 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y'all just a bunch of mastering debaters.
MV
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y'all just a bunch of mastering debaters.
MV
The elements of that joke are so old they crumbled while being transfered, ;-)
Remastering. Isn't that where you're old, have forgotten how to be a master, and need to re-master yourself? Well, so a crazy half-naked guy in K-Mart tells me. You know crazy half-naked guys in grocery stores -- they're always trustworthy. If not a little bit crazy. And half-naked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The moment the remastering is obvious, they probably fucked it up.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 19, 2013 - 10:43 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Octoberman
(Member)
|
The moment the remastering is obvious, they probably fucked it up.
Alex
Heh... I'm not sure I would go quite that far.
If I buy a remaster, I expect it to sound better. But then we get into personal preference territory. I want the remaster to sound "true-er" to what I would suppose the original source to sound like, given the difference in the recording technology of the time. At the very least, I would expect the noise floor to be a little lower than I heard previously. Or tape machine noise to be judiciously reduced through equalization. But not much more than that. As a general rule, I prefer remasters that do NOT compress, do NOT jack-up the EQ, do NOT add reverb, and do NOT use NR software (the latter being perhaps the most important to me).
As listeners of a certain age, most of us tend to compare new editions of vintage recordings to our memories of how they sounded on vinyl and we take it from there. Personally, I'm always on my guard to not let myself slip into that sort of a confirmation bias. Vinyl recordings had their own set of limitations imposed on them, so I do not necessarily want new editions to sound like I remember. I want them to sound like vinyl never touched 'em.
The problem is that so few people would actually know what the masters sounded like back then... the artists, the producers & engineers, maybe a suit or two, and that's it.
So we really put our faith in the reissue teams in question to be as faithful to reproducing that sound quality as they possibly can. After listening to samples of their work over time, we get an idea of who we personally think does it well and who doesn't.
On a side note, sometimes I like to visit the Steve Hoffman Forums for a chuckle. The majority of them get in huge uproars over reissues that don't sound like the master tapes (to them)... when in fact NONE of them would know what the master tapes sounded like. But they all act like they do. Funny, and a little sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The moment the remastering is obvious, they probably fucked it up.
Alex
Heh... I'm not sure I would go quite that far.
If I buy a remaster, I expect it to sound better. But then we get into personal preference territory. I want the remaster to sound "true-er" to what I would suppose the original source to sound like, given the difference in the recording technology of the time. At the very least, I would expect the noise floor to be a little lower than I heard previously. Or tape machine noise to be judiciously reduced through equalization. But not much more than that. As a general rule, I prefer remasters that do NOT compress, do NOT jack-up the EQ, do NOT add reverb, and do NOT use NR software (the latter being perhaps the most important to me).
As listeners of a certain age, most of us tend to compare new editions of vintage recordings to our memories of how they sounded on vinyl and we take it from there. Personally, I'm always on my guard to not let myself slip into that sort of a confirmation bias. Vinyl recordings had their own set of limitations imposed on them, so I do not necessarily want new editions to sound like I remember. I want them to sound like vinyl never touched 'em.
The problem is that so few people would actually know what the masters sounded like back then... the artists, the producers & engineers, maybe a suit or two, and that's it.
So we really put our faith in the reissue teams in question to be as faithful to reproducing that sound quality as they possibly can. After listening to samples of their work over time, we get an idea of who we personally think does it well and who doesn't.
On a side note, sometimes I like to visit the Steve Hoffman Forums for a chuckle. The majority of them get in huge uproars over reissues that don't sound like the master tapes (to them)... when in fact NONE of them would know what the master tapes sounded like. But they all act like they do. Funny, and a little sad.
Reverb is not the enemy most suppose and sometimes it is absolutely necessary if the original recording was done in a very dry room. If you think they're not adding it to the film mix itself, think again. A recent example of this is the new issue of Dressed to Kill - great to have it, but I can't listen to it because it sounds nothing like it should. Donaggio has a very specific sound and it is WET. Listen to the Varese version - THAT's Pino (and listen to every other Pino score - you can't miss his sound). When we did Taras Bulba the sole reason for doing it was to take a recording made in a studio with no air and that made a forty-something piece orchestra sound like twelve, was to add the space back and the difference was amazing and that score finally sounded as it should. You can't just make blanket statements about these things because each release is different and has its own needs. I think you'd be very surprised to know that most likely some of your prized CDs had reverb added - natural room ambience and space to a dry recording. It's necessary and has to be done because instruments need air. Some rooms have that naturally and those aren't necessary to touch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reverb is not the enemy most suppose and sometimes it is absolutely necessary if the original recording was done in a very dry room. If you think they're not adding it to the film mix itself, think again. A recent example of this is the new issue of Dressed to Kill - great to have it, but I can't listen to it because it sounds nothing like it should. Donaggio has a very specific sound and it is WET. Listen to the Varese version - THAT's Pino (and listen to every other Pino score - you can't miss his sound). When we did Taras Bulba the sole reason for doing it was to take a recording made in a studio with no air and that made a forty-something piece orchestra sound like twelve, was to add the space back and the difference was amazing and that score finally sounded as it should. You can't just make blanket statements about these things because each release is different and has its own needs. I think you'd be very surprised to know that most likely some of your prized CDs had reverb added - natural room ambience and space to a dry recording. It's necessary and has to be done because instruments need air. Some rooms have that naturally and those aren't necessary to touch.
I didn't make a blanket statement, Bruce. I said "as a general rule". And I didn't say anything was an enemy, but it should be obvious that I meant the MISUSE of those things are.
I am well aware of why those things might be necessary. Might. In the right hands, of course. 
EDIT: I guess I did not make clear that the kind of reverb I was talking about is the artificial kind, done on computer, added as an editorial decision long after the fact. Those are the decisions that can sometimes be the slippery slope.
Well, you have to add the reverb later if it's not part of the original recordings - case in point, Dressed to Kill. When we did Ordeal by Innocence by Pino and The Berlin Affair, Pino had had the reverb, which was not part of the room they recorded in, added right on the master tapes because that's his sound. But I totally understand your point about misuse - and there are plenty of examples of it on some soundtrack LPs of old, where the original recordings had beautiful ambience on their own, but someone added UNNECESSARY extra verb. The only time it becomes a slippery slope is when it's done poorly. But believe me, if you heard a before and after of some film music recordings you'd understand exactly why the space and ambience is necessary and if you watch the films of those examples you'll hear it's been added to the film mix music tracks. A lot of recent cast albums, for example, produced by people who simply don't know what they're doing, seem very small and don't sound good - why? Because they've recorded in a dry space and not added any reverb or small reverb and the wrong kind. The recent Follies revival's album manages the almost-impossible feat of making a thirty piece orchestra sound like twelve. Then you listen to our remix of the original album and hear what that band should sound like. It's night and day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To the man in the street, remastering involves remixing and maybe resampling as well as adjusting the already created mastertapes, even if people in the industry differentiate these. That's what the public THINK it implies.
So it always has the connotation somewhere of re-sampling original elements, and maybe even remixing different channels anew from those original elements, i.e. remixing, even if this isn't possible, and doesn't happen most of the time in practice.
So it's probably a misleading term that many studios don't want to clarify.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 20, 2013 - 6:22 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Marlene
(Member)
|
Well, you have to add the reverb later if it's not part of the original recordings - case in point, Dressed to Kill. When we did Ordeal by Innocence by Pino and The Berlin Affair, Pino had had the reverb, which was not part of the room they recorded in, added right on the master tapes because that's his sound. But I totally understand your point about misuse - and there are plenty of examples of it on some soundtrack LPs of old, where the original recordings had beautiful ambience on their own, but someone added UNNECESSARY extra verb. The only time it becomes a slippery slope is when it's done poorly. But believe me, if you heard a before and after of some film music recordings you'd understand exactly why the space and ambience is necessary and if you watch the films of those examples you'll hear it's been added to the film mix music tracks. A lot of recent cast albums, for example, produced by people who simply don't know what they're doing, seem very small and don't sound good - why? Because they've recorded in a dry space and not added any reverb or small reverb and the wrong kind. The recent Follies revival's album manages the almost-impossible feat of making a thirty piece orchestra sound like twelve. Then you listen to our remix of the original album and hear what that band should sound like. It's night and day.
On the LLL-release of 'First Knight' there is one track without any reverb. It either was forgotten to be added or it was a different venue.
The reverb is added during recording, not after everything is mixed, right? Is this artificial reverb? I always thought so since the moment I saw the Goldsmith documentary made at the time when he was recording 'The River Wild' and there was a moment when Jerry wanted it wetter.
Then there´s the recent re-release of 'Jurassic Park': the additional tracks lack the reverberation of the tracks released originally (and dynamics, frequency response etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y'all just a bunch of mastering debaters.
MV
LOL! Brilliant!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has been a fascinating read.
Specifically, I would like to mention that the stellar work done by Mr. Kimmel and his team on the Kritzerland releases of CASINO ROYALE and FOLLIES is truly phenomenal. The before and after on FOLLIES is dazzling -- like an audio magician waved a wand and came up with a new recording. Really amazing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you have to add the reverb later if it's not part of the original recordings - case in point, Dressed to Kill. When we did Ordeal by Innocence by Pino and The Berlin Affair, Pino had had the reverb, which was not part of the room they recorded in, added right on the master tapes because that's his sound. But I totally understand your point about misuse - and there are plenty of examples of it on some soundtrack LPs of old, where the original recordings had beautiful ambience on their own, but someone added UNNECESSARY extra verb. The only time it becomes a slippery slope is when it's done poorly. But believe me, if you heard a before and after of some film music recordings you'd understand exactly why the space and ambience is necessary and if you watch the films of those examples you'll hear it's been added to the film mix music tracks. A lot of recent cast albums, for example, produced by people who simply don't know what they're doing, seem very small and don't sound good - why? Because they've recorded in a dry space and not added any reverb or small reverb and the wrong kind. The recent Follies revival's album manages the almost-impossible feat of making a thirty piece orchestra sound like twelve. Then you listen to our remix of the original album and hear what that band should sound like. It's night and day.
On the LLL-release of 'First Knight' there is one track without any reverb. It either was forgotten to be added or it was a different venue.
The reverb is added during recording, not after everything is mixed, right? Is this artificial reverb? I always thought so since the moment I saw the Goldsmith documentary made at the time when he was recording 'The River Wild' and there was a moment when Jerry wanted it wetter.
Then there´s the recent re-release of 'Jurassic Park': the additional tracks lack the reverberation of the tracks released originally (and dynamics, frequency response etc.)
Reverb is usually added after the fact - the recording goes to tape dry - in the case of film scores, the mixers on the film itself want it dry so they can add what they need when they're mixing all the film tracks. If the room has a natural and beautiful ambience, like Fox, there's really no need to add anything. Other rooms are dead sounding. The Donaggio reverb is all added to the two-track mixes. In the documentary you reference, if Goldsmith is wanting wetter he's talking about the playback in the studio, most likely - one always adds the reverb when the session is going on, just so it's a nice listening experience - but that isn't going to the multitrack tapes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has been a fascinating read.
Specifically, I would like to mention that the stellar work done by Mr. Kimmel and his team on the Kritzerland releases of CASINO ROYALE and FOLLIES is truly phenomenal. The before and after on FOLLIES is dazzling -- like an audio magician waved a wand and came up with a new recording. Really amazing.
Thanks! Two different things going on with each of those titles - Casino Royale was, for us, a poster child for what great mastering is all about - James Nelson did exactly what I asked him to do - bring back the sound as it should be, so that those who loved that audiophile original LP would finally hear Casino the way it should be heard. That couldn't really be done when Varese damaged the tape, but now it could be and was.
Follies was, of course, not about mastering - for that I did a completely new mix from the eight-track session tapes, where I was able to correct all of the horrible mixing decisions from the LP and subsequent CD releases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
