useless remastering

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

recent remastering jobs i've found less than enthralling:

eno - 1st 4 albums. need to be a bit of a trainspotter to get anything out of these. original cd releases are not as sonically pristine but, that's about it.

slapp happy / henry cow - desperate straights: slightly more bass, a bit more separation but nothing more. and not a single extra interesting bit of info on the cover and booklet.

any more???

― phil turnbull (philT), Friday, 18 June 2004 10:26 (twenty-two years ago)

the so-called "remastering" on the recent scientists compilation. fuck that noise.

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 10:44 (twenty-two years ago)

seriously, any idiot can transfer vinyl. it seems so few can make it sound any good.

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 10:45 (twenty-two years ago)

why are remasters being done from vinyl anyway?

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I've always been suspicious of remasters that come out not very long after the original CD was released. I'm not sure why anyone needed a remaster of XTC's Nonsuch (1992) ten years after it was released.

― dleone (dleone), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:07 (twenty-two years ago)

why are remasters being done from vinyl anyway?

missing master tapes, usually. there are some people in the biz who believe superior results are obtained from vinyl, and one in particular actually gets better results from vinyl than you would get from tape. he knows what he's doing. 99% don't.

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:09 (twenty-two years ago)

it was the librarian in me, made me ask jim

(also holy fuck you know where i work right?)

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:10 (twenty-two years ago)

songs in the key of life didnt benefit. most remastering is useless in my opinion. crusty, dusty, knackered vinyl is king.

― dickvandyke (dickvandyke), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:13 (twenty-two years ago)

So what remasters from vinyl are the most successful? I'm talking about more recent stuff, not scratchy 78s.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:21 (twenty-two years ago)

generally 60s garage stuff. the biggest problems with vinyl remastering are: improperly cleaned records. poor quality source vinyl (often unavoidable). inadequate or inappropriate equipment.

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:22 (twenty-two years ago)

anything pressed from mid-80s onwards is pointless, because the quality of the vinyl pressing isn't good enough

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:23 (twenty-two years ago)

who da man jim?

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:24 (twenty-two years ago)

i think the problem is the master tapes they use for the remasters. i thought this post was about all remasters by the way, not just vinyl ones. i cant imagine anyone actually sourcing vinyl for a new remaster could get good results, unless its an old 78. that is perplexing.

― dickvandyke (dickvandyke), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:26 (twenty-two years ago)

gaz: do you mean who does it best? mark taylor, ex-psycho surgeons/lipstick killers. the dude is a vinyl remastering GOD

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:26 (twenty-two years ago)

dvd: you would be surprised.

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:27 (twenty-two years ago)

yes thanks jim

but why?

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:28 (twenty-two years ago)

what do you mean? why is he good?

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:30 (twenty-two years ago)

yes. what makes for good vinyl remastering?

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:32 (twenty-two years ago)

properly cleaned records (using a VPI). recorded through quality A/D converters. good quality turntable, cartridge and needle (different needles for mono or stereo). short lengths of connecting cable for *everything*. anal post-recording cleanup on the audio processing software of your choice.

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:34 (twenty-two years ago)

this just sounds like someone with a pricey CD burner hooked up to their priceier turntable then taking it to get mastered.

― dickvandyke (dickvandyke), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:37 (twenty-two years ago)

dude i'm willing to accept you don't know what you're talking about rather than get pissy at this point.

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:37 (twenty-two years ago)

basics.

how do you feel about fiddling with the sound? in "cleanup" you obv need to go beyong presets...but how far?

xpost

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:37 (twenty-two years ago)

you shouldn't have to go too far at all. noise reduction should be minimal, clicks should be removed manually where possible.

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:38 (twenty-two years ago)

hows about "noemalising" it? eqing it? i don't really know the software but there's a range of options to change - or maybe "authentisise" - the sound.

i mean how about if you thought the original mastering sucked?

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:41 (twenty-two years ago)

to be honest that's not really the point when it comes to remastering from vinyl. eq should be touched very little to not at all. i realise it's a different issue for remastering stuff from tape, though.

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:42 (twenty-two years ago)

also stuff straight from tape is a lot quieter as a rule.

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:43 (twenty-two years ago)

i don't know anything about it as you know jim so i'm just picking yer brains :)

(when you come to sydney you can come out to my work and i'll show you why i'm interested!)

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:46 (twenty-two years ago)

okey dokey! i'm still learning myself but the theory is quite ingrained now. the practise needs more practice.

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:47 (twenty-two years ago)

i didnt actually think it would be quite like that electricsound, i was just simplifying the process.

― dickvandyke (dickvandyke), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:48 (twenty-two years ago)

it's surprisingly complicated. and most mastering suites don't have the equipment to deal with it, and even the ones that do don't have engineers sympathetic to it.

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:50 (twenty-two years ago)

even some of my favourite reissue labels seem to be unable to cope with it. LTM for example can bake a tape with the best of them, but many of their vinyl remasters are far from satisfactory.

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:52 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm wondering about this sympathetic engineer business to be sure. i mean ideally you'd need someone who was "there" man...or an expert on the period.

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:54 (twenty-two years ago)

which i don't got

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:55 (twenty-two years ago)

not at all. they just need to be at one with the medium. they need to realise that "boosting the highs" will just increase the noise, as will L2'ing it to death.

(xpost)

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:55 (twenty-two years ago)

i put it to you that with the right equipment i could provide you with a grammy winning vinyl remaster

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:56 (twenty-two years ago)

haha: do you want a job jim?

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:57 (twenty-two years ago)

ooh yeah :)

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:58 (twenty-two years ago)

it'd be in sydney.

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:59 (twenty-two years ago)

doh!

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 11:59 (twenty-two years ago)

but goldfoot would be there ;)

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 18 June 2004 12:02 (twenty-two years ago)

haha if only that was enough of a selling point

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Friday, 18 June 2004 12:02 (twenty-two years ago)

i know i know

― gaz (gaz), Friday, 18 June 2004 12:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I think remasters of albums released in the 90s (like XTC's Nonsuch mentioned above) usually involve turning up the loudness so they sound like most other recent CDs.

I'm looking forward to seeing how they try to convince us in 10 years or so that the CDs, SACDs, and DVDs of today were in need of sound quiality improvement.

― Jagoff, Friday, 18 June 2004 18:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I've heard that the Replacements remasters are totally not to be bothered with.

― BlastsOfStatic (BlastsofStatic), Friday, 18 June 2004 18:42 (twenty-two years ago)

What about CEDAR and Sonic Solutions NoNoise? Don't the very top shops use these for mastering from vinyl?

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Friday, 18 June 2004 18:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Obviously agree with all of that but how good is good enough wrt the vinyl front-end? How many studios have access to (or would even choose to make use of) multi-thousand dollar audiophile vinyl playback? Or is tweakability the important factor (quick change of arms, tracking angle, stylus rake angle, etc)?

I'd say the phono amp is important too - very low noise, providing the right load to the cart, etc.

Interesting that you say that EQ should be left well alone wrt mastering from vinyl; EQ, of course, will have been used fairly destructively in the preparation of the original vinyl master simply to work with the shortcomings of the medium - so, yeah, trying to put back what was trimmed at the cut wouldn't work.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Friday, 18 June 2004 20:26 (twenty-two years ago)

i read "noemalising" as "no-emolizing" as in, removing all the emo. this would be a good function for audio software to have.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 18 June 2004 20:38 (twenty-two years ago)

for the record, I used a mastering house in NYC to bake some tapes(that I transferred myself) that has done some pretty high profile remastered from vinyl projects. I asked them how they did it, did they have some fancy high-end turntable system, they said they used the same machine they use to cut masters or something, that it can also playback? I then asked if they had a vacuum cleaning system to clean the record first and they said no, just bring it in clean. I found that very suspect.

I may have a project coming up soon that will require mastering from vinyl and will take recommendations...

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Friday, 18 June 2004 20:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't really think of that - using a Neumann cutting lathe for playback purposes; a Google search reveals a Swiss mastering studio using a Grace tonearm on a Neumann lathe and, also in Switzerland, Vinylium go the other way, modifying a Technics SL-1200 and using it as a lathe. Someone should tell Harry Lime.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Friday, 18 June 2004 21:59 (twenty-two years ago)

500 years of peace and all they've got is the cuckoo clock, and a modified SL1200 vinyl lathe.

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Friday, 18 June 2004 22:09 (twenty-two years ago)

but do they owe us a living?

― amateur!st (amateurist), Saturday, 19 June 2004 01:41 (twenty-two years ago)

of course they fucking do.

― (Jon L), Saturday, 19 June 2004 04:16 (twenty-two years ago)

how did this go from referencing the Third Man to Crass? what am I missing?

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Saturday, 19 June 2004 05:07 (twenty-two years ago)

that certain je ne sais quoi

― amateur!st (amateurist), Saturday, 19 June 2004 05:09 (twenty-two years ago)

suppose so, was hoping for something more concrete.

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Saturday, 19 June 2004 05:44 (twenty-two years ago)

that certain je sais quoi

― amateur!st (amateurist), Saturday, 19 June 2004 05:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Thanks for clearing things up about the "Desperate Straights" remaster. I had been wondering about that one. The old Virgin CD that includes both "Desperate Straights" and "Casablanca Moon" always has sounded really good. At least as good as the Recommended vinyl reiussue of "Desperate Straights" from the early 80s (recut at 45 rpm). Speaking of ReR, I suspect that the new Art Bears remasters sound no better than the original CDs.

BTW, the Voiceprint CD of Slapp Happy's "Sort Of" is mastered from vinyl, as is ReR's "Acnalbasac Noom" CD and both CD issues of "The Faust Tapes" (they cleaned it up more the second time around). I wonder what the deal with this is. Did Uwe Nettelbeck lose the master tapes? (I presume he was the one who held onto them.) Certainly Recommended had use of the original masters of all this stuff when they first reissued them (or, in the case of "Acnalbasac Noom," issued for the first time ever) on vinyl in the early 80s.

I disagree with the notion that CD masters from vinyl always sound good. They really don't sound that great, no matter how pristine the vinyl source is. I, for one, find the crummy CD issues of the first two Ash Ra Tempel albums on Spalax (also sourced from vinyl) damn near unlistenable. Now I realize that sometimes all that may exist is a vinyl copy, but I can always hear the telltale signs of a vinyl transfer immediately, viz. a distorted/indistinct top end and an all-around sonic haziness.

― kjoerup, Saturday, 19 June 2004 06:46 (twenty-two years ago)

>quick change of arms, tracking angle, stylus rake angle, etc

I love it when you talk technical Mike.

― Keith Watson (kmw), Saturday, 19 June 2004 09:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't understand this remastering from vinyl by choice at all. I thought it only happened when the tapes weren't available.

How can it be preferred? Surely the vinyl has come from the master tapes in the first place?

― N. (nickdastoor), Saturday, 19 June 2004 11:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't really understand it either (it's a bit like preferring to play with ten men) but I guess if the vinyl master was done very well and there's a pristine first-run LP available then you'll be working from something not very far removed sonically from the master tape which will not have deteriorated over the years.

Getting good sound from 30-year old master tapes (sourcing the right playback machine, alignment, bias, delamination issues, etc) can be almost as much of a fuss as getting it off a vinyl LP.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Saturday, 19 June 2004 14:09 (twenty-two years ago)

OK, that makes sense.

― N. (nickdastoor), Saturday, 19 June 2004 14:20 (twenty-two years ago)

yep, michael's last point OTM. tape can deteriorate substantially with age, vinyl only deteriorates with abuse.

― are 'friends' electricsound? (electricsound), Saturday, 19 June 2004 22:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I would love to see an attempt at remastering the Misfits catalog for surround release.

― cRaiG (craig!), Sunday, 20 June 2004 08:32 (twenty-two years ago)

(when you come to sydney you can come out to my work and i'll show you why i'm interested!)

what sort of work do you do, Gaz?

― OCP (OCP), Sunday, 20 June 2004 14:31 (twenty-two years ago)

three years pass...

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article2877291.ece

― titchyschneiderMk2, Saturday, 17 November 2007 00:56 (eighteen years ago)

“I have to make my judgments based on selling as many records as possible. That’s my brief. So even though there might be audiophiles who say you shouldn’t do this, well, I’m sorry, audiophiles, you’re a very small part of the market.”

asdgjkafshgjk;jfdslhjlkdfgjhkdgsh;df

― stephen, Saturday, 17 November 2007 02:25 (eighteen years ago)

this spawned a many many many page thread on the steve hoffmann forums, not surprisingly. nick davies comes off sounding the worse in this article though; seriously, that guy really botched those genesis remasters, they're terrible.

― akm, Saturday, 17 November 2007 02:41 (eighteen years ago)

i hate this part - “Fashions in sound change,” he says. “People expect a slightly more compressed sound, slightly brighter.”

― titchyschneiderMk2, Saturday, 17 November 2007 21:48 (eighteen years ago)

Zep vinyl in good shape sounds wonderful. They cared about sound and knew what they were doing and I will never replace my vinyl copies of those records. Same goes for Neil Young.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Saturday, 17 November 2007 21:59 (eighteen years ago)

I find the first CD of my special edition of "Exciter" by Depeche Mode to be pretty much pointless. After all, what is gained from remastering a 2002 album?

The DVD, containing an interesting documentary and a wonderful 5:1 mix, is still worth it though.

― Geir Hongro, Sunday, 18 November 2007 11:56 (eighteen years ago)

I think remasters of albums released in the 90s (like XTC's Nonsuch mentioned above) usually involve turning up the loudness so they sound like most other recent CDs.

Most CDs released after 1992/93 were rather loud already by then though. It is mainly with 80s releases that you actually need to turn up the volume for them to sound loud enough on recent mp3 players or portable CD players.

― Geir Hongro, Sunday, 18 November 2007 11:58 (eighteen years ago)

But while he finds Mothership fatiguingly loud, he admits he would have upped the volume from Remasters. Why? “Because of fashion. No other reason.”

sigh.

― sleeve, Sunday, 18 November 2007 18:02 (eighteen years ago)

I'm looking forward to seeing how they try to convince us in 10 years or so that the CDs, SACDs, and DVDs of today were in need of sound quiality improvement.

B-b-but they are! (CDs at least.)

― These Robust Cookies, Sunday, 18 November 2007 23:29 (eighteen years ago)

The Nonsuch remaster has the worst printing error I have ever seen anywhere ever.

― Just got offed, Sunday, 18 November 2007 23:30 (eighteen years ago)

Worse than the Wire one?

(i.e. do tell)

― Mark G, Monday, 19 November 2007 10:24 (eighteen years ago)

What Wire one?

― Telephone thing, Monday, 19 November 2007 10:40 (eighteen years ago)

one year passes...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/sep/24/remastered-records-jude-rogers

― titchy (titchyschneiderMk2), Friday, 25 September 2009 14:04 (sixteen years ago)

"bright with bass" = does not know how to talk about sound.

― Sickamous (Scik Mouthy), Friday, 25 September 2009 16:08 (sixteen years ago)

oh great, the guardian's second worst music critic.

― history mayne, Friday, 25 September 2009 16:09 (sixteen years ago)

So St Etienne are reMIXING and she's writing about that in a piece ostensibly dealing with reMASTERING?

― Sickamous (Scik Mouthy), Friday, 25 September 2009 16:10 (sixteen years ago)

whole paragraph of errors at the end.

also it's richard x.

also it was 1991.

also it was already balearic.

― history mayne, Friday, 25 September 2009 16:11 (sixteen years ago)

What an incredibly dumb article. Maybe she wants record companies to take special orders with instructions like, "Please copy to low-grade cassette, and let it warp in the sun for 3 years and 4 months, so that it will sound exactly how I fondly remember it."

― Fastnbulbous, Friday, 25 September 2009 17:54 (sixteen years ago)

This time, however, it is uglier and coarser, pushing a reviewer on Pitchfork.com to use a graphic to show how much harder this sound hits us.

^^ this is so super-weird and wrong -- waveform comparisons of three random songs were basically used to demonstrate that they'd raised the levels without visibly squashing the dynamics.

― nabisco, Friday, 25 September 2009 18:25 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.