Remastering vs Remixing

Ís remastering always done from a downmixed two track or can it be done from an original 24 track 48 or whatever they are. Or is the last one called remixing?

If you want to get best quality wouldn't you want to use a version as original as possible....being the multitrack?

 

First, if you are talking about taking something from a multitrack, you have to mix it. That means trying to copy the original two track mix, which is probably the one that sold commercially. In most cases it just cannot be done! YOU try remixing the Motown sound from the multis to sound exactly like the hits. YOu want to use the original TWO-TRACK mix for remastering.

Second, this has already been discussed. You should try using the search feature as I don't remember where it is. Steve H. also commented on this.

Good luck.

 

Remixing

All,

I am an overall fan of remixing when the sonics are improved with respect paid to the "sound" of the original two-track mix. Some of the results are very pleasing to my ear because of the sound quality gained by using today's technology. I am, especially, thinking of remixes of 1960's recordings. I understand Steve did a very good job with "Cathy's Clown" by the Everly Bros. Many first time stereo mixes are produced this way such as "Leader Of The Pack" by the Shangi-las and "(Just Like) Romeo & Juliet" by the Reflections, to name a couple.

While remixing may not be historically or artistically pure, the improved soncs can be impressive and can make the listening experience more enjoyable! Obviously, there are bad remixes out there.

Bob

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Cathy's Clown" wasn't actually remixed. A three-track tape was made as a "back-up" with the same exact mix as a two-track master. The two-track was used for decades, and became very worn. When Rhino put together their Everly Brothers box set, they used the three-track master (to my knowledge, this was the first time). Steve was the next one to use the three-track for the DCC release.

One thing to bear in mind is that remixing, say, Frank Sinatra's stereo Capitol albums is a lot different than remixing an album like Tommy. In one case, it's more like balancing the instrumentation while in another, you're putting together the pieces of a complex work. And for the latter, it's not just putting the right sounds in the right place, either but putting them in the right way, too. When people remix music to sound better, they may have different ideas on how to make it better, and that's where problems come in where you get remixes that may sound clearer, cleaner, etc., but sound "wrong," if that makes any sense. Some remixes just sound like they were remixed, where the sounds don't sit side-by-side the way they would on the original mix, where the character of a sound may be radically altered, etc. I think you can make a good remix, though, and I agree that there are remixes out there that are done well; I just think it usually isn't done well.

 

Matt,

You are most likely correct. My point is that remixing, when properly done, can be both sonically pleasing and afford all of us to enjoy new high quality versions of some great music. I just purchased the DCC Everly Bros. from another forum member and I am anxious to listen to Cathy's Clown.

Other recent first time stereo mixes that I am presently enjoying are:

He's So Fine--The Chiffons
If You Wanna Be Happy--Jimmy Soul

Bob

 

Is this the thread? I don't even remember that its title got changed.
Orignial tapes: three-track vs. two-track & Beatles At The Bowl tape

It took me more than three search attempts to find it. I tried keyword "track" and "track*" to search titles only but neither worked. Should have used "*track*". Funny that the working combination was keyword "ignorance" + user name "Paul Chang".

 

Hi Matt,

If Steve had mastered this for playback on a 3-track system (surround), then yes, it would just be a mastering job. But he had to combine these tracks in some ear-pleasing way (possibly replicating original mixes while employing his mastering talents in the mixdown) to 2-track stereo in order to master to CD. So, if your history of this tape is correct (I don't know, I'll take your word for it), then Steve did a remix. Knowing Steve's work, I'll bet you he mixed it straight from the 3-track to the digital master, so no analog 2-track tape would exist with his mix (unless he likes to keep the half-track running for personal archive use ).

Mike

 

Ah, of course, Mike. Thanks for the correction.

 

BTW. I need to get my hands on this Everly's disc. I hear it's a killer!

I missed the post office today by 1 minute, and there's a package waiting there for me with a sealed Orbison disc and Hotel California to boot. Darn it!! Guess that will make tomorrows trip to pick them up that much more fun.

 

I guess there's basically three schools of thought here.

One says remix for better sound, even if not everything matches the original.

One says remix only if you can match things exactly.

One says, and I waver between #2 and this one, to leave history alone, preserve what is. If you remix, it will most likely obscure the original and historical accuracy will be lost forever.

 

Thre reason why I asked this originally was because the CD I have with clearly states that it is a REMIX and not a REMASTER clearly sounds a lot better than the Remaster. (There's also a cd included with the remaster, so you can compare them directly because I assume the mastering to CD is done a tthe same studio with the same equipment) There are some instruments that are more present than on the remaster but it just sounds much more punchy and with more clarity. Also there are differences like, another Guitar solo and an extra drum solo. And this remix (Machine Head) has been done by one of the band members (roger glover) while the original was done by someone else.
I think the question is do want to preserve what the musicians have produced or do you want to preserve what the original downmixer has produced?

 

Well, my vote goes for the original mixing. The band is still on the recording.