What exactly is re-mastering?

I thought this was the perfect forum to ask this question.

What exactly is done in re-mastering? What equipment is used? How big a role does the ability of the remastering engineer play in the ultimate result? How does the manufacturing part of the process (i.e. mass production of CD, LP, etc.) affect the final result?

 

There's only mastering. A re-master is the mastering after a previous mastering has been issued.

 

Agreed. Mastering is always the actual process. Re-mastering is a marketing term which is often used incorrect as apparently some forget the true dictionary meaning of the "Re" prefix

 

Well, yes and no. Consider Led Zeppelin's studio CDs:

1. First round, mastered by Joe Sidore (LZ IV) and Barry Diament (remainder), sourced from non-master tapes.
2. Second round, mastered by George Marino with Jimmy Page, sourced from original master tapes.
3. Mothership compilation, mastered by John Davis, sourced from the Marino/Page digital transfers.
4. Current round, mastered by John Davis with Jimmy Page, sourced from original master tapes.

Same music, four masters, from three sources.

Back to the OP:

Mastering can be defined as the process of taking a source recording and transferring it a consumer-friendly medium. The mastering engineer uses - or declines to use - certain techniques which can change (for better or worse) the sound quality of the source. Those techniques can include equalization, compression, de-clicking (if the source is a rotating disc rather than a tape), noise reduction, reverb, etc.

Mastering styles range from flat transfers of the source all the way to EQ'd, compressed, reverb'd, NR'd disasters.

 

I think this is a perfectly legitimate question barring semantics. I'm curious about the technical side of mastering (I'm sure I could Google a good article about that), but also as the OP asked, how does the medium it's being pressed to play a part? Obviously an album that was previously only available on CD that gets "remastered" for vinyl had to have the mastering done differently, but how and why? Maybe I'm off base with what the OP's asking, but that's what his question made me think.

edit: AztecChimera was too quick for me!

 

Regardless of what it once meant, "Remastered" as a word has been so abused and misused that it long ago ceased to have any meaning.

There have been CDs sourced from vinyl marketed as "remastered". There have been CDs sourced from other CDs, with additional EQ/limiting/reverb added, marketed as "remastered". I wouldn't be surprised if someone put out a CD sourced from MP3 and claimed it was "remastered" (wait, didn't that actually happen with a Robert Palmer album?), or even just put out an unaltered rip of an older disc and called it "remastered".

So, for all intents and purposes, it's just a hype term nowadays.

 

It's all marketing hype designed to suck every dollar possible from the consumer. As a consequence, I have become very picky about what I buy. Hoffman mastered? Yes. Diement mastered? Yes. Gray mastered? Yes. Drake mastered? Usually a buy. Sax mastered? Sometimes. Anyone else. I get leary. Everybody's been burned, so live and learn.

 

All well and good, but in the final analysis, I think you have to trust your ears. There are well-known "pro" mastering people whose work I generally abhor. And by the same token, maybe there's a new guy who hasn't established a "name", but still possesses talent and taste. So I will take any opportunity I can to actually hear samples of the work before I pull the trigger.

 

I used to do that - now I just fast track it straight to the DR values.

I could care less who actually spun the dials (a Hoffman or Gray or Anesini can always be trusted) - but regardless of experience, pedigree or what have you - as long as the reissue is dynamic, non fatiguing and enjoyable to crank - I'm in.

However - regardless of artist, who mastered it or even the content itself (which could be the greatest album (song wise) ever produced) - if it's brick-walled to crap with an average DR range between 1 - 8(ish) - I'm out. Simple as that.

VP

 

Whatever it is it's a dying art looking at a lot of CDs I own!

 

True dat!

VP

 

Sorry for being off-topic, but dou you not have a single album in your collection with TT DR value below 8?..

 

To be complete honest - I seriously doubt it.

When I was in broadcast (music director) - my big "main" collection grew very large with easy access to original first press CDs from 1982-1995ish. After I got out of the radio game in 1995 - I estimate that I added another 100-150 from 1996-2002 - until I had my "eureka" moment upon purchasing Rush Vapor Trails. There was something so annoying about this CD - that I embarked on a relentless quest to find out what the hell was up.

It wasn't until I started my voiceover business (home studio) in late 2002 that I had the tools to "look" at the actual waveforms and when I finally figured out what was really going on - it was house cleaning time. I spent the better part of the next year weeding out all the loud offenders. Some I sold to local shops, others I gave away and others still - I simple tossed out.

Of the ones cleared out - I tried whereever possible to get the best possible pressing - and if nothing was available that met my loudness criteria - I simply dropped it from the collection sight unseen.

Flash forward to today - where 90% of the CD library is ripped and placed on the media server where I can see every DR value for every track library wide. To your question - outside of a very select group of maybe a dozen albums - everything else that actually makes the grade here is DR9 and lower (10, 11, 12, 13 etc).

I current have 5413 albums on the server as of this writing. Lesson - there are way too many really well done albums out there to have to worry about dealing with anything substandard.

VP

 

You sound hard core!

 

It's when you scrape all the yellow stuff off your hotdog and put some grey poop on.
.
.
.
Wait - you didn't say remustarding?

 

Well - I do take my sound presentation very seriously. It's probably the long term effects of being a child of vinyl - and then into the broadcast realm where I was surrounded by "great" audio, awesome tech and a general acceptance that music should always sound good - especially after having that pounded into our heads upon the launch of the compact disc in the early 80's.

I really miss those days where you could open a CD longbox, drop the disc in - and actually sit there and be in awe of the sound that poured out. I clearly remember just sitting there dumfounded with some of those early CDs - being blown away by the "mastering" actually.

It's definitely not like that now. Today's CD shopper is completely unaware of the damaged goods they get - day in and day out. Tis a rare retail CD in a popular genre that actually sounds great these days.

Cheers!

VP

 

Mastering is the process of sonically optimizing a recording for it’s playback media. At the birth of the compact discs (CD) most albums were mastered for playback on vinyl. So when CDs came out in the early 80’s, the record companies took the tapes mastered for vinyl and pushed them onto digital media. This resulted in a harsh sounding CD.

Most people will say that vinyl (analog) has a “warmer” sound, where digital is a sharper or harsher sound. Ask any guitarist the difference of playing through a tube (analog) amp and a solid state (digital) amp.

Record companies now see there are those willing to repurchase an album if it’s been optimized for digital playback on CD or DVD.

And to get the best master they need to use the recording that has been altered the least from the original recording sessions.

There is still the human factor, the mastering engineer turning the knobs. And the producer giving the final OK. So if you find a recording you really enjoy. You may well like ones processed by the same engineer and/or producer.

 

Thanks to all for the information and opinions.

What equipment is used in the remastering process?

Oh, and what is "DR", vocalpoint?

 

DR stands for Dynamic Range - it's an indicator of how compressed a typical recording is when measured by some now "almost" standard analysis tools.

In general terms - a well mastered (and usually excellent sounding) album or track will usually have an overall DR value of 9-13. Those with higher DR values of 1-8 can indicate excessive amount of dynamic range compression was applied during mastering .

Today's typical modern mastering process lives in a "myth" based world where producers and artists believe that "louder" is somehow better - so they goose the levels of everything way up (so it can "compete" with who know what) and strips the recording of any of it's original "peaks and valleys" and available headroom - usually resulting in a record you will be able to tolerate for about a song and half before you either reach for the Advil or turn off your stereo.

My standing rule is DR 9 and lower (10, 11, 12, 13, 14 etc). Tis rare release for me to sit thru any album with a DR of 8 (or higher) for it's duration.

Have a look here:

http://dr.loudness-war.info/

To get some more info and a database of recently analysis

VP

 

Fascinating.

 

In most cases it means - "we made a real smiley face this time, the previous attempt was more like Mona Lisa"

 

I know VocalPoint means DR9 and higher for good CDs for the most part and DR8 and lower for the most part on harsh sounding CDs.

 

My own FLAC collection TT DR snapshot from November of 2013:

Code:

DR04: 1
DR05: 15
DR06: 29
DR07: 79
DR08: 164
DR09: 214
DR10: 293
DR11: 473
DR12: 540
DR13: 505
DR14: 254
DR15: 68
DR16: 20
DR17: 1
Average DR:  11.346 (2656 albums)

I guess the higher one gets, the better...

 

Yes - and I wonder why the original CD pressings are so often sought after?? Also, the record companies also used cassette tape master tapes as well - I wonder if a similar phenomenon occurred with the dolby NR and whatnot?