Marketing: Audio Restoration / Remastering

[Gary]

This link to another thread talks about "Audio Restoration".

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/s...=&threadid=3308

But I decided to post a separate thread for this question.

First, marketing departments use "Audio Restoration", "Newly Remastered" and "Remastered" as marketing tools. It's like "New and Improved", "Now even better", "Extra Bonus", etc.

What it usually means is that they've revamped the artists catalogue, compressing the music, making it LOUDER, more punchy, slicing off the top end and trying to restore it, making it clean by taking out the hiss (and everyone goes "Wow - it's so CLEAN"! What a great job they did!). Yeeech! Sounds like false advertising to me!

We know better right?

The question: What king of marketing tool / saying / slogan can specialty companies like Classic, DCC, MOFI, etc., use to indicate a PROPER restoration or release of an artists music?

"Original Master Recording"? It's been used but WHAT is an Original Master Recording? The original master that was copied and sent to the USA - that was copied again for LP mastering? So it's the original master, third generation, EQ'd for LP back in '83 used to create the CD release...... . Not really an original master, huh?

I hope we can come up with some kind of slogan, idea, *something* to indicate that the mastering / remastering was done *right*!

Any ideas out there?

[Bob Lovely]

Gary,

Let us try this.....

"This compact disc has been painstakenly and authentically mastered from the absolute first generation Stereo two-track or Mono master tape. No "safeties" or higher generation copies of the original master were used. No noise shaping or compression devices were used during the mastering process. This compact disc replicates all of the sonic qualities of the original master tape including such recording artifacts as tape hiss. Only the use of the absolute first generation master tape will provide such a historically accurate listening experience of the recorded work."

This could be printed on the back of each CD liner.

Bob :)

[Gary]

Some good ideas, there, Bob!

How about (using most of your words): "This compact disc has been painstakenly and authentically mastered from the Stereo two-track or Mono master tape created by the artist in 1972" (use the year here).

Any slogan that you can think of (short and sweet)? Something to indicate that it's been "Hoffman-ized"? :)

[Bob Lovely]

Originally posted by Gary
Some good ideas, there, Bob!

How about (using most of your words): "This compact disc has been painstakenly and authentically mastered from the Stereo two-track or Mono master tape created by the artist in 1972" (use the year here).

Any slogan that you can think of (short and sweet)? Something to indicate that it's been "Hoffman-ized"? :)

Instead of "created by the artist" I would add "as originally recorded in 1972". I will work on a short, unique marketing phrase.

Bob :)

[Bob Lovely]

Gary,

How about one of these?.....

"Unprocessed From The Original Master Tapes"....or....

"Absolute Original Master"....or....

"First Generation Master Tape"


Bob

:D

[Gary]

Not bad.... but how about: Artists Original Recording ?

The Artists Original Recording as restored utilizing the original playback equipment for accurate and realistic recreation of the original sound.

But that's a problem (original playback equipment) because of the perception that "Newer is Better". Digital work stations are better because of the new state of the art technology involved. Sonic Solutions, CEDAR and other no-noising is necessary because of the original tapes. These tapes contain hiss and other anomalities that must be eraticated. The life must be sucked out of these recordings before release. This is acceptable because no one believes that recording methods used in the '70's and before are any good for today's technological standards.

That's what I'm trying to get at - to make the public realize that you can't transfer tape to digital to get the original sound. How do we change the perception that new technology is better? How do we get across that a DCC sounds like the original recording, not modernized to today's standards?

[Bob Lovely]

Originally posted by Gary
Not bad.... but how about: Artists Original Recording ?

The Artists Original Recording as restored utilizing the original playback equipment for accurate and realistic recreation of the original sound.

But that's a problem (original playback equipment) because of the perception that "Newer is Better". Digital work stations are better because of the new state of the art technology involved. Sonic Solutions, CEDAR and other no-noising is necessary because of the original tapes. These tapes contain hiss and other anomalities that must be eraticated. The life must be sucked out of these recordings before release. This is acceptable because no one believes that recording methods used in the '70's and before are any good for today's technological standards.

That's what I'm trying to get at - to make the public realize that you can't transfer tape to digital to get the original sound. How do we change the perception that new technology is better? How do we get across that a DCC sounds like the original recording, not modernized to today's standards?

Gary,

I hesitate to use the term "artists" because so many of the recordings that we cherish historically, while recorded by the original artists, were, in fact, sonically created by the original recording Engineer and original Producer of the recorded work. The Artist, in many cases, merely followed the directions given to them during the recording sessions. I believe the "catchy marketing phrase" has to reference either the re-mastering process or the source of the master tape used.

Anti-language: "This recorded work has been processed using a Digital work station, noise shaping and a compression device. Any resemblence to the original recorded work or the sound of the original master tape is merely coincidential and is not intentional. The sound of this Compact Disc has been processed and created at the discretion of the re-mastering Engineer and record Label in order to make you believe that you are purchasing a superior product."

Bob :eek:

[lukpac]

Originally posted by Bob Lovely
Only the use of the absolute first generation master tape will provide such a historically accurate listening experience of the recorded work.

Which isn't true. Most (all?) people here couldn't tell the difference between a good copy and the original. In some cases it would even make sense to use a copy over the original, if the copy was done well and the original has problems. Many non-gold DCC discs (and possibly MCA as well) use copy tapes, and you know what, they still sound great...

As far as the rest of the stuff said here - I think some people here are just taking buzzwords and running with them. "Compression is bad." "Digital workstations are bad." Compression was the norm on Beatles songs. Digital workstations are as bad as the person using them - I'm sure if Steve decided to start using one that everyone here would suddenly start singing the joys of digital workstations.

[-Ben]

The only marketing device that really works is "REMASTERED BY STEVE HOFFMAN"

[Bob Lovely]

Originally posted by lukpac


Which isn't true. Most (all?) people here couldn't tell the difference between a good copy and the original. In some cases it would even make sense to use a copy over the original, if the copy was done well and the original has problems. Many non-gold DCC discs (and possibly MCA as well) use copy tapes, and you know what, they still sound great...

As far as the rest of the stuff said here - I think some people here are just taking buzzwords and running with them. "Compression is bad." "Digital workstations are bad." Compression was the norm on Beatles songs. Digital workstations are as bad as the person using them - I'm sure if Steve decided to start using one that everyone here would suddenly start singing the joys of digital workstations.

lukpac,

First off, Gary and I were creating language for a CD release where there is a presumption that the original master tape was going to be used regardless of it's condition (assumes it is playable) or sound--a first generation remastered release. Sadly, the Beatles early releases are over-compressed to my ears. I will contend that if an original recorded work was recorded on an analog machine it should stay analog as late in the mastering process as is possible. Digital recordings should remain digital throughout the mastering process, in my opinion.

Bob :)

[lukpac]

Originally posted by Bob Lovely
First off, Gary and I were creating language for a CD release where there is a presumption that the original master tape was going to be used regardless of it's condition (assumes it is playable) or sound--a first generation remastered release. Sadly, the Beatles early releases are over-compressed to my ears. I will contend that if an original recorded work was recorded on an analog machine it should stay analog as late in the mastering process as is possible. Digital recordings should remain digital throughout the mastering process, in my opinion.

But why should a 1st generation tape be used over a copy if the copy actually sounds better (due to damage of the original, for example)? To me that stinks of "remastered" - "it's from a first generation tape, so it *must* be better!"

People here (Steve included) like to rave about the mono mixes of Paperback Writer, Revolution, etc. Those are compression city.

[Bob Lovely]

Originally posted by lukpac


But why should a 1st generation tape be used over a copy if the copy actually sounds better (due to damage of the original, for example)? To me that stinks of "remastered" - "it's from a first generation tape, so it *must* be better!"

People here (Steve included) like to rave about the mono mixes of Paperback Writer, Revolution, etc. Those are compression city.

lukpac,

A question--assuming the first generation tape is physically playable why would the second generation copy sound better? Please explain?

Assuming the copy truly sounds better, then I would vote for using the copy and then label the remastered CD accordingly explaining why the copy was used over the original.

I like the sound of the Mono Paperback Writer. I do not own a copy of the Mono Revolution. In my opinion, the Beatles early recordings, on CD, sound pretty awful!..overcompressed and not much low-end. Would they sound better if they were re-mastered by Steve or another highly competent mastering Engineer using a less compressed or EQ'd earlier generation master?

Your thoughts?

Bob

[lukpac]

Originally posted by Bob Lovely
A question--assuming the first generation tape is physically playable why would the second generation copy sound better? Please explain?

"Playable" doesn't mean "in good shape. A tape that's "playable" can still have dropouts, edge damage, etc, etc... A tape that's "playable" could have half the oxide missing from it. Do you see where I'm going with this?

I like the sound of the Mono Paperback Writer. I do not own a copy of the Mono Revolution. In my opinion, the Beatles early recordings, on CD, sound pretty awful!..overcompressed and not much low-end. Would they sound better if they were re-mastered by Steve or another highly competent mastering Engineer using a less compressed or EQ'd earlier generation master?

Well, first of all, I doubt EMI engineers added any additional compression during CD mastering.

Second, those early albums do sound bad on CD (in general), but that's more to do with the idiocy of EMI engineers (during CD mastering), not a tape or recording problem.

[Bob Lovely]

Originally posted by lukpac


Well, first of all, I doubt EMI engineers added any additional compression during CD mastering.

Second, those early albums do sound bad on CD (in general), but that's more to do with the idiocy of EMI engineers (during CD mastering), not a tape or recording problem.

lukpac,

"In good shape" is a good point. Assuming the first generation master is in good shape, can a copy sound better? If it can, why?

I have always assumed that the sound of the Beatles early recordings was more attributable to mastering more than other factors. Can they be made to sound better, in your opinion?

Bob :)

[Gary]

Originally posted by bencanas
The only marketing device that really works is "REMASTERED BY STEVE HOFFMAN"

That works for us, Bencanas. Would the average consumer know who Steve is? Would they care about the difference between mastering engineers? Probably not - unless they heard the CD.

MOFI had black covers with reduced sized artwork. Everyone who looked at it knew it was a special product.

DCC gold discs have extra packaging on the outside and the artwork faithfully reproduced. Everyone who looks at them knows they are a special product.

I'm trying to generate some marketing slogan to identify superior mastering, other than the packaging. Something that says it was not digitally killed. Something that says it still sounds like - or better than - the original release and therefore it is preferred over a no-noised "clean" release.

Do you know what I am getting at?

Any ideas? :confused:

(PS I want people to say: Sure it's remastered, but is it "Hoffmanized" type of thing! :D )

[Beagle]

Originally posted by lukpac
I think some people here are just taking buzzwords and running with them. "Compression is badYes, Beatles songs use compression, and there's not much anybody can do about what's on the tape. It's any added compression during remastering that bugs people. You can hear it when you compare original Beatles LPs and original Hotel California LP with Beatles 1 and the Elektra/Asylum CD remaster.

I think Bob Lovely has covered it pretty good. For me, "NO ADDED COMPRESSION" is as important as "NO CHOLESTEROL" or NO MSG" or "NO ADDED SUGAR" on food packages. Maybe it should be regulated that, like food ingredients, it is clearly indicated on the outside of the CD/LP package what was done during recording/mastering. And they have to indicate the average or peak dynamic range. This should be law. Some people are allergic to bad digital tampering and compression, it makes their blood pressure and hypertension rise to dangerous levels. Or, like warnings on cigarette packages, it should indicate "WARNING: CONTAINS OVERCOMPRESSION WHICH MAY BE DETIRIMENTAL TO ENJOYMENT OF THIS RECORDING" Originally posted by lukpac
Digital workstations are as bad as the person using them - I'm sure if Steve decided to start using one that everyone here would suddenly start singing the joys of digital workstations. If he found a good one, and he could make it produce results similar to what he has been doing all along, nobody would complain. If you enjoy listening to the music, what it was recorded on becomes irrelevent.

I suppose the less we know about how something was recorded, the better off we are. If we find out it was recorded using gear we "don't like", then we start finding reasons to knock the recording and we stop using our ears. If our ears tell us it's bad, it is bad.

[Bob Lovely]

Beagle,

In order to hear (close to) exactly what is on that original master tape, I am more than willing to live with tape hiss and other audio artifacts. Clean up the artifacts and eliminate the tape hiss and that original sound has been altered. It is those subtle nuances that I want to hear. I do not want my music further processed, compressed and digitally sterilized beyond the A/D conversion. Can it be that some people actually prefer noise-shaped, further compressed versions?

Bob :confused:

[ArneW]

If I remember correctly, the text from RCA's Living Stereo CD booklets is pretty good. But any such sticker on a CD only makes sense if more engineers are willing to do it the Hoffman way. Didn't Steve mention on the old forum that he got hold of some young mastering engineer whom he is raising in the proper way? I don't remember his name. May the force be with him.

Arne

[Gary]

I'll bet they do, Bob. Because it says "Newly Remastered"!

But I'll bet they don't when they hear Steve's version. How do we get them to select the correct version? Hoffman-ized, not No-Noised? Remastered properly?

('Morning, Steve! I'm causing trouble again! ;) )

[Grant]

Originally posted by lukpac



As far as the rest of the stuff said here - I think some people here are just taking buzzwords and running with them. "Compression is bad." "Digital workstations are bad." Compression was the norm on Beatles songs. Digital workstations are as bad as the person using them - I'm sure if Steve decided to start using one that everyone here would suddenly start singing the joys of digital workstations.

I have to agree here 100%!!!!!:cool:

[Bob Lovely]

Originally posted by Gary
I'll bet they do, Bob. Because it says "Newly Remastered"!

But I'll bet they don't when they hear Steve's version. How do we get them to select the correct version? Hoffman-ized, not No-Noised? Remastered properly?

('Morning, Steve! I'm causing trouble again! ;) )

Gary,

After all these responses to your thread, I am beginning to believe there are two distinct camps:

The Hoffman Camp: largely unprocessed and honest replication of the original master or best possible source, artifacts and all.

The Processed Camp: at the discretion of the re-masterer, freely process the sound through the use of analog or digital devices that in the interpretation of the re-masterer improves the sound during listening even if the original sound is altered.

I am not sure that the differences between the opinions of the two camps are easy to reconcile.

Bob :confused:

[Steve Hoffman]

It all depends on the quality of your playback system.

Trust me, the better your system, the more obvious the "restoration".

[Bob Lovely]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
It all depends on the quality of your playback system.

Trust me, the better your system, the more obvious the "restoration".

Steve,

I can even hear the "difference" on my BOSE Wave Radio here in my office. At home, on my system those differences become all the more obvious, to my ears!

Bob

:)

[Steve Hoffman]

I'm sure you can.

I didn't say one had to have an expensive playback system, just a good one. A system that is fairly neutral. Once one's ears know what to listen for, the "artifacts" of some modern restorations stand out like a sore thumb.

[-Ben]

Gary,

I wrote the "REMASTERED BY STEVE HOFFMAN" bit.


My point was: It works for me.

I've been blindly bying "REMASTERED BY STEVE HOFFMAN" CDs since 1985. Why? Because I care about sound and Steve gives it to me. So, I look for his name in small print on the back of LPs and CDs. If you are worrying about consumers that do not care who remastered thier CDs, I got news for you: they probably don't care about sound either. You can not take what Steve Hoffman does and reduce it to 4 words and expect record companies to appreciate it, bottle it and sell it to 98% of the consumers who don't really care about sound to begin with.

BC