Questions About Remastering

[pauljones]

I am a great fan of Steve Hoffman and the fine work he does. The articles on him have been interesting; I have also read about Bob Ludwig and his studio. However, no one ever really discloses the question: What influence does the mastering engineer actually have over the sound that the consumer ultimately hears? I realize that each engineer has their favorite choice of equipment and methods, but do they take the creative liberties to adjust tonal quality, alter EQ, add or subtract ambience, and remix to their own tastes? Take for example, the DCC gold issue of Nat King Cole's Love Is The Thing. It sounds drastically different than the 1987 Capitol cd issue...in many ways. The two mono tracks on the Capitol CD are presented there in reprocessed stereo, and the CD has a lot more echo and reverb. Steve's work is more detailed and precise. Then, you have the early 1990's EMI releases remastered by Kevin Reeves and others, such as Jan and Dean twofers, Ventures twofers, and the "Legends of Rock and Roll" series which sound flat, compressed, and lifeless. Compare with the original vinyl or imports such as on the See For Miles label, and you will be very disappointed with the EMI versions. Steely Dan has been remastered several times. I own the original early 1980's CD issues, and besides the newer ones being mastered at a higher volume level, I think there is not an appreciable difference. And sometimes, the original sounds smoother; a good example is Dire Straits' Communique.

[Sckott]

There are many ways to master something, but what most people are doing as far as mastering have little to do with the original sound of the tape. Actually labels are finding that if they cannot "improve" the sound on the original tape, they boost levels to make the disc sound louder, boosting highs and low ends a little too much. You see, the labels aren't going to make a kings ransom on reissues unless they leave room to reinvent the wheel several times in a decade or two.

This being said, a lot of what Steve did at MCA and a lot of other engineers did was try and duplicate the sound of the living master to a radically different format...digital. A lot of things were thrown in the sound chain in the early beginnings, but a lot of great CDs were made when the guys behind the knobs could twist things to turn an orange into orange juice, then make the CD taste like the orange it started with, as whole as possible. Get my drift?

Beware of a lot of reissues, I certainly don't get all gooey when they remaster Whitesnake or the Geffen Aerosmith because a lot of what the artists liked about the sound (and the original mastering engineer who may have been all 'they' had) was on the original CDs.

It's back to thinking like the 90's when the economy was great...Bigger, better, faster, more. Funny how an orange 10 feet in diameter doesn't taste like an orange, just watered down.

The biggest upset is, the manufacturers of most mid-fi component stereos are sounding colder and less dymanic, while some CDs made today are working like they're compensating for cheapness at the playback end.

[Pat]

>>What influence does the mastering engineer actually have over the sound that the consumer ultimately hears? I realize that each engineer has their favorite choice of equipment and methods, but do they take the creative liberties to adjust tonal quality, alter EQ, add or subtract ambience, and remix to their own tastes?

Yes, they do, in many cases...and unlike Steve, they aren't familiarizing themselves with the "sound" of the ORIGINAL recording! Steve, I believe, tries to find the original recordings on different formats (lp,reel-to-reel,8track,etc)to audition them for sound, before working HIS magic.

>>Take for example, the DCC gold issue of Nat King Cole's Love Is The Thing. It sounds drastically different than the 1987 Capitol cd issue...in many ways. The two mono tracks on the Capitol CD are presented there in reprocessed stereo...

Steve uses master tapes, and as we know, if you're listening to reprocessed/rechanneled stereo (fake!) you CANNOT be using the MASTER.

Also, while I like some of the Capitol Legendary Masters and other comps that Kevin Reeves puts out...they actually "re-MIX" from multi-track tapes (Steve usually uses the 2 track master) and as a result Reeves really tampers with the sound because of the different sounding "echo" added and other nuances that the original master had! It's like restoring an "old house" using modern materials...it's just not the same!!! :rolleyes:

[Grant]

Originally posted by Pat:

Also, while I like some of the Capitol Legendary Masters and other comps that Kevin Reeves puts out...they actually "re-MIX" from multi-track tapes (Steve usually uses the 2 track master) and as a result Reeves really tampers with the sound because of the different sounding "echo" added and other nuances that the original master had! It's like restoring an "old house" using modern materials...it's just not the same!!! :rolleyes:[/QB]

Uh, I think you have Kevin confused with RON FURMANECK. RON is the one who remixes with no regard for the original sound. Kevin just remasters and his work is usually outstanding.

[Pat]

Grant,

If you check the back of EMI Legends Of Rock N' Roll Collection (24 Greatest Hits Of All Time), you'll notice that Kevin Reeves gets credited with "remixing" along with Ron Furmanek, Bob Norberg and Larry Walsh. I know he re-mixed (not *just* remastered) others as well!

[pauljones]

Thanks to all who responded to my topic on remastering. I think this topic is very important because we are talking about artistic integrity. I agree that Steve Hoffman will exhaust every avenue possible in searching out the original to give the same flavor to all his reissues. Vic Anesini of Sony is edging toward the same league. I feel he should be thinking about opening his own mastering house. I look forward to other perspectives on remastering.

[Grant]

Originally posted by Pat:
Grant,

If you check the back of EMI Legends Of Rock N' Roll Collection (24 Greatest Hits Of All Time), you'll notice that Kevin Reeves gets credited with "remixing" along with Ron Furmanek, Bob Norberg and Larry Walsh. I know he re-mixed (not *just* remastered) others as well!

But you singled out Kevin Reeves. Ron Furmaneck is the one who is notorious for the dubious remixing. And then look for the producer of the package, because the producer is the one who calls the shots.

[Pat]

Grant,

Actually, I didn't *single* him out at all...as PJ31 mentioned "Kevin Reeves & Others" in his initial posting! Check it out! Also, you did mention that Kevin Reeves *only* remasters and not re-mixes which is not entirely true either.

[Grant]

Originally posted by Pat:
Grant,

Actually, I didn't *single* him out at all...as PJ31 mentioned "Kevin Reeves & Others" in his initial posting! Check it out! Also, you did mention that Kevin Reeves *only* remasters and not re-mixes which is not entirely true either.

I stand corrected about pj31 being the one who singled him out.

Funny thing, credits on any album are not always totally accurate. They rarely tell you the whole story. If a person is said to have mixed a track, that person could have just sat there as some second engineer did all the work, but the "supervisor" gets the credit.

Kevin reeves name could have been just lumped together with the other names because he did some remixing BUT was not involved with what the other two did. It's not like they were all ever even in the same building together doing the same tracks.

For an example, Michael Jackson is listed a producer on a Diana Ross track. We know that the traditional role of producer has been to select the material, select the tape and studio, select the tracks, ect... Jacko's involvement was mostly to sit there and say something like, "Yeah, yeah, that sounds good! Do that!"

Sometimes the artist is the real producer. Tom Dowd and/or jerry Wexler are credited as producer on Aretha franklin's 60s albums, but both of those guys will be quick to tell you that SHE was the real producer. Their involvement may have been just to set up mics, roll tape, and mix.

Back when the beach Boys were new, many people didn't realize just how much in control Brian Wilson really was.

I stand by my assumption that Furmaneck was responsible for the dubious tracks.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Grant T. ]

[Paul L.]

Good point about credits sometimes being way wrong. Michael Brauer remixed Blonde On Blonde for the SACD release and yet is not mentioned anywhere on the disc or booklet. Vic Anesini is given remix credit and it would seem he had nothing to do with it at all. Maybe Anesini is the boss of some particular department or something.
By the way, although this remix was modeled after the normal version of the stereo LPs, it beats them in every way.

[Steve Hoffman]

Paul,

I agree that the SACD remix of "Blonde On Blonde" is very good.

If they had just gone the extra step of using a tube playback deck and analog mixing deck, it would have been very close to the "shine" of the original 1966 Columbia stereo New York LP cut.

Good disc, though, in any case.

[Pat]

Grant,

I believe you may be right about Furmanek being the one with the "heavy" hand when it comes to re-mixing, as most of those Capitol Collector's Series (and others) mention HIS name "mostly" when it comes to re-mixing! I'm not sure who is responsible on some of these remixes, but they do alter the "flavor" of the original recording.

Getting back to PJ31's original remarks...I'd agree that they do sound a little flat and lifeless (at times) when compared to the originals!

[Paul L.]

Steve,
Comparing the SACD of Blonde On Blonde to any other version is complicated because it is a new mix. Not new in the sense of the gold Mastersound version, but new nevertheless. Although Brauer said he used the stereo LP mix as the model, he definitely did not use its bass as his guide, because the stereo vinyl never had adequate bass. The bass on Brauer's SACD remix is at least as good as the bass on the mono Blonde On Blonde, and I would maintain it's superior.
Maybe it has to do with inner groove distortion: I've always found "One Of Us Must Know (Sooner Or Later)" to sound pushed too far on the vinyl, like the vinyl wasn't capable of doing justice to such an inspired and manic performance.
To me, the SACD Blonde On Blonde has the best aspects of the stereo and the mono LP mixes, with, of course, none of vinyl's inherent problems. The SACD has the separation of instruments of the stereo and it has the bass of the mono.
Maybe where you miss the "shine," I love the richness of the new one. The new one has almost everything just right (with the exceptions you noted : ) And man, SACD can really deliver on loud harmonica!

[pauljones]

I have questions about the remastering of the Beatles' catalog. Nowhere on the packaging does it indicate who, where or how the cd's were remastered. I remember reading in CD Review in the 1980's that there was a "Beatles Committee" consisting of the group members and lawyers that decided all aspects of catalog and merchandising. And that it was agreed upon that no information would be divulged about the remastering engineer(s) or other pertinent data. Why? The mono versus stereo and format debates will linger on forever, but still, I would like to know who was responsible for the transfers to digital. Also, I have questions as to why A Hard Day's Night and Beatles For Sale were not issued in stereo. They have logical stereo mixes (rather than the hard left/right mixes of Please Please Me and With The Beatles). And, why were the cd versions of Help and Rubber Soul remixed? I have read that Revolver was not due to the complexity of the mixes. Steve, how about accomplishing the impossible and issuing Hard Day's Night and Beatles For Sale as gold discs?

[pauljones]

Another issue is the Steely Dan cd catalog. Years ago I read an article which indicated that Becker and Fagen had a "team" that controlled all remastering of their catalog. When they realized in the early 1980's that the oxide was shedding on the original master tapes, they, in conjunction with their "team", transferred all their albums to huge, oversized Scotch digital tape reels. This was an experimental format that never really caught on, but Becker and Fagen kept the tapes and had access to a machine that could play them. The first round of cd issues on MCA were mastered with these tapes. Reportedly, these tapes were worked on extensively with loving care. I have all of these issues and they sound phenomenal.The packaging was also very nice. The second go-round by MCA was most unfortunate. They used their budget packaging. This time, they "pulled the regular master off the shelf" which did not match the sound of the first issues, but clean low generation masters were used, and many consumers thought the cd's to be adequate. The wild controversy was that the MFSL master of Aja was taken not from the oversized reels but the stock master. Many audiophiles felt cheated, and preferred the first go-round of MCA issues. The group went back and remastered all the discs in the early 1990's and the discs were stickered "Newly Remastered by the Artist". I understand they have been remastered once again since then. The interesting thing is that I have closely A-B'd the first issues against the later issues the the ones mastered with the oversized digital reels sound much smoother and truer to the original vinyl experience...though the later cd issues were mastered at a louder volume.

[Grant]

I A/B'd the newest CDs done by Roger Nichols and they sound *just* like the ABC Records original pressings. The newest ones, IMO, are THE best. Period. The vinyl sounded excellent, for vinyl. Aja, in particular, was very clean, considering it was vinyl.

People like Roger Nichols, Elliot Shreiner (sp?) and Bill Schene (sp?)are part of their "team". Fine engineers! Nichols did most of the CD remastering and did the original tape to digital transfers. Glenn Meadows did the box set. Steve could probably tell us more about this. I do recall him stating in an old interview that the Dan tapes sound puttyish, or something like that. ????

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Grant T. ]

[Grant]

Originally posted by pauljones31:
I have questions about the remastering of the Beatles' catalog. Nowhere on the packaging does it indicate who, where or how the cd's were remastered. I remember reading in CD Review in the 1980's that there was a "Beatles Committee" consisting of the group members and lawyers that decided all aspects of catalog and merchandising. And that it was agreed upon that no information would be divulged about the remastering engineer(s) or other pertinent data. Why? The mono versus stereo and format debates will linger on forever, but still, I would like to know who was responsible for the transfers to digital. Also, I have questions as to why A Hard Day's Night and Beatles For Sale were not issued in stereo. They have logical stereo mixes (rather than the hard left/right mixes of Please Please Me and With The Beatles). And, why were the cd versions of Help and Rubber Soul remixed? I have read that Revolver was not due to the complexity of the mixes. Steve, how about accomplishing the impossible and issuing Hard Day's Night and Beatles For Sale as gold discs?
Hi pauljones, I guess you are new to the Beatles CD controversey. There are others who van go further into detail about some of this but George Martin remixed Help and Rubber Soul, for God knows what reason. Ego? His explaination of why he did certain things sound suspect and confusing because he contradicts himself a lot.

A team of engineers at EMI did the CDs. I don't believe they were too familiar with the Beatles work because they did some strange things. George Martin made some final calls on what to master.

Steve Hoffman cannot get access to any Beatle catalog because Apple Corps. (Paul, Ringo, Yoko, and now, probably the Harrison estate, among certain others) controls what is done. It is all by committe. Paul McCartney apparrantly likes what Steve Hoffman does but he has only one voice on what gets done. Besides, Apple has their own team (Peter Mew, longtime engineer Geoff Emrick, and others) that they trust with the tapes.

[Vivaldinization]

A team of engineers at EMI did the CDs. I don't believe they were too familiar with the Beatles work because they did some strange things. George Martin made some final calls on what to master.

Not too many strange things, thank god. While there is the example of the semi-remixes on Help!/RS, and the odd, upgraded nature of later releases, at least we got what we were told we got; first four in mono, two in remixed stereo, rest in original stereo. It's a normal, bland, not terribly interesting way to reissue things, but I've always maintained that nothing much went terribly wrong...in fact, out of the Big Three (Beatles, Stones, and Who) the Beatles win out on best original CD catalogue by far (of course, if we just consider the UK, one might argue that the London Stones catalogue sounds better---yet it exists in complete disarray, with far too many variations popping up---and the Who's Polydor catalogue missed several tracks and could occasionally become suspect).

The fact that said original catalogue has been allowed to last this long, however, is a problem that nobody has solved yet.

-d

[lukpac]

A few random notes:

- I don't believe that Ron Furmanek did any actual remixing. He was in *charge* of things and told the engineers what to do, but he wasn't actually on the board. Minor point, but...

- I believe the original Beatles CDs were done by Mike Jarrett. Or was it Jeff Jarrett? I think it was Mike, and I believe he died since the CDs were done. I believe the first four were done, in stereo, and then Martin was brought in. He didn't like the job they did and insisted they be issued in mono (unless he could remix AHDN and BFS, which there wasn't time for). Why he thought the original mixes of AHDN, BFS, Help and RS were bad is beyond me...

[Chris M]

FWIW Jeff Jarrett was a tape operator at EMI in the late 60's. I recognize his name b/c he recently gave am interview on working with Syd Barrett at EMI during the Piper era.

Chris