ROCKMAN

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
71Tele
Re: The master tapes: I remember an interview with whomever did the original CD mastering (name escapes me, sorry) and he said what were marked as the master tapes sounded terrible. Then they found a copy of the master with various eq indications. That is what was actually used on the original vinyl and that tape is what they used to make the first CD. Maybe this "second" master was not available for the Universal version.

Are you talking about
Musician - April 1987 # 102
Rolling Stones on CD: You Can Get What You Need. By Scott Isler
???
Here is a link to that article
[forums.stevehoffman.tv]
Kind of fun to read those 30 years old approaches.

Not sure, it could be. This talks about an "in-between" step of eq'ing the master, but what I read talked specifically about what the Stones used to master the original vinyl, which was not the master but an eq'd copy of it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-29 18:21 by 71Tele.

71Tele
It is in the bottom part of the article
______________
Calbi praises Don DeVito, Columbia's coordinator and supervisor for the Stones CD project. "He was very open to any suggestion. A lot of A&R people might just get the most convenient tape and say, 'Here, make a record out of it.' A few years ago I think they were just interested in getting a CD out. Now the competition is pretty serious. I think they know that if they get bad reviews in any of the magazines, that's just going to hurt the whole catalog."

Calbi and Meller were flooded with tapes: original masters, equalized masters, safety copies of original masters - several different versions for each album. "That gave me a tremendous advantage right off the bat," Calbi says. "In mastering, every stage is so important as far as differences in sound."

Nothing brought that home to Calbi like working on Exile, his self-described "favorite record" when it originally came out. "Exile On Main Street was probably the most perplexing one of all" the Columbia Stones CDs, he says. "The master tape sounded so drastically different from the record that was out on the market. I wouldn't want to insult anybody, but the master tape I had was dreadful. It was very muddy and there was very little separation between everything. It was obvious that whoever mastered the album did something magical to it, something which I couldn't figure out. I worked for two or three days on it, and I just gave up. I thought maybe over the years the tape had lost some quality. I couldn't get it to jump out. I did the best I could.

"Three days after I sent out the final product, they found another tape. It was an equalized tape done when they cut the record. I put it on, and it's phenomenal. With the help of some people at Columbia, we stopped production on what we had, and went back and actually used the equalized master that was done for [vinyl] disc. It just sounds fantastic.

"On the other hand, something like Sticky Fingers was fairly easy to improve upon. The bass response particularly was very lightweight and flimsy on disc. The bottom was so much fuller and richer when I got the master tape and played it on my Neve console."

"If you hear bass on an eq master that came out on disc," Meller says, "it's not enough for CD. You can put much more highs on CD. When someone buys a CD, the first thing they expect is more dynamic range than on disc, so why transfer the same sound to CD?"

Calbi cites a "transistory midrange" endemic to early-70s recordings. "The harshness is a hard thing to get rid of. But when I mastered Sticky Fingers I just went for the excitement, for the guitar growl. I figured the people who are going to buy those records want 'em to kick."

By the time of Some Girls (1978), the engineers' job was much easier. "I had all the cutting information at my fingertips," Calbi says. "I had the master tape. I opened up the bass a bit. I reduced the amount of compression considerably. The drums are clearer and louder now."
__________________

Not read the whole thread here, not 'then' nor now, because remasterings usually don't bother me that much;
but "in defense of [...]" I 'd like to say that it's a blessing for Bill Wyman's bass playing alone that these remasters got released.
Listening on pressing advice of a good friend of mine to the 2009 remastered edition of first Tattoo You, and then Undercover right now;
and I must say the claritty of Bill's walking 'wobble' is unheard - at least to my ears.

Hail, Hail, Rock'n'Roll! x



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-24 16:58 by RoughJusticeOnYa.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
treaclefingers
OK, thx for the detail, but to paraphrase it succinctly, are you saying there is no cropping at the higher and lower levels, and that it's just being squashed? That doesn't jive with how I've seen the explanation described previously.

Sorry to continue however to me at least, there seems to be different explanations on what is going on here, with the compression.

Dynamic range (DR) compression doesn't crop musical content, it's still there. For instance if an original song went from 2 to 9 on a 1 to 10 volume scale, after DR compression in might go from 3 to 7. Then some engineers turn the whole song up to say 6 to 10 in order to get it to sound louder. ie) the loudness wars.

Data compression is a whole other thing. Algorithms that convert songs to mp3 do indeed crop musical content in order to make the file smaller. High frequencies are often eliminated in the process, cropped out so to speak.

When people talk about "compression" these days it either data compression or dynamic range compression but they are two very different techniques. Probably the source for a lot of confusion. Both techniques have their advantages but have been over used to the point of negatively effecting the listening experience.

peace

OK thank you very much Naturalust for that explanation, I appreciate it and that finally makes sense.

I think Naturalust's clear explanation of dynamic range might help a lot of folks actually.
This topic had been discussed around here many times , with many folks misunderstanding the subject entirely.

What should also be evident from the comments of folks who know the subject is that much of mastering is about making judgement calls and allowing for subjective opinions, which will seldom be agreed by all listeners.

Over the last 30 years or so engineers have also had to deal with a rapidly changing landscape in terms of the various domestic music formats they have to cater for... and the requirements for one format will seldom be optimal for another.

So all in all I have a lot of respect for engineers who are doing their utmost to give us a good sounding product.

My issue is that there also remains within the modern industry an awful lot of careless and sloppy mastering, with aims no more noble than to provide the loudest and most impressive sound on your i-pods !



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-24 16:43 by Spud.

One of the things lost in translation over the years has been the sense of space in these albums. As Was points out, one of the most important factors in determining how we hear a band in any recording is the sound stage -- the sense of depth and focus that not only allows us to pick out the individual instruments, but also lends them a sense of spatial reality.

"The space is really important," he says. "It's like a Sonny Rollins record, where the spaces that he leaves are as important as the notes he plays. It's the same with the interrelationships in [the Stones]. And with these reissues, I think they have been extremely conscientious about getting as close as they could to their original intentions."

Perhaps the toughest thing was finding the right place to start. "In the end, we went back to the first vinyl pressings of the album, which were the only things where the original eqs were probably employed," says Was.

[articles.baltimoresun.com]

I can't locate it and for all I know it was only in a magazine but I recall reading that Jagger and Ludwig listened to several remasters that Ludwig had done of SF and EOMS and kept being mystified about how they didn't sound like the original albums. It was something about the horns not sounding like the vinyl editions. Ludwig figured it out and that was one of a few standards employed for the entire project in terms of making the remasters sound as close to the original vinyl issues as possible.

Without the ear drum crushing volume.

Another article that talks about the loudness of UMe's EOMS vs VR's EOMS. There's a hilarious error about EOMS in this one as well.

[www.soundstageaccess.com]

Quote
GasLightStreet
Another article that talks about the loudness of UMe's EOMS vs VR's EOMS. There's a hilarious error about EOMS in this one as well.

[www.soundstageaccess.com]

"As for the sound, it's loud and fatiguing. At first listen, it seems like an improvement over past issues. Clearmountain has cleaned up some of the instrumental tracks, resulting, in one instance, in better separation of the horns on "Rocks Off." A side-by-side comparison with Bob Ludwig's 1994 remaster for Virgin Records, however, reveals that the instruments and vocals on the new version have been slammed forward in the mix, so that Charlie Watts's kick drum is indistinct in a wall of bright sound. The background vocals on "Tumbling Dice" are right beside Mick's lead, and throughout the disc all of the elements of the recording seem to be fighting for attention. Lowering the volume helps, but Ludwig's earlier mastering job is overall more musical and subtle." (quote from the above link)

All you need to know about these remasters is clearly spelt out here : cleanep up sound, everything put forward in the mix, resulting in a loss of subtlety and musicality, a brighter and fatiguing sound... and then when you think they used the same remaster for the Abbey Road half speed mastering LP reissue of this year...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-25 02:38 by kowalski.

Quote
GasLightStreet
One of the things lost in translation over the years has been the sense of space in these albums. As Was points out, one of the most important factors in determining how we hear a band in any recording is the sound stage -- the sense of depth and focus that not only allows us to pick out the individual instruments, but also lends them a sense of spatial reality.

"The space is really important," he says. "It's like a Sonny Rollins record, where the spaces that he leaves are as important as the notes he plays. It's the same with the interrelationships in [the Stones]. And with these reissues, I think they have been extremely conscientious about getting as close as they could to their original intentions."

Perhaps the toughest thing was finding the right place to start. "In the end, we went back to the first vinyl pressings of the album, which were the only things where the original eqs were probably employed," says Was.

[articles.baltimoresun.com]

I can't locate it and for all I know it was only in a magazine but I recall reading that Jagger and Ludwig listened to several remasters that Ludwig had done of SF and EOMS and kept being mystified about how they didn't sound like the original albums. It was something about the horns not sounding like the vinyl editions. Ludwig figured it out and that was one of a few standards employed for the entire project in terms of making the remasters sound as close to the original vinyl issues as possible.

Without the ear drum crushing volume.

Much of that strikes a chord with me

The impression you're often left with after modern re-mastering is that all the instruments and voices have become almost line drawn charicatures of themselves.

Everything tends to be thrown into very detailed and clear relief... but its all being played in what I like to call a "Digital vacuum" .

There's no air or space around the voices and instruments . No delicacy in the sound where you know it was there originally, no wood or flesh, just electricity and digits.

I find this to be true even of the new half speed mastered Exile.
[Hadn't intended to buy it but couldn't resist, having been shocked to stumble accross it on the shelves at HMV ! ]

It's evident that many of these albums have been remastered with a great deal of care and the clarity is often impressive ...but where is the bloom around the drums ?
Acoustic guitars just have strings...no bodies with moving air inside them.

Another way of subjectively describing the effect with many remasters is to imagine that everything has all of a sudden been "close mic'd" with no ambient mic'ing whatsover being deployed....or somebody has turnmed the "presence" control to 12 on a Fender amp so that it's all right in yer face



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-26 15:38 by Spud.

Quote
Spud


There's no air or space around the voices and instruments . No delicacy in the sound where you know it was there originally, no wood or flesh, just electricity and digits.

If you want to find again air and space in the digital music you should try and listen to high resolution digital music. With 24 bit - 192kHz files all of this is back and instruments sound full bodied again.

Isn't this the guy the subject of Zappa's Marque Son's chicken on the Them Or Us album ?

I am listening right now to the 2009 Remastered Edition of "Goats Head Soup".

It is very bad!

Extremely LOUD. Just to bang the ears...?

It is very tiring after a while.

I bought the SOME GIRLS deluxe just for disc 2. Just to compare, I uploaded disc 1 and labelled it UMG, then compared it to the Virgin remaster.

I deleted the UMe remaster. The bonus discs of EXILE and SG are beyond loud.

Unless there is a 99% consensus that a UMe remastered album sounds better than a Virgin remastered album, I will never buy the UMe remasters.

I find Marcussen's attitude in what liddas posted to be ridiculous: there's no way Mick listened to his remasters and thought they sounded better - because they don't.

2009 Remasters are the worst of all the releases. No dynamics, artificial sound. I avoid them whenever possible.

Quote
GasLightStreet
there's no way Mick listened to his remasters and thought they sounded better

It is possible. If Mick was out in noisy surroundings with lousy headphones for instance

Wearin' buds down by The Twelve Apostles .....



ROCKMAN

Quote
marquess
I am listening right now to the 2009 Remastered Edition of "Goats Head Soup".

It is very bad!

Extremely LOUD. Just to bang the ears...?

It is very tiring after a while.

Yes these remasters are highly compressed, bad dynamics ....

Why not do what Jagger once proposed, make the full files available and make your own mix.

Well why don't they do that, release the Master Tape data full frequency range and i'd pay a pretty penny for it, then upgrade to studio level monitors for playback

Mastering is part of the record's creation process. If they are made available publicly, what a mess would happen.

Quote
SKILLS

Well why don't they do that, release the Master Tape data full frequency range and i'd pay a pretty penny for it, then upgrade to studio level monitors for playback

Because that would cost indeed a pretty penny ....

You could make your own Remasters - the Files from the Mono-Box until LIB are all available in DSD (in Bob-Ludwig-Quality) and the Albums SF -> DW are available as Flat-Transfer on Japanese SACDs. Rip/convert them to DXD for Editing/Remastering. The later Albums from SW on are mostly Digital Recordings and for some of them it would be better to have the single Multi-Tracks [esp. ABB].

Apropos Multi-Tracks: that would be the best Remastering (each single Track remastered separately) - Giles Martin has it done for the later Beatles-Albums and Blank & Jones have it done for the So80s ZTT Album. But a Album-Remastering from single Multi-Tracks is a lot of work ....

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers
What 'additional things' are you hearing Liddas, by virtue of the remaster? We know that there is cropping of the dynamic range, so we are definitely hearing less music than should be there.

Is there something additional that comes to the surface as a result of the volume being louder? Can't we just 'TURN IT LOUD' on our own and keep the range?

Am I overly simplifying this?

Should have written "noticing" instead of "hearing"!

For example, I had never noticed before the interaction between Nicky's piano and Keith's slide part on ventilator (with something not exactly in sync in the first couple of verses ...), Taylor's pull-off work on the instrumental breaks of Turd on the Run, these kind of details.

Yeah, Richards tried to bury him in the mix. Actually sounds like a slide to me.

The notion that the "loudness wars" started with CD is misinformed. Mastering engineers have been trying to make their clients' records louder than others on the radio since the advent of analog tape.

My ears prefer the Virgin versions. And the 2002 ABKCO remasters. And a Polygram manufacture first album from Hanover, West Germany. I would love to hear the 1971 on catalogue released in Blu Ray Audio. My favorite 'Exile' is on Blu Ray. Grrrr is on Blu Ray but is prohibitively expensive on Ebay. I don't understand why Blu Ray had to go under completely. Warner Brothers has print on demand. You want an old movie? They'll press a DVD for you. No problem.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
GasLightStreet
there's no way Mick listened to his remasters and thought they sounded better

It is possible. If Mick was out in noisy surroundings with lousy headphones for instance

You mean like ear buds in a phone... UUUGGGGHHH! That's not exactly... I hope not. What if he used a stereo and over the ear headphones, if he didn't turn it up much, well, from all other brickwalled releases I've listened to on headphones the volume doesn't need to be up much.

I dunno.

Music used to have some mystery to it.

Quote
24FPS
My ears prefer the Virgin versions. And the 2002 ABKCO remasters. And a Polygram manufacture first album from Hanover, West Germany. I would love to hear the 1971 on catalogue released in Blu Ray Audio. My favorite 'Exile' is on Blu Ray. Grrrr is on Blu Ray but is prohibitively expensive on Ebay. I don't understand why Blu Ray had to go under completely. Warner Brothers has print on demand. You want an old movie? They'll press a DVD for you. No problem.

If I remember correctly, there was some deal Garth Brooks had with Capitol Records a good while back that the deal was expiring and there was some talk with them being inventive and reissuing his entire catalog on a Blu-ray disc because of the layering - that his entire discography could fit, with room to spare because it was going to include the video singles, on one Blu-ray disc!

Probably a good idea it didn't happen - you spend, oh, how much would that cost? $200 for one disc? However it would be, you scratch it... he wound up signing a distribution deal with Walmart for his own label and the Blu-ray thing never happened at all.

At this point with various cloud services have replaced doing something like that with Blu-ray and, ha ha, why would anyone want to spend a lot of money on something that if scratched won't work? Is the quality really worth that amount of money?

So individual releases makes much more sense.

I guess my point was, ha ha, is it worth spending the money just to play music on a Blu-ray player with Blu-ray albums? I know you can play CDs on a Blu-ray player but that's not the same so...