What does remastering do?

[Emlin]

... apart from making record companies more money by reselling the same thing over and over again.

Serious question, I really don't know the answer.

 

[Doodski]

LoL... It tunes up old yucky versions of songs so they can be re-released and clog up the music web sites with their rubbish... I imagine they remix the various instruments and singers voices and try to find some more interesting arrangement in the final cut of the track release.

 

[Matt_Holland]

... apart from making record companies more money by reselling the same thing over and over again.

Serious question, I really don't know the answer.

I’ll be your personal Google assistant:
You’re welcome

 

[Emlin]

I’ll be your personal Google assistant:
You’re welcome

Which says nothing apart from "polishing." What is polishing, and why does it need to be done again?

 

[DVDdoug]

Some kind of digital processing.

Usually it's older analog recordings that may have been originally been released on CD with the original analog mastering.

The re-mastering usually includes dynamic compression and limiting to "win" The Loudness War. Unfortunately, when over-done it kills the dynamic contrast and makes the music boring (IMO).

There can also be EQ and noise reduction to fix-up some of the analog limitations.

I read about one case where they were remastering LED Zeppelin recordings and they went-back to the unmastered mixes and mastered from those because the analog master had the deep bass removed for the original vinyl.

 

[Tell]

They make a new master that they hope will sound better than before. It have a bad rap nowadays thought since at least in the past they've taken old (as in pre 90s) and very dynamic masters and compressed them really hard to make them sound "louder" and more "modern" which instead decreased sound quality.
Nowadays thought they aren't as brutal, and can instead increase the dynamics of stuff from say the early 2000s when the loudness war was killing dynamics at it's worse. For example I just the other day found out that a favourite of mine, L.S.G - The Singles Reworked from 2004, had a new master which do sound a bit better and more dynamic than the original, though some of the tracks are unfortunately still a bit to compressed, but still better than before.

 

[GD Fan]

I remember the first CD release of Led Zeppelin I had half of the first note of every song missing. Each track was effectively joined in process.

The remaster corrected that.

 

[Emlin]

I remember the first CD release of Led Zeppelin I had half of the first note of every song missing. Each track was effectively joined in process.

The remaster corrected that.

I'd have preferred it if they they had reduced it by a note for each remaster. There'd be nothing left by now. But tastes differ...

 

[Audiofire]

The new remasters often sound more detailed. It's not dynamic range compression, although there is often plenty of that too. I used to be ambivalent about original CDs or remastered CDs, but have confirmed digital remastering sounds better sometimes.

 

[Emlin]

The new remasters often sound more detailed. It's not dynamic range compression, although there is often plenty of that too. I used to be ambivalent about original CDs or remastered CDs, but have confirmed digital remastering sounds better sometimes.

Confirmed in what way?

 

[Audiofire]

Confirmed in what way?

Good question. When I got a studio-quality audio interface and headphones. CDs copied perfectly to a computer, the same audio data as on the CD.

 

[Matt_Holland]

Which says nothing apart from "polishing." What is polishing, and why does it need to be done again?

Speaking about the remastering process, Andy said: “Remastering and the use of ‘state of the art’ technology allows us to polish and remove the gremlins of both time and the recording medium such as analogue tape.

“We can reduce background noise and hum, enhance and expand frequencies, improve analogue tape edits, remove unwanted electrical clicks and other extraneous unwanted noises - as well as better capture, at a much higher resolution, the magic of the original recording to any medium.

I found the article I linked very succinct in answering your question. Specifically regarding “polishing” I read it as the removal of unwanted noise in the original mixes, something that wasn’t done when first mastered as the technology of the time didn’t allow it. So it’s not that it needs to be done again, just done.

 

[Emlin]

Speaking about the remastering process, Andy said: “Remastering and the use of ‘state of the art’ technology allows us to polish and remove the gremlins of both time and the recording medium such as analogue tape.

“We can reduce background noise and hum, enhance and expand frequencies, improve analogue tape edits, remove unwanted electrical clicks and other extraneous unwanted noises - as well as better capture, at a much higher resolution, the magic of the original recording to any medium.

I found the article I linked very succinct in answering your question. Specifically regarding “polishing” I read it as the removal of unwanted noise in the original mixes, something that wasn’t done when first mastered as the technology of the time didn’t allow it. So it’s not that it needs to be done again, just done.

So they keep the magic but add their own wizardry?

Do they have fairy dust in their cables too?

I've listened to many remasters where obvious technical errors remain, and none where they don't.

 

[Matt_Holland]

So they keep the magic but add their own wizardry?

Do they have fairy dust in their cables too?

I've listened to many remasters where obvious technical errors remain, and none where they don't.

I think most remasters are to revisit EQ and compression. They are artistic as well as practical modifications. But most of all, they are for profit, based on the promise of better sound.

 

[Emlin]

I think most remasters are to revisit EQ and compression. They are artistic as well as practical modifications. But most of all, they are for profit, based on the promise of better sound.

Ah. Back to my original point then. No need to google that!

 

[Ze Frog]

In my experience some remasters clean up the sound, some are pretty much the same and occasionally a remaster can actually be worse than the original. Think it largely depends on variables like what are they remastering from and who is doing the remastering.

 

[somebodyelse]

One notorious example where a remaster was needed to fix the clipping and excessive compression in the original:
https://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/blog-death-magnetic-sounds-better-in-guitar-hero-173961
That's an outlier though.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Modern ADCs are better than early ADCs and so taking an original analogue tape and using a modern ADC can be an improvement on very early digital transfers. Some early work was not dithered.

Unfortunately there was/is behaviour where compression was added unnecessarily. This has got remasters a bad name, which is a pity! In my opinion, remastering (if it doesn't have more compression) can improve the sound. As others have said, there are sometimes mistakes in the earlier releases (i.e. CDs mastered using the the LP master).

 

[Mean & Green]

Remastering is essentially changes to EQ and dynamic range compression. there can be changes made to noise reduction if the music was originally analogue.

Sometimes remasters are subjectively worse to listen to and sometimes they are better, it just depends on the source material and who’s doing the remastering and for what purpose. Remasters are not just about remastering older analogue master tapes for digital. Now we are seeing music from the 2000s era being released as a repackaged remasters.

There are also niche audiophile labels that remaster for SACD and ‘UHQR’ vinyl releases claiming to make what are already well regarded albums sonically sound even better. Take those with a big pinch of salt IMO.

There is a website where album releases are given a dynamic range score. Theoretically the higher the number the better the sound, but personally I find it isn't always as simple as that - subjectively at least.

Album list - Dynamic Range DB

 

[Cbdb2]

LoL... It tunes up old yucky versions of songs so they can be re-released and clog up the music web sites with their rubbish... I imagine they remix the various instruments and singers voices and try to find some more interesting arrangement in the final cut of the track release.

Remasters work with a stereo mix, so the only tools are EQ, compression/limiting and noise reduction. There's no remixing. That would be a remix, which are out there (search Steve Wilson remix) and they definitely make a difference. As far as remasters, if there to "fix" something fine but most just change some EQ and add compression and are usually a waste of time. And I don't get why people need 4 versions of the same music thats almost identical.