but it will also change the LP sound fairly dramatically and not for the better. If on the other hand you lower the CD remaster's RMS level to match the LP's, you're still left with a wider dynamic range on the LP and a more compressed, and thus perhaps an apparently "better" sounding, CD.

In the second scenario, how one can take two masterings with very different dynamic ranges and have them sound the same is not clear to me. And in the first scenario, you've essentially compressed/limited the wider dynamic range source, so the comparison is invalid.

I think level matching has to be done at the final output, not by manipulating average RMS levels in wave files, but if there's something wrong with my reasoning here I'm glad to learn more!

 

Re: Re: Examples of current "newly remastered" CD catalogs better than the '80's verions

Agreed. I like the 80s "American Beauty" especially -- open and natural, with acoustic guitar tone very sweet. Hard for me to see how this will be improved. (The LPs never sounded so good.)

 

But then again, a lot of bands very rarely listened to their records after they were released.

 

I would have to disagree with the assessment of the Grateful Dead '80's CD's. I have the original green label vinyl LP and the CD of American Beauty, and the LP just sounds so much better, so much more lifelike and natural. The CD(IMO)sound cold and clinical, digital harshness at it's worst. Of course, I understand the recent remasters sound great, though I haven't heard one.

 

Remasters

Does anyone remember the first CD issue of "Love - Forever Changes"? Or "Fleetwood Mac - Rumours"?

That first Forever Changes was horrible! It had a high-frequency hum that made it unlistenable.

The first Rumours sounded like it was made from a bad copy of the master. When the remastered one was released ('86? '87), I did a comparison and the new one was many times better. It was truly as if a blanket had been lifted from the speakers.

And I'm always baffled by folks that think the original Toshiba Abbey Road is better than the EMI CD. And I paid way too much for my Toshiba!

Rolling Stones re-issues? Any time I see these two words I know it will sound great: Bob Ludwig.

And the early Atlantic reissues? Come on! I read (way back in the last century) that Atlantic's POLICY was for all of their media to sound identical: CD, LP, Cassette, 8-track, 45. Elcassette, Cylinder. I was glad to see them start a re-issue campaign. I'm NOT a huge Joe Gastwirt fan, but his a certainly better than many of the "originals".

 

Check out the bass notes on the newer Rumours CD. The lower frequencies have been shaved. You had some warm, fat bass from McVie on that older CD. Check out some of the cymbals and hi-hat, especially the opening of "You Make Loving Fun." Bright as hell, it really sizzles. Very unnatural. The top end boost is a common trick to give that "lifting the veil" effect, but there's a big trade-off with tonality. Rumours was never a great-sounding album, kind of murky, but there's just too much top end on that newer CD so you get plenty of painfully bright moments.

 

Check the inner ring of the Rumours CD. Does it have RE-2 on it? That is the remastered CD. If any one has the original it would have to collectable. I'm sure it was a small run. (Mine is catalog 3010-2. Not even a barcode on it)

 

The older discs I've seen have the target design the old WB CD's have. It may feel like a heavier disc, too. The newer CD's I've seen have no label-side design outside of printed text (as well as the RE-2 and in some cases RE-3 stamped in the rim). I don't think there's any overlap in the two in terms of mastering and label design. Anyone know?

 

The original was probably pressed in W. Germany. That shows its age!

 

Welcome, lownotes!

Rumours remaster has been discussed a couple of times on the forum:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8870

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7914

 

I wonder if any readers are familiar with term "bass bump". It is my understanding that bass is/was boosted when copy from analog tape to analog tape. That may account for the extra bass?

 

Thanks ybe! That is interesting reading! Has the Toshiba Abbey Road been discussed? LN

 

Yes, several times in many threads. Just type in "Toshiba Abbey Road" in the search and probably 10 separate threads will pop up - several in the past few weeks

BTW, I have the original Rumours W. German Target CD. I love the sound of it. Just like my LP.

Joel