Tubular.net :: Mike Oldfield Forums Discussion, news, reviews, fan music, and more.
	Search :: Members :: Help :: Guidelines

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Ugo Group: Members Posts: 5495 Joined: April 2000 Posted: Oct. 28 2003, 08:34 This is strictly for the technicians out there... you know who you are, even if maybe not all of you are gonna be stars. From what I've read in the past, I used to think that the "master" for a discographic release was a tape being mixed, edited, cut and used for the first release of a record, and then put away in a safe or however in the studio archives, not to be touched anymore by anybody. [In most of today's recordings it's no longer a tape - it's a computer's hard disk or something similar, but I don't see any substantial differences in it. ]  But when, in recent times, "remasters" started to be released (the first one I knew was Led Zeppelin's), this concept turned out to be a little unclear in my mind. So I'd like to ask two questions: 1) When someone "remasters" a recording, does it mean that they create a new master that replaces the original one (and all subsequent releases use this new master), or do they use a copy of the original master, just like it is, as the starting point for the new release, and work from that? 2) What are the main differences between remastering and remixing? [If this question has already been asked, please point me to a thread containing an answer. ] Thank you in advance for your replies. -------------- Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian Back to top

SCprogfan Unregistered Posted: Oct. 28 2003, 09:45 I am so glad someone actually asked this question.  I don't know all of the answers by any means, but since I am somewhat of a sound guy, I will at least attempt to give some insight.  I will start with what has been one of my biggest issues for the past 15 years or so: remixing.  When you just say the word to the general public, it brings to mind their favorite song or radio hit with dance beats added in.  This is not remixing.  Maybe this should be called "supplemental mixing", as a producer or engineer will simply take the original song, or only a few of the tracks that were laid down on multitrack tape or computer, and then add new instruments, parts, rhythm, samples, or whatever.  Often this is done by starting with a copy of the lead vocal track only.  Maybe it could simply be called "dance-mixing".  Remixing-true remixing-is just that; you take the original reel of MULTI-track tape (or computer drive) and perform an entirely new mix down to stereo 2-track, adjusting volume, panning, effects, and editing as needed.  Now you have created a mix that is different than the one released on the original CD, single, etc.  A REMIX. Remastering to follow below. Back to top

SCprogfan Unregistered Posted: Oct. 28 2003, 10:07 Remastering opens a whole new can of worms.  When the recording or "tracking" of an album is finished in the studio, it is then prepared for release by way of mixing and editing down to a 2-track (stereo) master tape.  Due to the actual length of the tapes, an entire album might be stored on 2 or 3 total tapes.  This tape contains as close as you will get to the actual final product that you will hear when you buy the CD in the store.  The differences will usually only be some slight EQ, compression  and volume changes that will take place before mass duplication.  In the past, there were apparently sometimes multiple copies of the master made, presumably one for vinyl duplication, and one for cassettes, and later CDs.  Sometimes 2nd generation copies of the master existed, probably for safekeeping reasons.  This is also the reason that CDs started getting a bad rap during the first few years of release, because record companies were rushing to release back catalogue on CD, they would replicate CDs from a copy of a copy of the original master, or use the master that was intended for vinyl issue only.  Some of these CDs sounded pretty good, and most people might not even notice or care about the poor transfer, but we probably have all heard or owned CDs that were definitely not up to standards.  So now the latest craze has become remastering, the process involving someone actually going back to artists or studio archives and finding the ORIGINAL 2-track master tapes, not a 2nd or 3rd generation copy.  Sadly, sometimes the master is lost, and the work has to be done from the best available master. Continued below so I don't lose this while I'm working... Back to top

SCprogfan Unregistered Posted: Oct. 28 2003, 10:38 The actual remastering process then moves on to preparing a new master for duplication to the masses.  The original tapes will be played through a collection of processors such as EQ, compressors, noise reduction, or whatever is needed to improve the sound quality from the original release.  This can be done through analog processors, or in the case of digital remastering, through digitally based hardware, or software in the computer realm.  At this point, a new "master" of the master can be stored on tape or computer files for future use, and millions of newly remastered CDs can be replicated for the discerning listener.  Some remastering jobs have been subtle, with not much difference at all detected between the old and new releases.  Some remastering jobs have been botched, muched like some of the inferior early CDs of the 80s.  Still some have been absolutley amazing, saving many a previously lackluster recording.  My opinions on some: Mike Oldfield remasters:  to my ears, a subtle remaster.  Better than the original CDs, but they don't knock my socks off. Yes / Rhino remasters:  amazing, especially compared not only to the original CDs, but also to the early 90s remasters.  Truly an example of what can be done when time and attention is given to making an old recording better.  (Of course, after years of storage, the master tapes can deteriorate, and even if remastered, a new edition can reveal flaws on the tape that weren't there before.  Some of the early remasters sounded like they contained dropouts that were not the CDs the first time around! Saga remasters:  a subtle remaster.  Most of the original CDs sounded pretty good anyway, but in a few places these remasters do improve a bit over the old ones. Kansas remasters:  only a few CDs done so far, but stunning job on these.  One of my favorite bands also. Just picked up the Asia/Wetton years complete anthology, looking forward to comparing this one to the old releases. Hope that these many words have helped.   Back to top

Ugo Group: Members Posts: 5495 Joined: April 2000 Posted: Nov. 05 2003, 09:52 @ SCprogfan: sorry for the late reply and lots & lots & lots & lots of thanks for your precious explanations. Is there anyone else who wants to add anything to the above? -------------- Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian Back to top

Korgscrew Group: Super Admins Posts: 3511 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: Nov. 05 2003, 14:16 If you're expecting me to pop up and add more, then I have to disappoint you I think it's all been said already. You'll also sometimes find that albums are mastered differently for different areas of the world, to give a certain kind of sound that'll make it more popular in those areas (i.e. some markets may favour a brighter sound, or a more compressed sound, and so on). I've heard that's the case with Tubular Bells 2003, that it was mastered differently for the US release. Having not compared the different releases, I couldn't say if that was actually the case or not, but it's possible. The mastering process can make quite a large difference to the album (though of course, the definition of a large difference is going to be subjective...) - it's often the difference between the music sounding 'ordinary' and it leaping out of the speakers. Another thing which goes on these days is the matching of the sounds of different mixes to each other - it's quite popular at the moment to get various different engineers in to mix different tracks, and the mastering engineer will often work on those to make them more coherent as an album. I suppose it's best defined as the final polishing of the music, after the recording and mixing has been completed. Masters made for vinyl will have been made with all the limitations of the format in mind - going back and making a new master for digital formats is therefore a very good way of getting the best possible sound from the format. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Nov. 06 2003, 05:21 The latest Radiohead album's leaked songs sounded quite different from the mastered final product... or so I heard. I didn't listen to the leaked songs, but yes, mastering does a great change, at times. -------------- Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds. Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net