Re-mastering...Is it really as bad as we think?

I'm willing to take ya'all's word that the Can discs could and should sound better than they do. The two Can SA-CD's I have do sound "good" when compared to some new albums that truly have distorted sound. Thanks for having some perspective here!

 

MOFO? I can't tell if that was a typo or not

Anyway, I just received the MOFI Tommy last week and I almost cried tears of joy at how good it sounded. I think it's light years away from the SACD, though the SACD isn't horrible...

The Who's Next Deluxe isn't horrible either, but if you a/b it against the SH version, you can tell how compressed the DE is, plus a little high end EQ boost as well. The DE is still necessary if you want the bonus material though.

 

Achim

 

One. Pick the best version available....the best will (most probably) be the original master 2 track mixdown tape....most usually with splices, as each song will have been mixed separately...but that's not always the case...but mostly.

That will be analog if recorded before the 80s shift to analog, and could (most probably will) be analog even well into the 90s.

Azimuth the tape properly. Each track might need azimuth adjustment due to the above, especially if comped from other studios, of if it's a compilation , even of the same artist.

Make sure if it's Dolby to de-code (studio Dolby or SR or DBX, Telefunken, etc.) and with the setting set properly.

Do a run through before the actual transfer to check the azimuth shift for/between each song , level, channel balance, calibrate tones, or estimate with MRL or other calibration tape, or BY EAR if you have to. Make sure it's NAB or CCIR adjusted.

Watch out for levels even moreso on 30 IPS 1/2 inch tape. The level can really be up there and distort your input preamp section.

Watch out for tape stick at edit points, and ins and outs of songs where tapes are leadered. Flubs can and will occur at these points. Better yet, check each point and re-insert new splicing tape for a smooth transfer and clean gummy sections off if possible/feasible. If necessary, do each song's transfer one at a time.

NOW, it's time to think about mastering the project.

 

Right on, Zal...

a voice of true experience speaks there, along with Steve.

peace to all,

 

Actually it seems to me they've been extremely 'data polished'...I'm guessing from the way the .wavs of 'Tago Mago' (an A-to-D transfer I did of the SACD) look that they were extensively digitally processed as PCM, then converted to DSD...hence many flat-topped peaks. As I undertand it, you can't 'do' digital clipping (overs) in a purely DSD transfer. It's not allowed by the spec. You have to do that sort of thing in PCM, then port it over to DSD -- the result being flat-tops that are below 0 dBFS. You can of course do the same thing wholly in PCM, by clipping the signal, saving it, then lowering the level below 0 dB.

The Can SACDs I've heard are quite loud and compressed compared to the previous Spoon versions. Up to a point people will most likely interpret this sort of presentation -- louder, more dynamically compressed -- as an increase in 'detail' and quality. But in a way it's a trick. Still, Czukay signed off on them so he likes the way the new ones sound. Zal mentioned that older rock musicians/engineers may have hearing loss...I'm sure Can made quite a racket in their day...

 

Thanks Steve!! I sometimes forget there are single masters and LP masters for most of my favorite artists. It must be maddening for you, and other engineers, to not be given the best tapes available, when the correct masters remain stored in a vault somewhere. It would make life much easier for all concerned if each artist, group or label, kept detailed information on session tapes, single masters, LP masters...then made the appropriate tapes available when a new compilation or re-master is being done... Wishful thinking I guess, Ron

 

Few and far between...

 

But there aren't.

 

BTW Steve, has Audio Fidelity considered licensing "Mason Williams Phonograph Record" yet which although the currently available aluminum CD sounds great, it would be worthwhile to license it for gold.

 

It helps for the tape library to be a stone's throw away, like what we had at Atlantic. That not only meant that we could hand pick our source tapes, but we had a history of doing so, and over the years we learned the right tapes from the wrong. But, along with that, our learning ,erring and winning helped hone our musicologist skills and made us know when there was a question to ask, to find if there was a question with the integrity of the tape, so to speak. A librarian, unless he had a machine to audition tapes, could never know how a tape sounded, and unless he had other ears (an engineer he worked with) he would not know how good or bad a tape sounded.

I don't know how many situations such as this exist nowadays.

And people like Bill Inglot helped guarantee that the best tape would be used by pulling a few tapes and auditioning for the best possible source.

EQUATION:

Musicologist + Ears = Best Sounding Tape (Blood, Sweat & Tears!)

 

Nice rundown, Zal.

 

Wow, this has turned into a really nice tutorial. Thanks, guys.

 

Even if they are data polished, they don't seem like it as much as newer, possibly all or mostly digital recordings. The two Cans I own both have a rougher, more natural (read analog) sound with more little, "imperfections" than the sterile-purr-fect thing that's become so prevalent. That part I found appealing. It stille sounds like a 70's recording even if it's been doctored as ya'all suggest. I find myself increasing attracted to live recordings and to recordings that sound natural and display the warts and moles of their times, mostly older ones. I sensed a bit of that in the Can. They couldn't get every bit of the alpo out'a the corners of the can.

Sometimes I just have to put on a good, rough, sounding, proably old, thang on the squeezbox to escape new sound. To me, new sound is like "new" math or somethin'....? Good, rough recordings like the first 3 Allman Brothers, or Nuggets Of The Golden Age, or a 60's Beck or Dead album will always raise my spirits! It pains me how the Allman's first was remixed, apparently, about 1980! I got a copy of the original mix, not great 'an I'm stille lookin' for a keeper, on vinyl last week. The more I think about remixing the more I dislike or atleast mistrust it....

 

People like US need to be in the key positions. But, how to GET there!

 

Amen and like ibid too!

 

I think that's where Rachael Bee (a.k.a. Rachael B from HTF should be). Darned if you don't know your tunes. Still using your noggin ?

(PhilBoy from HTF).

 

Rachael, which ones are you talking about? I had Tago Mago and Ege Bamyasi and they sounded nothing like original 70's recordings - modernised to extreme. Everything - the tone of the instruments, even the drum sound was changed to make em sound like some crappy modern band did it. I guess Can are so damn proud of being endlessly praised by all sorts of alternative musicians as being "a huge influence", "ahead of their time" blah-blah-blah that they wanted to make sure that if a young person buys their record based on all the hype he will be blown away by how modern and not-dated they sound! That's why they ****ed up the sonics...Well, that's my theory anyway.

 

I believe everybody who say the recordings have been "polished" way too much. I don't have a point of reference as I don't own the older releases. Stille, from my listening to Monster Music & Future Days, they were not able to completely wash away the 70's sound.

 

The word analog should have been DIGITAL and is in higher case letters in this requote (where jumpie is! )

To add a smidge....The mastering of material will invariably be more important than the bit number or sampling rate....at least at 44.1 CD Redbook standard and better, especially if you have a decent A to D and do a responsible transfer to digital....


As far as any digitization using mucho compression ratios (MP3, etc.), welll, that depends on how real and natural sounding it is!

 

As Steve posted in another thread relating somewhat to this...."Remember, on vinyl you have rules of mastering that cannot be broken no matter which band member is standing behind you. You have to follow the laws of physical nature. With digital you can add as much treble as you want or whatever. That's a disaster when the mastering is influenced by someone who could be deaf from playing in front of an amp for 30 years, etc."

BTW....High end, low end, phase, dynamic range...all of these can be rather free on CD but are much more confined, and maybe refined on vinyl....