 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 8, 2020 - 1:25 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Nono
(Member)
|
Nono, what would like Mr. Matessino to do, exactly? Mixing monitors were notoriously poor and inaccurate back in the 70s and 80s, so one could not even really hear what was in the recording. Modern monitors from companies like Genelec and JBL are much more accurate and revealing, which means a mastering engineer can make much more educated decisions when applying EQ, etc.
The argument for and against compression has been hashed to death here, so would rather not revisit that, and focus on other areas of mixing / remixing. My short take - over-compression is a bad thing, agreed. But there is always some compression added at some point in the recording or mastering process - sometimes it's even added by the microphones themselves.
So, beyond that, what represents a "proper" remaster in your view?
About compression, there's no need to reduce further the dynamic range which was retained for an album master.
About EQ, it's a matter of taste. But I don't think expanding the lower register to make a recording sound more modern or bigger is a good thing.
The same can be said about the upper register. EQ changes the timbres of the instruments, and the whole balance of the orchestra.
Just listen and compare to the Intrada and the La-La Land editions of The Blue Max. The La-La Land doesn't sound anymore like a recording made at Shepperton. The same can be said for The Fury (the film recording), you can't recognize anymore the orchestra and the studio in the latest edition.
The less the mastering engineer does, the better a CD sounds.
The more recent John Williams releases sound much better than my previous examples, though.
And about the level used for the mastering, I think it's better to stay close to the level used for the recording: even when the dynamic range is preserved, there's harshness when the level of the master is much louder than the level of the recording. There's more sweetness and a more natural flow with more quieter mastering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't really agree with a lot of what you wrote, but do understand it.
RE: giving recordings more "bottom end." Most of the reason why old masters have no deep bass is is because:
A. the monitoring speakers of the time didn't have enough extension to properly monitor deep bass levels.
B. If you didn't filter the lower frequencies on an album master the needle would literally jump out of the record groove.
Now by playing back old recordings with bass management or full range speakers you can hear bass content that was masked for various reasons in the past.
Or sometimes the bottom end was rolled off to get rid of HVAC rumble, traffic passing outside the studio, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the things that's also true is that orchestral recordings often use mic arrays that don't correspond in any way to how you would hear an orchestra in a concert hall. For one, mics are often placed ABOVE the string section, vs. in front. Also, film score recordings are often very dry with more individually mic'd instruments. So already you are hearing a somewhat artificial sound (vs. what you would hear if you were to actually be standing at the conductor's podium).
Then you have the problem of in-accurate monitor speakers. If one was mastering or monitoring with speakers that had a lack of treble energy, the engineer would boost the high frequencies using EQ to compensate. The result would be a too harsh / bright recording. Today's monitors are much more revealing and accurate to the source; more intelligent EQ decisions can be made.
I'll leave it at that because I don't want to derail this thread with tech discussion like I did The Swarm thread 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 8, 2020 - 2:53 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Nono
(Member)
|
Don't really agree with a lot of what you wrote, but do understand it.
RE: giving recordings more "bottom end." Most of the reason why old masters have no deep bass is is because:
A. the monitoring speakers of the time didn't have enough extension to properly monitor deep bass levels.
B. If you didn't filter the lower frequencies on an album master the needle would literally jump out of the record groove.
It's why there was an RIAA equalization, the recording and mastering engineers knew what they did, and how they could get a natural sound with lower frequencies during vinyl playback.
Now by playing back old recordings with bass management or full range speakers you can hear bass content that was masked for various reasons in the past.
Or sometimes the bottom end was rolled off to get rid of HVAC rumble, traffic passing outside the studio, etc.
As you say, the lower frequencies were recorded, so there's no need to add more.
And adding something which was not recorded brings more problems than solutions. The limitations of a recording is an integral part of the recording, you can't make a 60s recording sounding like if it was recorded yesterday without denaturing it.
The Intrada mastering of The Blue Max certainly better delivers the raw energy of the actual performance, each instrument
being rightly placed and balanced, than the La-La Land mastering were the balanced has been broken.
I wouldn't have said that a few years ago and even didn't understand why Douglass Fake didn't want to touch further the tapes he restored/remastered.
But he was right.
Hopefully, I have kept all my older CDs. And some sound absolutely great, often much better than the more recent editions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure there were many times during the 70s and 80s when Williams was already off writing his next score, with the last/latest one recorded, that he left the mixing and mastering for the album to his TRUSTED engineers, with the technology available to them at that time.
It's obvious that with his latest reissues and expansions, he TRUSTS Mike M with the technology available to him now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I received my cd on Monday and have had it in heavy rotation. I don't think I ever fully appreciated this score until now. Magnificent release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just received this release today and listening to it right now. So good!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone made any alternate covers for this or even rebuilt a higher res version of the Intrada cover?
I found this nice scan of the LP to use for the original album tracks:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Magnificent release.
Ditto; it's exquisite. (And a big thank you to my friend, Judy, who gifted me the vinyl in 1984 and recently gifted me the Intrada expansion). Lately, I know it's been the trend to stick the remastered original album tracks at the end of an expanded release; but I thought it was a wise move in this case to start with that original program. It's a slender, contemplative score and the album version has such a beautifully produced arrangements. It's fascinating to hear the full score alongside that, and a very satisfying listen. 'Pony Ride' was always a favorite, and the three disparate versions are each as beautiful as the next.
thanks DP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
