Should a Re-Mastering Engineer..

[Khorn]

Funny, or maybe sad, If I state my long standing opinion that a re-mastering engineer should actively 'do what it takes' to "MAKE A RE-MASTER SOUND GOOD AS LONG AS HE IS NOT COMPROMISING THE INTEGRITY OF THE ORIGINAL THAT HE IS WORKING ON" people let out a huge howl as to how WRONG that is.

If I for some reason I were to state the opposite, that he should leave the sound exactly as it is on the master and don't alter or mess with the original, THE SAME PEOPLE let out a huge howl that he should do what he can to fix the sound.

C'mon people i'ts great fun and educational to get together and discuss the subject (audio) what we love but hey, let's have some consistancy of opinion.

Hey, this is the take I get, maybe I'm misunderstanding some of you, if so my apologies.

[lsupro]

I am all for a remastering engineer faithfully reproducing the original. I just would also see him (or her) tweak it too. we have the technology now, and certainly have the media to have two sets.:)

[Mike V]

Originally posted by lsupro
we have the technology now, and certainly have the media to have two sets.:)

Now there's a surefire way to confuse the masses! 99% of people have no idea what a mastering engineer is and what they do (or don't do in many cases).

But I love the idea! I bet the record companies would insist on double royalties though.

Oh, and my vote goes for tweaking the sound (although, I imagine, this isn't necessary sometimes). Otherwise, why have a mastering engineer at all? Just train some monkeys to thread tape for playback & press the record button on the other end.

[Drew]

Tweak is such a vague and subjective term. One man's "tweak" is another man's "distruction".

I'm not a remastering engineer and I really don't know what's involved with being a good one other than what I read in this forum. But to me the biggest mistake that can be made is to make a vintage recording sound like a modern recording.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, necessity is the mother of invention. If there is no need then there should be no invention.

[SonicZone]

I've never seen anything really wrong with "tweaking" (my vote), but only on one important condition:

Any tweaks to the sound must be very, very subtle and not anywhere near overkill!

When I do these kinds of things to CD-Rs/MP3s I make for my own use, my goal is mainly to just get it more "listenable" -- without the harshness and high-end overkill that's commonplace today. Smooth the overall EQ curve, apply some slight decompression (if it won't ruin it), perhaps add a touch of bass if needed, etc. -- nothing radical. I've sometimes "test-pressed" a CD-RW of something I'm working on a half-dozen or more times before I get something close to what I'm looking for. It's a constant learning experience.

(sigh) If only more mastering engineers would think like this . . .

[Joseph]

I like to equate a remastering engineer to a fine art restorer. Their mission is to bring the original work of art to life by cleaning and restoring while preserving the original intent of the artist.

[Grant]

I can only relate it to what I do. I personally try to keep my CD-Rs sounding like the original source. But if I come across something that needs, say, some EQ, I will find one way or another to do so without destroying the integrity of the source. In one case, I used some major compression because the original mix sounded so disjointed. Maybe it's why the album flopped during it's time.

I can't really respong to that question. All but the second choice are really too vague. If you mean tweaking to get things to sound modern, like using NR or remixing, NO WAY!

[Michael]

A little tweaking tastefully done can be a nice treat. As long as we have the original LP & 45 versions, I welcome outtakes, alternate versions, etc. They're fun! I enjoy digging deeper into the song!:)

[Grant]

Originally posted by Michael
A little tweaking tastefully done can be a nice treat. As long as we have the original LP & 45 versions, I welcome outtakes, alternate versions, etc. They're fun! I enjoy digging deeper into the song!:)

IU also enjoy outtakes and alternate versions. I just don't like it when alternate versions are passed off as the original, or is used to replace an original. It is too often done with reissues. We collectors know the difference but the public at large does not. If the companies can get away with it, they get the idea that they can continue the practice. Sometimes the artist does it (Ozzy Osbourne comes to mind). I just hope the fans are smart enough to pick up on the differences.

[Khorn]

Originally posted by Grant
I can't really respong to that question. All but the second choice are really too vague. If you mean tweaking to get things to sound modern, like using NR or remixing, NO WAY!

This may sound crazy but if you can dig what I'm saying.... what I mean by tweaking, massaging or any other similar term is (I'm probably going to be REAL SORRY for saying this but here goes...) to master it to sound as good as possible without really changing anything.

A BAD re-master is like one Tangent and I listened to a few years or so ago. It was one of these 20 Bit Verve redoes of a Billie Holiday title 'Songes For Distingue Lovers. The original has instruments placed hard left and hard right with vocals at the center. These clowns re-mastered it so everything was a totaly congested nasty ball of sound dead centre. Nobody should have the right to do something like that.

[Drew]

To me changing the location of the instruments within the stereo field is remixing, not remastering. This is sacreligious to me.

If you can extract more musicality out of the original master tapes, great. Anything else is desecration of art.

[Steve Hoffman]

Originally posted by Khorn


This may sound crazy but if you can dig what I'm saying.... what I mean by tweaking, massaging or any other similar term is (I'm probably going to be REAL SORRY for saying this but here goes...) to master it to sound as good as possible without really changing anything.



This is exactly what I do for a living...

[Michael]

Originally posted by Khorn


This may sound crazy but if you can dig what I'm saying.... what I mean by tweaking, massaging or any other similar term is (I'm probably going to be REAL SORRY for saying this but here goes...) to master it to sound as good as possible without really changing anything.

A BAD re-master is like one Tangent and I listened to a few years or so ago. It was one of these 20 Bit Verve redoes of a Billie Holiday title 'Songes For Distingue Lovers. The original has instruments placed hard left and hard right with vocals at the center. These clowns re-mastered it so everything was a totaly congested nasty ball of sound dead centre. Nobody should have the right to do something like that.

I know I'm alone on this one. I enjoy the original hard right, hard left mixes, example ; Jan & Dean's "Surf City" without question all the early Beatles stuff, etc. Unfortunately many have been tightened up! The EMI Legendary Masters and The Capital Collectors Series come to mind. Although they are fine releases, I wish they would have stayed closer to the original releases. I'm not thrilled with the Gary Lewis and The Playboy release. Check out "This Diamond Ring" on the EMI Legendary Masters. A lifeless mix, compared to the early Rhino Billboard Series release which sounds great!

[Steve Hoffman]

The evils of remixing (playing God)...

[Michael]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
The evils of remixing (playing God)...

Sad isn't it?:(

[Casemeister]

When I do my own remastering of LPs, I always use noise reduction. I was listening to one of the CDs a few nights ago and was amazed at just how great it sounded. It was like a commercial CD, which is what I always go for, since many of Waylon's albums aren't on CD yet (ahem....... LOL).

NR is good sometimes. It depends on what kind of noise there is. I have a CD of "Honky Tonk Heroes" and "Lonesome, On'ry, and Mean" (one of those "2 on 1" affairs), and all the songs have tape hiss. Mind you, it's GOOD hiss. Quite broad sounding, if that makes sense. It gives everything a very warm feel. Hiss like that should not be removed. No way. But if there's hiss that takes away from the music, it should be eliminated, I say.. :-)

Saying NR should never, ever be used is as crazy as saying it should always be used, IMHO. If the recording in question calls for it, then use it. If not, then leave well enough alone.....

[Gary]

Wow, what a hard choice. One could say to get the best out of a master tape, one must no-noise the music, replace the missing high end by EQ'ing it, etc. and enhance it to "punch it up" which is what some of the newer remasters sound like. So for a tape to be as "good as possible" - it means different things to different mastering engineers. Or record companies.

I think Tangent said it best: "I like to equate a remastering engineer to a fine art restorer " .

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
The evils of remixing (playing God)...

Steve I think it's more like playing the Devil. :mad:

[Khorn]

Originally posted by Michael
I know I'm alone on this one. I enjoy the original hard right, hard left mixes,

No You're not, join the club. We need more new members.

[Ken_McAlinden]

No You're not, join the club. We need more new members.I'm in. We like vintage movie soundtracks with their original directional dialog too, don't we? Most modern 5.1 remixes of vintage mag tracks at best pull the sides in around 40% and at worst make all of the dialog mono.

Regards,

[Casemeister]

"Love Of The Common People" by Waylon Jennings has some great hard left and right panning, with Waylon in the centre all the time. I love the sound of that CD. Panning RULES! :-)

[Grant]

Originally posted by Casemeister
When I do my own remastering of LPs, I always use noise reduction. I was listening to one of the CDs a few nights ago and was amazed at just how great it sounded. It was like a commercial CD, which is what I always go for, since many of Waylon's albums aren't on CD yet (ahem....... LOL).

NR is good sometimes. It depends on what kind of noise there is. I have a CD of "Honky Tonk Heroes" and "Lonesome, On'ry, and Mean" (one of those "2 on 1" affairs), and all the songs have tape hiss. Mind you, it's GOOD hiss. Quite broad sounding, if that makes sense. It gives everything a very warm feel. Hiss like that should not be removed. No way. But if there's hiss that takes away from the music, it should be eliminated, I say.. :-)

Saying NR should never, ever be used is as crazy as saying it should always be used, IMHO. If the recording in question calls for it, then use it. If not, then leave well enough alone.....

Hey! Welcome! Where have I seen you before? The Syntrillium forums? Anyway, I think there is a BIG difference in using NR on records and using it on tapes, especially master tapes. I also use NR on all of my LP restorations, and I am very careful with it and use it sparringly, just to clean up most noise. I will leave it in if I have to. Tapes? All I do is gate the ends. The hiss stays. To combat it, I don't try to EQ it out or reduce it, but I use a tape deck that will give me the best response and lowest noise.

[pjrashid]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman


This is exactly what I do for a living...

...and may I add....You are very good at what you do for a living!

Myself...I like to hear the original at it's best. That is, to be so realistic that I'm able to close my eyes and be transported into the recording room or, for live recordings, sitting at the best seat in the house during the performance. I think buying any recording with less quality is a waste of money and my time listening to it. Fortunately, I can count on SH to provide this type of quality. Thanks Steve.

[Steve Hoffman]

You're welcome!!