What does remastering do?

[Tassin]

Mick Jones, guitarist of The Clash, remastered all their albums. He saw the remastering process as an opportunity to preserve the music in its best form. He was aware that some of the tapes were deteriorating and believed that recent advancements in technology could enhance the sound quality. He saw remastering as an amazing thing that allowed to expose details that you wouldn’t have heard before. He also mentioned that the remastered versions are very close to the original sound that came out of the recording studio. Remastering for the good cause, in my book.

 

[Waxx]

I assisted on remasters of old folk recordings (recorded in the 1950's) and the main tool of the mastering engineer was eq. He boosted the topend so it sounds more open, but filtered the tape hiss (a very specific frequency) out of it. It's over a decade ago, but limiting was only a last point, and was done very sparsly.

But most remasterings are often heavy limited, to compete with modern releases.

 

[dasdoing]

remasters are definitely way too conservative. they should treat the rough mix as such without reference to the original master. but that's not what customers/fans want. they hate changes to their beloved old songs. So why even remaster? At the end it is just about selling it again, not making it better.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

remasters are definitely way too conservative. they should treat the rough mix as such without reference to the original master. but that's not what customers/fans want. they hate changes to their beloved old songs. So why even remaster? At the end it is just about selling it again, not making it better.

That's remixing, surely? Remastering usually starts with a finished stereo tape. All the original reverb, EQ, noise are baked in.

 

[kemmler3D]

Remastering is, in theory, about improving sound quality on the recording.

Technically "mastering" is supposed to work on the entire track at once, i.e. not the individual instruments, and traditionally it's a step meant to prepare a recording for the physical distribution medium, i.e. vinyl, tape, or CD. Traditionally the mixing engineer / producer would do "the mix" and the mastering engineer does "the master" which is typically a lighter-touch process with just a bit of EQ or technical processes like dithering.

So in that sense it would be limited to EQ, volume, and things like dynamic compression and noise removal. In practice and with digital formats, the lines are somewhat blurred.

In practice, sometimes full re-mixes are sold as "re-masters" because in common parlance, "remix" usually means a totally different version of the track (e.g. a club mix). A "remaster" of this type goes back to individual tracks and re-does the mix at higher quality, using different choices about EQ or even beyond that. Lots of the Beatles remasters are also technically remixes.

 

[dasdoing]

That's remixing, surely? Remastering usually starts with a finished stereo tape. All the original reverb, EQ, noise are baked in.

No, you misunderstood. They will make it louder and fix some bad problems like a boomy kick for example. What I would expect is that they make it sound like a modern master, which they don't.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

No, you misunderstood. They will make it louder and fix some bad problems like a boomy kick for example. What I would expect is that they make it sound like a modern master, which they don't.

They can do things like that through PEQ and compressor/limiter. What they cannot do is separate out the guitar and mix it lower. For that they need the original multitrack tape and perform a remix, not a remaster. Steven Wilson has been doing that with many bands: Tears For Fears, Yes, Jethro Tull etc.

What's changed is the recent Beatles work where they have used the stereo tape and trained an AI to "create" a "multitrack" they can "remix".

 

[dasdoing]

They can do things like that through PEQ and compressor/limiter. What they cannot do is separate out the guitar and mix it lower. For that they need the original multitrack tape and perform a remix, not a remaster. Steven Wilson has been doing that with many bands: Tears For Fears, Yes, Jethro Tull etc.

What's changed is the recent Beatles work where they have used the stereo tape and trained an AI to "create" a "multitrack" they can "remix".

I know what mastering is and I mean just that they should do what they can do but don't.

 

[dasdoing]

btw, a remix is not "tracks mixed again", but actually a reproduction.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

btw, a remix is not "tracks mixed again", but actually a reproduction.

It isn't.

 

[Waxx]

It isn't.

it mostly is, i made tons of remixes for dj use, and very often new parts were added, or replayed on other instruments, or even arrangments were changed. It's not just doing the mix again of a track.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

it mostly is, i made tons of remixes for dj use, and very often new parts were added, or replayed on other instruments, or even arrangments were changed. It's not just doing the mix again of a track.

I'll try one more time and then bow out.

This thread is NOT about DJ remixes. It's about commercial releases of popular albums.

An example: Yes' Relayer album. Ignoring LP versions, I have: 1) 1988 first CD release; 2) 2003 CD Remaster where EQ and compression is different, but also the ADC was better; 3) 2014 Steven Wilson Remix recreated from the multitrack tape.