“The Aesthetics of Remastering Reissues”

Terrific round table interview from TAPE OP:
The Aesthetics of Remastering Reissues

I love this, from Josh Bonati: “On the consumer side, there is this two-part assumption that annoys me: 1. There are original analog tapes for everything. 2. These holy grail analog tapes are the perfect, pure sound that has been withheld from the public until now. Both of these assumptions are false. There are not analog tapes for everything, and they do not always sound good. I understand the marketing reason for stickering ‘From the Original Tapes!’ on the LP jacket, but it's getting a bit silly. We're reissuing projects from the '90s and early 2000s now. A lot of those were mixed to DAT, not analog tape, and that's just the way it is. I have yet to see a ‘From the Original DATs!’ sticker on a LP. I dare someone to do it.”

 

Analogue shmanalogue

 

Interesting read, albeit probably nothing new for many here.

I think the statement "I've tried to chase what other people are looking for, or what I think listeners might expect, and it never ends well", is a telling one. There are all kinds of expectations humped upon the backs of these guys, when we as fans don't really have any insight into what's been requested, and what these people are having to work with.

Take for example the various threads/comments demanding "all analog" Vinyl. Obviously in this day and age that's asking too much. It may be possible, but even when it is it's not a gaurantee things will go well - take Bowie's catalog as an example, and instance where those tapes don't seem to be in a good condition overall (and his discography is far from being the worst!)

I think the work some of these people do is amazing. One of the guys there works with Dust to Digital, and I can't imagine what absolute rubbish they get ahold of for "remastering". I have many of their sets, and they're releasing cylinders and 78's pretty regularly. We're lucky digital has progressed so well.

Actually, we're lucky digital is there now, period. Tape had its day, but by their own admission, the tapes haven't held up all that well over the last 50 years. Plus the special storage they need, and equipment needed. Digital beats that hands down, imo.

 

Well, I don’t really appreciate his opinion. We’re not all dumb...we understand. We want the best sounding source. We know that the original tapes might be no good...we get it.

Our expectation is that the best source be used. But you darn well better check the original master tape, because if you don’t, and it’s really good, you haven’t done your homework, you’re lazy, and I have no time for your lack of care and diligence.

 

Boy, that's pretty sensitive. Who used the word "dumb"? Now, tell me - how do you know, exactly, if the master tape was available and in good shape or not?

No wonder so many mastering engineers have stuck their head in here for a few posts and then bailed.

 

I'd agree - so many assumptions are made, aren't they? On the one hand, people want the b est copy of what's on the original masters, but if there's something damaged, they want it fixed. Along with that comes the assumption that little work is ever needed.

Can you imagine sitting in a studio, with a baked copy of the master for Album X, knowing that it's pretty much the last run of the tape through the machine? Damn. These "all analog" people are on a hiding to nothing, imo.

 

I dunno. I guess it seemed pretty reasonable to assume Zeppelin, Floyd, The Who (and the like) original masters were on analog tape. Talking about the questionable condition of those tapes is valid, and I get their frustration, but I don't think anyone here (for example) think modern masters are anything but digital.

 

You bet I’m sensitive about this. If you’re using the best source, it’s acceptable. If you’re not, it ain’t.

If you tell us the best available source was used, great. How many reissues tell us they’re from the best available source? Not many, hardly any. So we keep shelling out for inferior product, because some of these companies aren’t up front.

We’re not dumb, and we will understand if it’s explained.

 

Seems like a complaint for the labels, not the engineers.

 

You’re right, it is. But what Mr. Bonati is irked with is the record buying public. He, and we, shouldn’t be upset with each other...it’s the companies we are really ticked with.

 

Yep. And why is that?

*looks around this very forum*

Ohhhh yeah.

 

I was about to post this article, and did a search because I figured someone would have beaten me to it.

Interesting read, especially the railing against noise reduction, which I think we can all agree on, if there’s a chance we can agree on anything.

 

^ Never!

The DNR applied to mass market music releases, even the most outrageously botched ones, hardly even comes close to some of the butchery applied to "clean up" classic film audio on some DVD reissues

 

So true, guys, both posts are so on target!

 

I just figured never buy a new reissue of a 50s/60s/70s/80s album to make the sure the source is all analog (yes I know some 80s titles were recorded digitally).
Then again someone might dig up a really good new tape source and take it through the digital chain (a Coltrane album comes to mind).

Buying titles recorded digitally and pressed on vinyl is only an alternative for me when the cd is brickwalled - though the LP might sound like crap too, so it's a gamble.

 

There seems to be an assumption that analogue is automatically wholesome and good while digital is somehow always bad. Obviously this is plain nonsense. I have some incredible sounding digitally recorded LP's. I have also had my share of terrible sounding all analogue LP's. AAA does not guarantee anything where sound quality is concerned.

 

I'll take a well done AAA over a well done digital.

 

Well-done third gen analogue versus well-done first gen digital, as per MLutthans' post, though?

 

That's not "well done". Well done 1st gen AAA over digital any day.

There is a reason the most respected analog cutters search for the master tape and cut AAA.

 

We're asking for it?

Wanting to know provenance is asking to be taken for a ride?

 

So would pretty much anyone - it's not the matter under discussion.

That's not actually how it works, even for the most respected cutters. These days, they're generally third parties, under contract to do a job - they don't usually have access to just go in the vault and root around. Ultimately they're at the mercy of what they're provided by a label. Again, see MLutthans' post above. Now, if the label cares enough to provide first gen masters, then hurrah.

 

In a lot of cases, it's a ride on a hiding to nothing.

 

Can't parse that sentence, but back to the article: I notice no scorn towards those now-retired engineers who told the labels once upon a time that DAT or uMatic or anything in 16-bit was the ultimate in asset preservation.

 

Interesting. An example of people who have no credibility or personal pride in what they do.

Are you saying this is common? The top people like Bernie Grundman, Kevin Gray, Chris Bellman, have been involved in this sort of thing? I highly doubt that. I bet all of them would tell us that cutting from the ACTUAL analog tape is better sounding than cutting vinyl from digital.

I agree there are some good sounding digital LPs. All of them would have been better if they were AAA.