Seeing as most of us have a great interest in re-mastered older material I wonder if there will come a point in the not too distant future where we will have a format that can reproduce everything that was on the original master tapes with no further improvement possible from these sources? There will always be advancements in new recording technologies but, for the material we discuss here most of the time, don't you think that at one point we'll hit a wall with no further meaningful improvement (from those older Masters) probable? Just a thought, scary though.
I can't wait for that day! I'm sick and tired of this remaster, after re-master, after re-master, after re-master....need I continue?
Remember, a lot of what makes a great - or dare I say "perfect" - remaster is not the format, but what the engineer does: 1) finds the best and/or correct sounding master tapes 2) has the correct equipment to play it back on, eq, etc 3) has great ears and the talent needed to get the most out of the tapes Note that #3 does not imply a flat transfer. So, while we may now have a "perfect" reproduction medium with SACD, you may still have Jon Astley doing the remastering and muck it all up. Or you can get Steve, and be nearly guaranteed that it will sound great. For what it's worth, I don't care if they remaster things till the cows come home, so long as in the end someone gets it right (i.e. Steve finally gets his hands on the tapes). Just my humble $0.02 HZ
Re: Re: Re-Master Limit Although I am in full agreement with the above, wouldn't that be considered some form of sacrilege by most and especially a great percentage of forum members here?
I don't believe so. I mean, we are all here because we figured out that Steve is doing something very right when he masters things, whereas a great number of other mastering engineers don't. Indeed, I think most people here know that Steve works the master tapes to make them sound their best, and that doesn't always mean a flat transfer (though sometimes it does!). HZ
Re: Re: Re: Re-Master Limit Why do you say that? Much of what Steve does isn't a flat transfer. Do you really think that MCA Mamas & Papas disc is "flat"?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re-Master Limit Of course Not! I'm an avid proponent of 'massaging' and, if I had my way there would be a hell of a lot more done in cases where technology or technological error NOT artistic choice limited the end result of a recording chain. At times, if I were to mention so, the suggestion would elicit a howl of protest based on some 'commandment' that "No one shall violate the sanctity of the original master no matter what was wrong with it". I believe that one should strive to obtain the best sound possible from a master without knowingly violating the artistic integrity of the recording artist. If someone like Steve can "master the board" as a Yo Yo Ma can master the Cello then all the power to him and I'll be one of the first in line to support that effort
Steve has said many times that many master tapes he works on sound less than stellar. Most would really complain if he transferred everything flat. Some here seem to have the impression that a master tape is perfect when it leaves the studio. Sometimes the tapes were slopped together and left for the mastering engineer, which is where Steve comes in.
I agree with lukpac, and Grant. I believe Steve has shown an affinity for a flat transfer mostly because it optimally facilitates tweaking the sound to his own liking. He can play mastering engineer to those original masters that otherwise might never make it into his studio. The average listener might find that same flat transfer to be a dull, uneven sounding recording - a totally uneventful listening experience. Moreover, without the proper mastering equipment and/or the technical expertise, it would be difficult to transform the recording into anything more worthwhile. Josh
Yes, and without a very expensive proffesional equalizer, it is impossible to do what Steve does to the tapes in your own home, even if he gives you the correct EQ frequencies and tweeks.
I would rather have a "dull" flat transfer than a crappy ear bleeding remaster...yikes. Lots of people complain about those lousy 80's CD's, but most of those are tons better than "modern" remastered reissues.
I would think that it's the job of the Mastering Engineer to reproduce as faithfully as possible what the Recording Engineer laid down on the original tapes which in turn reflect what the producer and presumably, the artist(s) wanted. I guess in most cases, the objective of a re-master is to update and improve the sound of an earlier recording therefore the implication that the Re-mastering Engineer has some leeway in altering the sound of the masters to meet that objective.
As I said earlier, many tapes leave the studio basically unfinished. What the mastering engineer does is clean up the mess and make everything nice and tidy. The mastering engineer can do things that they can't do in the studio. The mastering engineer also gives a fresh, less or unobjective perspective on a project, so he/she hears things more like a consumer would.
Grant, in the case of most of Steve's work as the RE-mastering engineer he may be coming to the project years or decades later. Should he "massage" the original masters? To fix technical errors in the tapes - Yes. To bring out "the breath of life" - Yes Yes. To bring proper tonal balance to tapes - Yes Yes Yes. To compress, brighten or otherwise butcher the tapes - Never Never Never. Now if only the Mews and Astleys of this world would just take a page from Steve.
Uh, Steve brightened up the Mamas and Papas CD... I don't believe one should fix technical errors in tapes. Steve usually doesn't. Do you mean like dropuots, hiss?
Not to sound sacreligous but I happen to like that they fixed the dropout on Day Tripper since the original fix made it sound worse. If you ever heard a unedited bootleg version the noise that was dropped out wasn't that noticeable. I just wished someone at EMI would have "accidently" hit the Sonic Solutions machine with a sledehammer.
I agree with you 100% . It was “hit and miss” then and it’s “hit and miss” now. Nothing has changed. The original '80s pressings that I own seem to sound much better to me on my system than the current remasters. They are certainly much easier to listen to and don't cause inner ear bleeding....
...and improved the sound. By brighten I really mean the kind of hot, searing top end that many new remasters seem to have. When Steve makes judicious tweaks in order to bring out what is on the tapes I'm all for it. Hiss is usually an intrinsic part of the recording and should be left alone. I guess dropouts have to be assessed an a case by case basis. Grant, any idea how Steve would fix a dropout (or would he). I don't mind the odd dropout...it's part of the music if it's on the master tape. The kind of technical stuff I'm talking about are things like speed corrections caused by tape speed problems or use, wrong tapes & channel reversal. Cheers,
