“The Aesthetics of Remastering Reissues”

Yeah, for 5 minutes. DAT is a synonym for Pain In The Rear end, and that was when those machines were new. And unreliable drama queens. Wasn't unusual for tapes recorded on one machine, not playing on the machine in the control room across the hall even though both were same make and model. Archival, I DON'T THINK SO! I maintained a fleet of these nuisances in a broadcast facility. One too many dropouts for whatever reason, unplayable. When Cool Edit and the Phantom took over, and the BSI WaveCart/Simian equipment took over and CD-R machines and MD machines, I was a happier man. I prefer analog, but digital tape is a PITA every time and especially with age.

 

When I read the title of this thread I was intrigued. The 'aesthetics of mastering reissues'. But it's just turned into another digital vs analogue debate concerning vinyl reissues.

I'm more interested in the factors that

A. make some reissue vinyl albums have over-extended bass. More than the original.

B. And why some CD remastered sound what I think is 'over-bright'. The latter is sometimes associated with a remastering technique that seem to set out get every last bit of information from the source material - sometimes to the detriment of the overall sound of an album.

These seem to be concerned with aesthetic choices taken by mastering engineers.

Any comments on these kinds of ideas about remastering and how it affects the music? What heads to it. Who does it? Why do they do it? Why do they not seem to notice it? Do they ever listen to their work on hifi systems outside of using studio monitors ? For example.

 

A) Someone playing with the EQ knobs

Why do they not seem to notice it? I wonder too.

Do they ever listen to their work on hifi systems outside of using studio monitors ? They probably think it sounds fantastic, even if they don't in either case they might think people paying for the merchadise won't notice and sadly, they would have a 50/50 point there.

 

I presume there's a bit more to it than that. They're doing this professionally and they are making aesthetic decisions. These decisions affect our perception of the music. They change the music. Do mastering engineers feel that this is part of their role? Has the role of the mastering engineer changed? Do they feel it is a part their job to change the music? How do they decide how they do that? Otherwise what are the factors in making these decisions? Have aesthetics changed in this discipline since the album were made?

It would be interesting to hear from people who have personal experience of this. It people who can provide insights into it.

 

Of course there would be plenty more but I doubt you'll hear much from the people involved for many reasons but the most important one is: They would be roasted alive with all the grudges some people have about the path the music industry is taking when talking vinyl.

How are you going to ask, allow me to rephrase your question: Excuse me, do you think is part of your job meddling and changing a masterpiece into your opinion of how it should be? It the stuff tabloids are made of. I don't think it'll happen.

 

Repeat after me: It's the producer's fault. Say this as many times as you need before the message sinks in.

 

A. Depending on the age of the original, it was common policy to shave off the bass quite a good bit to avoid the needle jumping out of grooves on cheap/standard turntables/players. With today's equipment this problem is rare so the bass that is originally present on the master can be cut without too much of a -or even no- reduction.

B. "Make it brighter" usually is the problem.

And of course the engineers listen to their work outside of studio monitors.

 

There was never any issue getting good-sounding bass on older vinyl, from I hear. But what I sometimes hear on remasters is unnatural-sounding bass. I wonder whether it is to do with the cutting or something else in the production chain or whether the mastering engineer has literally increased it through EQ.

I'm not sure whether you are joking. The producer has long since left the building when an album gets remastered.

Adopting rational impartial interested communication, instead of deliberately attacking with inflamed and critical language? Show a willingness to engage and understand. That might be one route.

 

It depends how far back you go. In the 50s and 60s, bass was definitely shaved and summed on a regular basis.
It's absolutely possible some engineers on some reissues boost the bass. However keep in mind the amount and quality of bass on the master tape is usually different from the amount and quality of bass on the original vinyl pressing. Other than that I think it also depends on your equipment, room, and listening habits.
The tools for cutting vinyl only got more precise with time. Pressing, though, is another problem...

 

Besides the practice of destroying dynamics, 'brightness' is something I've been noticing as well the last couple of years. Not sure if it's an EQ decision or the hardware they are using. Not a fan of it and it actually has kept me from the latest Fleetwood Macs and Eurythmics.

 

In the case of reissues supervised by the artists, it *could* be an issue of aging hearing... high frequencies go first. Don't think the hardware would ever be an issue.

 

I'm very serious and you are wrong. The mastering engineer follows orders, and often times the producer and/or engineer is right there in the room.

 

Thanks for correcting me Grant. So the producer is 'often times' in the room. OK. John Cale – was he in the room when they remastered The Marble Index, The Stooges and Patti Smith many times in the last ten years? Was Tom Wilson in the room the countless times they remastered The Velvet Underground? Was the original engineer there? And who is the person giving these 'orders', when the original producer or engineer is not in the room? Does this person giving orders ask them to increase the bass or bring out all the top end-detail?

 

I have no idea if any of the people you mentioned were in the room. The artists do, indeed, approve test pressings at the very least.

The original tracking engineer is rarely involved in mastering unless the engineer masters his/her own stuff.

Even a producer (in the case of a reissue) will either be in the room, or will supervise. Same with the artist.

Bottom line: the industry doesn't want you to know anything that goes on behind the scenes. Just the way it is.

The artist and/or producer, sometimes even the label, will dictate what they want the sound to be like. In the case of new recordings, the artist is in charge. After all, it's their recording, their name on it.

Don't believe it? Ask the pros. Most engineers want to eat, feed their kids, and have a roof over their heads. They will do what the client wants. If they don't, the client will find someone who will.

Most people on this forum are familiar with what Steve Hoffman, Bill Inglot, and a few select others do for audiophile labels and specialty labels. 99% of what they deal with are old recordings, which often gives them more latitude. But, don't get fooled! Even they take direction from the client. Thankfully for people like Steve, his clients know what he is about. They specifically want his touch, or authorize it. Steve can also turn down or withdrawl from a project. Trust me, not even Bob Ludwig can just do whatever suits his fancy unless the client say he can.

 

I do not think it depends on my equipment. Otherwise I'd bass problems with any album that had good bass frequency response whatever the mastering. That is not the case. And, case-in-point, the bass on a USA pressing of Transformer is evident but is good and tight. The bass on a Speakers Corner re-press of the same album is loose and boomy.

>The tools for cutting vinyl only got more precise with time.

So newer presses should be better. So, something happened.

 

We have to be careful with our nomenclature here. "Producer" in this context can mean the original producer or we can be talking about the reissue producer. Sometimes they are the same person, other times, not.

In both cases, it does come down to the mastering engineer following orders. Be it someone supervising a release who was there back when the album was made, or someone helming an archival reissue who wasn't.

 

I just need to slide in here and note that attributing the vinyl revival to record-label DRM plotting is one of the more outlandish and ahistorical conspiracy theories I've read on the forum. It's up there with " just a fad" on the hard nope meter.

As far as the rest of this thread goes, I'm 100% down with the OP idea that honesty about true best-available and surviving sources as a tool to make things sound great trumps essentialism and dumb tribal picking of sides when it comes to analog and digital. I don't listen to magical thinking about analog or digital, I listen to music. Both can sound beautiful. A combination of both can sound beautiful.

 

I'm aware of that, and even noted it. You probably missed it.

Thank you for reinforcing that!

 

Yeah I did. It happens.

 

Checking things on a car stereo is very common. Sometimes i'll even check my needledrops in the car to make sure they sound right.

 

Nothing wrong with a conspiracy theory.

Record companies are looking at physical product sales, which they'd like to have alongside digital streaming/downloads. Vinyl is DRM'd by its very nature. They like it. Not sure why you feel that's debatable, really. Still, I didn't write a diatribe about why Vinyl is still a thing, I made a brief comment. You really shouldn't read too much into it. If you're a Vinyl fan, it really doesn't matter either way, right? We do have people on this forum who say they won't go Blu-ray because of DRM, yet they don't mind buying Vinyl. Seem a bit of a double-standard - but that's their business. I simply don't believe we're seeing more Vinyl now because people have suddenly decided they like it. This is an industry that has built itself on a foundation of never giving us what we want, when and how we want it. They're putting more Vinyl out because of streaming, and the desire to maintain Physical sales. For every new format, there has been a push to sell back catalog, at high prices. What's mostly being released on Vinyl these days? Yeah, back catalog at high prices. We've been here before, and more than once.

 

Thanks for replying. Debating/disagreeing can be fun!

My response A to your point above:

The return of a large, growing, healthy market for vinyl records over the past 15 years has *absolutely* been driven primarily by people liking it, simple as that. No "suddenly deciding to like it" market manipulation or record label plot.

My response B to this second point: It's true that audiophile and deluxe back catalog release are what gets discussed here at this forum and amongst old coots generally. But as far as what's being released on vinyl these days, a high percentage of new music releases by contemporary artists are available on vinyl. It's true that a lot of classic-rock reissues tend to dominate vinyl sales, but there's an incredibly diverse and high-volume vinyl release of new music these days.

 

I reckon it stands to reason people like it. But given it's estimated almost 50% of people who buy Vinyl don't actually play it, I think it questions the assertion that it's due to sound quality. Labels are releasing more stuff now, and are happy to do so, because they can sell it for inflated prices. Do you really think this doesn't factor in things at all? As I've stated before, after all this time, they've wised up to the fact that Vinyl is copy proof. No other digital media can say the same. Again, do you think this hasn't been factored in at all? Are we disagreeing totally, or simply in degrees?

Yes, I can see new releases coming out. But as with the introduction of all new formats - and in many ways you can see this version of Vinyl as a new format - it'll be in the sale of back catalog where they see a market. That is, music already recorded, already mixed, already popular. That'll always be a more attractive proposition that the risk of signing a new band, paying for studio time, marketing etc. They might invest in BANDA, but will know it's a risk. Whereas, a reissue of Led Zep IV is highly likely to sell a good few copies. At least, that's how it ran with CD. Vinyl - from a sales perspective also has the attractive proposition of hiking prices. All those great albums that never had a Vinyl release? Well, Vinyl versions may well need a double album, or even a triple. The money men will be rubbing their hands together............ IMO. So yeah, they're keen. SUbtract the "investors" out of Vinyl sales, and things aren't quite as rosy.

 

How so?

 

How can you duplicate at? Do you have a press, and materials, at home?

Sure you can record it to tape of a digital file, but it's still not Vinyl.