“The Aesthetics of Remastering Reissues”

Probably because they gave it a listen before deciding. Just saying....

 

Bingo. And there were complaints about tape dropouts on the self-titled album, and tape warble on the original mix of Lodger in the third box. These are all problems stemming from using the original tapes and not doing any repair work - because vociferous Bowie fans had convinced the label that’s what they wanted.

Except it really wasn’t.

What they wanted were remasters that sounded identical to decades-old first pressings from new tapes.

And that’s going to take repair work in the digital realm. End of story.

 

You misunderstood what I was replying to. I am saying that you will record whatever it is you record into your computer and/or CD-R. Garbage in, garbage out. If anything changes, soundwise, from your vinyl playback to your CD-R, it is the limitation of your particular soundcard. In that sense, you can indeed copy an LP, always have been able to with tape, too. So, vinyl does not have DRM, as you originally suggested.

 

Some people want everything their way. We all do. Right?

Hey, I get that you can't say anything about what title it is, but it is kind of pointless to bring it up without a direct example. Jus 'sayin'...

 

And even AF stopped putting from the original master tapes because sometimes that wasn’t an option.

 

Indeed, we have had enough folks harassed here that have actually come to post and then are driven out for one reason or another so listing who it was and the album would only add fuel to something that smolders most of,the time anyway. I feel for the guys who do the best work with what they are given and then are given crap when too much is revealed.

 

You're right, that went over my head. In fact, it still is. You are saying a digital copy of Vinyl is the same as the Vinyl. I think there are a fair number of people on these forums who would find the very idea ludicrous. Just saying.

 

So the label who made the erroneous statement gets away with it. It’s Ok to protect them.

 

Dude. They didn’t kill anyone.

 

Most of the examples you cite are to do with mastering not remastering. And all stuff I'm sure any frequent forum visitor knows and understands well. But remastering is the subject of this thread and of the post of mine – the one that you called 'wrong'. Specifically the subject is about the aesthetics of remastering.

Another thing to note is that your 'it's the producers fault' line, which you helpfully typed out in bold so that we would all understand it better, says a lot about people's idea of 'blame culture' here and not much about the actual questions I was raising.

With regards aesthetics of remastering – the sum of your opinion seems to be 'It sounds the way it sounds because someone higher up in the chain told them to do whatever they did'. I've heard this expressed on this forum before, and it does not ring true, or even appear to fit the evidence as an explanation of the state of things. Consider this:

First, some may know that there are three main CD reissues and remasters of the The Velvet Underground catalogue. All three were overseen by the same re-issue Producer – Bill Levenson. A veteran reissue producer and one in charge of the VU back catalogue since at least the mid-80s. The first reissue was remastered by remastering engineer Greg Calbi. The second was by Bob Ludwig, and the last by Kevin Reeves. If you are familiar with these releases then you will know that they sound like chalk and cheese to one another.

If we are to believe what you said above, then the difference in sound is all down to the Producer (here Bill Levenson) who, we must then guess, decided to go for a different type of sound each time the albums were remastered and (supposedly) briefed the mastering experts on what kind of sound they should be going for. I.e it is being claimed (even proclaimed) that the difference in sound has nothing to do with the different remastering engineers involved, but with a sole production manager. It all sounds pretty far-fetched to me. Only yesterday, on this forum, someone claimed that Vic Anesini has a signature remastering sound.

You tell me that a remastering engineer has no effect on the aesthetics of the sound? I’m sorry I just do not buy it, because the evidence says otherwise. And, trust me, I am not denigrating any remastering engineer or their work when I say this.

 

Like, yeah dude. Like. Wow dude.

 

Exactly.

 

My guess as to why they think the idea is ludacris is because they:

1) Have never tried it, and are only speculating

2) They have tried it and their soundcard/converter wasn't up to the task

3) They recorded their vinyl in hi-rez, and used a bad dither scheme, probably with noise shaping, and even a bad sample rate conversion

4) it's psychological that there was a difference, for they believe that vinyl or analog is inherently superior to all else

 

Labels, remasterings, vinyl quality, analog vs. digital chain etc. all get discussed in detail on this forum. And named. It’s now been pointed out in this thread that a reissue states erroneous information on the cover relative to the integrity of the analog chain and its suddenly not important and and the release can’t be mentioned in detail.

Interesting.

 

That is why the Stevie Wonder AF remasters do not have that tag on the cover.

Well, it's all about business, and many people in the entertainment industry are highly sensitive individuals, anyway.

No, my examples are about both.

Obviously they don't, or they wouldn't keep blaming the mastering engineer for everything. Even the reissue producer will come out and state that they are responsible for how something turns out.

I am well aware of what this thread is about, and why I responded the way I did.

Again, even a reissue producer will flat out tell you it is they who make the call on how something will sound, and that they are responsible for how a remaster turns out.

It's a fact. That's why you keep seeing it expressed on this forum.

Yes, indeed. I am not familiar with the velvet Underground releases, but, as the reissue producer, Bill Levinson approved all of the remastering jobs.

That's right! If you want to get a full story, why not contact Bill Levinson yourself? You can, you know. The internet is a wonderful thing.

Here's a difference that I think most forum members here understand, and that's when the reissue producer is also the remastering engineer, like Steve Hoffman, and Vic Anesini.

A popular opinion on this forum is that Kevin Reeves squashes the sound and adds EQ. But, the producer told him to do that, as I never see Ken Reeves as a reissue producer. Thing is, I have some CDs that he did that sound gorgeous. The CDs that are squashed, and the ones that sound great have different reissue producers.

 

We have discussed HD Tracks reissues where the label will either not tell use the source of a title, or gives us erroneous information.

There is ons specific title i'm thinking of where the label could be telling the truth about an original digital recording coming from an analog source because that's what they really used in the form of an analog safety, or whomever provided the information didn't know that the recording was originally digital.

In another case, the label insists that the recording was always analog. The problem comes when the label refuses to state what they used as the source for their remaster.m The label knows there is a bunch of audiophiles and experts that will call them on things, so they just don't say anything most of the time. And, yes, most people do not care if something is a digital or analog master, as long as the results are good. There are people who are obsessed with a given format, and they always believe that their chosen format is superior.

 

Format warriors do not wish to hear about end results or actual sound quality.

 

Actually many do.

 

This is a gross generalization. Like any group of people, there are those that do and those that don't just as there are those who prefer compressed, maximized mastering and those who prefer something with dynamics. The format that one prefers their music to be in sometimes is independent of the sound quality that they like.

 

You’re right. It was a Gort who posted about it, and the same Gort is declining to name the LP because he doesn’t want his industry connections who worked on that reissue to get in trouble.

I realize you want complete transparency. You know what? I’d prefer it too. But in a world where industry politics mean people could lose work or even get fired for violating non-disclosure agreements, our niggling hobbyist desire to know provenance takes a back seat to the livelihoods of the folks working on this stuff.

 

Fine. Therefore, they are not format warriors.

 

Except it’s selective. I’ve seen others, for example Joe Reagoso, Bob Norberg, raked over the coals for their work. But this one gets a pass.

 

MLutthans gave his reason for not going any further with the info in this particular case - his reasoning seems sound to me.

 

There's something to be said about not burning bridges....

In the cases with Reagoso (the few CDs I've gotten from Friday have sounded fine to me. I think that some people give him a bad time because it will list him and someone else--usually a well known mastering engineer--and I think some people feel he is taking credit for something he may have had little to do with. Me, I don't care because it's his label and as long as the people get paid and it sounds fine, I'm OK with that). I have the Collector's Choice for Badfinger's "Badfinger" release and I think Norberg did a fine job there--I didn't think it sounded that different from the original Japanese version myself.

 

Now thats a surprise....