What are your opinions of recent technological innovations surrounding remastered recordings? In other words, would it be worthwhile for the Stones to remaster their catalog again, after the Virgin remasters (which I think sound great)? I think these were done in 1994, right? Led Zeppelin remastered their albums in 1994, and I think they sound great too. Is there any point in remastering them again with newer technological innovations?

I am not privy to all the leaps and bounds in remastering that have occurred over the last 13 years or so. Are they really substantial?

Well,SACD/CD hybrid discs would make it worthwhile but,the sound quality still would be limited somewhat by the originals.

not unless they do like the doors did with their 40th anniversary collection . which was make new mixes from the original studio tapes

SACDs or new vinyls remastered from the original tapes [analogue all the way for the vinyl !] would perhaps be nice.
I've never heard anything to come anywhere near the sound of original production vinyl. Early pressings...mastered from then fresh first generation tapes and stamped before the presses wore out !
If only there were a way to have NEW original pressings :^(



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-26 10:56 by Spud.

I agree. The Doors 40th anniversary collection is a good (the best) example on what is possible to do with older recordings. The sound is perfect and the original mixes are kept for those who prefer them (on remastered CD), and new mixes are made from the original 4 - 8 - 1 6 track recordings in both stereo and surround (on DVD-Audio). I know that a lot of people prefer SACD over DVD-A, but I don't. The Virgin remaster from 1994 would surely benefit, if not from a new remaster, from new remixes and to be released on SACD or DVD-A.

The ABCKO remasters from 2002 should also have been remixed from the original tapes. If each and every channel of the master track tapes were "cleaned"
separately I think the finished product would sound have sounded better and we would have got rid of tape hiss etc. Maybe even a couple of tracks could have been mixed in Stereo as well? Tracks recorded in the US RCA-studios and Chess studios are surely recorded on at least 3 or 4 tracks.
Mats

I have to check SHM-CD (Super High Material CD) produced by the different polycarbonate resin coming January.
They say it gives more translucent sound by advanced resolution.
Follow this link.
[www.hmv.co.jp]

Late 80s / early 90s era sound has always been good enough for me, even though the DRM mp3s that iTunes sells at 128k are just not enough for the price. The sound of the Forty Licks era remasters do the job, I'd say.

Chuck Berry should consider a remastering of his back catalogue, though.

[entertainment.timesonline.co.uk]

This link is lifted from expectingrain and has some interesting views on "modern" remasters and with Led Zeppelin especially

Thanks Rank, that article directly addresses what I am most curious about. I have a really hard time telling the difference between new and old remasters, other than that the newer ones are often louder. And it makes sense that volume compromises sound quality to some degree, but I hear so much about the "latest" technology in remastering... Is there stuff that can be done in 2007 that couldn't be done in 1994, or 2000? Is it significant?

New CD's are often just remastered LOUD, with a corresponding loss of detail because of the loss of dynamic range. For the Stones catalogue, it is a mixed bag.

The ABKCO catalogue, for the most part, was done well (especially on SACD). The Virgin remasters (covering the period from Sticky Fingers) are more difficult to assess. Some find the sound harsh on the ears, and lacking the warmth of vinyl, whereas if you just turn the volume up on the original Columbia/CBS pressings, you hear all of the detail, without the fatigue.

Everyone needs to make their own decisions.

Well I am not really an expert on these things, but I believe that today you can do a bit more than fifteen years ago, noise reduction and filter systems should be better these days, but I also think that much of this is a matter of personal taste; and then again nothing helps if the engineer snoozes off while remastering Stray Cat Blues from BB, just listen to the left channel around the 2.18 mark!!!

If you follow the link and read the article entertainment.timesonline.co.uk you can see that the music sometime suffers from the fact that there's not enough room for, in this case, both the snaredrum and the cymbal at the same time (on CD). If not enough space is an issue, why don't they use SACD or DVD-Audio instead, where there is plenty of room to make the sound both load and vinyl-like?

Mats

The problem is quite simply that nobody cares about real fidelity any more.
It's all about perceived loudness and squashed dynamics... to cater for typical trashy playback media and equipment.

The art and skill has gone from most production and mastering today.
The technology today is superb...it's just that no bugger knows how to use it any more !

[It saddens me a little to hear folks talking about stuff like getting rid of tape hiss...
That's just an indication of missing the point big time ! ]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-27 15:37 by Spud.

What saddens me is when there is a way, but not a will. I think so for all things in life, but if we hold on to this matter now I mean that if there is a way of doing things better, why not do it? Those people who don't care about fidelity any longer will not bother anyway, but for those who does, why not give them the best possible? I can live with tape hiss, but I think it's stupid to choose the bad mix of a song, if there are two to choose from and one sounds better than the other. The mobile fidelity mixes/masters from the 80's, released on the Decca/London version of Hot rocks, sounds much better than the Hot Rocks from 2002. A very good example is "Play with fire". I don't know if that song was mixed for that release or if it was an unused mix from the 60's. However I think it was mixed in the 80's and sonically it is far beyond the 60's mono mix. I want more of that, if possible

Mats

The mastering process is not a new issue. I´ve read so many interviews over the years where the artists complain over the loss of dynamics during the mastering. For example, Jimi Hendrix was always very dissapointed when he heard the mastering of his albums. It wasn´t near the sound he had heard in the studio after the final mix.

You'll always have to sacrifice some dynamic range for domestic playback at typical levels...but it's gone way too far. There's no pianissimo...it's all fcuking forte !

It's a viscious circle today. The apalling quality and fidelity of most current music software renders a good HiFi system an almost complete waste of time.
But without a decent playback system...we can't tell how crap the software is !

The industry has succeeded in subjugating us to crap... and few of us now,sadly, know any better !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-27 15:47 by Spud.

most of the material that gets remastered was mixed for vinyl it may sound great in lp format but cds it can sound plain awful. the actual studio tapes are needed to make a decent cd version . master tapes can be as bad as 4th generation copies , maybe even worse

This is the best explanation that I have seen about of why recent remasters, while louder, are not necessarily better.

Remastering is one thing. After many of these records are remastered every which way, then they will start to remix them...now that might be interesting.

BluzDude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remastering is one thing. After many of these
> records are remastered every which way, then they
> will start to remix them...now that might be
> interesting.


I think that multi-channel remixes would be interesting (I am set up for multi-channel SACD, and enjoyed the Sympathy remix). However, I would not want to see anyone (even Mick and Keith) remixing their stereo albums -- as far as I am concerned, they got it right the first time. Murky and congested, but Exile sounds pretty damn perfect to me. Besides, it's History -- best left alone.

Tate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I am not privy to all the leaps and bounds in
> remastering that have occurred over the last 13
> years or so. Are they really substantial?

Tate--

The answer is YES.

Find a really good sound system and compare, say, the '94 remaster of "Start Me Up" to the 2002 remaster of "Twice as Hard" by the Black Crowes. The difference will blow you away, I guarantee you. The depth and the richness of today's remastering technology (when used correctly) makes it a tragedy that the Stones (and the Beatles) are one of the few classic rock acts who are sonically still in the "stone" age (sorry). IMHO.

Drew

One of the best transfers to CD is the first German editions of Hot Rocks Vols 1 & 2 that came out many moons ago. It appears to be a 'flat' transfer. Everything is crystal clear and the stereo seperation, especially on Satisfaction, is mind boggling.

Scotty

I don't want any remixing, and aside from a few lapses like 'Ruby Tuesday' the 2002 Abkco remasters sound about as good as you can get on CD unless you bring in Steve Hoffman. The Virgin stuff hasn't been remastered since '94, and could be improved....I would like 'Slave' to get even longer...

i think the some stones albums could defo use new mixes though like goats head soup , it's only rock n' roll, and black and blue.

I quite agree that some Stones material might well benefit from remastering to a good standard...
..but the question remains...would it be done using the right criteria and with the right skills to make it genuinely better ?
[rather than just "louder" and more forward with a false impression of detail.
REAL detail and ambient information in original recordings is often lost in modern remasters ]

The Mofis sound better partly because of the differences between analog & digital. I still think Ludwig and Abkco did a 90% excellent job on the 60s catalog. (Glad I have the Mofi as well)...Remixing like Zappa did to his catalog is rewriting history. Remixes end up sounding dated...

Before judging the differences between analog and digital,make sure to give the DSD of SACD's a listen.It is a different technology than the PCM used in standard cd's and DVD Audio discs.If your SACD player AND receiver do not have either Firewire (aka I Link,I EEE 1394) which is rare or HDMI version 1.2a or higher connections,you are not listening to the DSD as it is downconverted to PCM over any other connection set up.Even some receivers with HDMI 1.2a or higher cannot decode DSD.

[en.wikipedia.org] See playback hardware about half way down.

[www.sa-cd.net] See "Are there any receivers that accept DSD input?"