Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Old music recording remaster process ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Old music recording remaster process ? - Page 2

post #16 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSantana View Post

Hi,

 

I'm confused and also amazed to how do Sound engineering people actually re-master old music back in the 70 and re-release the high bit rate music in the form of SACD, DVD-Audio or even HDCD ?

 

I used to listen to old rock metal songs in cassette tape, and now in Amazon they sell the SACD version of the same title, one of the example is Pink Floyd Dark Side of the moon: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Moon-30th-Anniversary/dp/B00008CLOA/ref=sr_1_2 and this one Yngwie Malmsteen - Genesis http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Yngwie-Malmsteen/dp/B00007AJQX/ref=sr_1_cc_1

 

I believe back then when I was a little boy the music was played and distributed in cassette format, and now those CD claims that sounds better than the cassette.

 

It's all about the entire chain. From microphone placement, recording, mixing, mastering and then your playback chain. I have heard some cassettes that sound BETTER than CD.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSantana View Post
 I wonder what could be the source of the recording for the remastering and what they do in the "remastering" process ?

It used to be a dark and secretive art. No doubt there are many mastering and music restoration specialists that keep their secrets (I know I do!) but, for the most part, the entire (re)mastering process is available to known and learn.

post #17 of 31
Thread Starter 

Cool,

many thanks LFF for the explanation, yes it amaze me how does one can actually reproduce music recorded many years back into the digital form and still sounds clear as if the listener is i"in" with the music itself.

 

So does this means Vinyl will always beat any source of Optical media be it Bluray Audio, SACD, DVD-Audio and etc... ?

 

I have listen to Sony walkman cassette while I was young and just now recently listen to the same music on the CD the sound is even better :-) so the source must be very-very detailed in recording everything.

post #18 of 31
Quote:
So does this means Vinyl will always beat any source of Optical media be it Bluray Audio, SACD, DVD-Audio and etc... ?

 

 

No. Not at all. It may, but it is not inherently better. 

post #19 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSantana View Post

Cool,
many thanks LFF for the explanation, yes it amaze me how does one can actually reproduce music recorded many years back into the digital form and still sounds clear as if the listener is i"in" with the music itself.

So does this means Vinyl will always beat any source of Optical media be it Bluray Audio, SACD, DVD-Audio and etc... ?

I have listen to Sony walkman cassette while I was young and just now recently listen to the same music on the CD the sound is even better :-) so the source must be very-very detailed in recording everything.

Compared to the master tape, vinyl is a very degraded source.
post #20 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post


Compared to the master tape, vinyl is a very degraded source.


Not always. It depends on the mastering involved and the quality of the pressing. I know of many an instance where the master tape sounds WORSE than the vinyl. Please see the link I referenced above if you want to know why or learn more.

post #21 of 31
From an archival standpoint, vinyl records are much more stable than magnetic tape... Oxide shedding, edge damage, edits that fall apart... Ressurecting an old tape master can be a real job sometimes.
post #22 of 31
Thread Starter 

Wow, so in this case I now understand that analog source like Vinyl or master tape is the best sounding comapre to the Optical digital media because there is Analog to Digital conversion.

 

this is why there is DAC to "enhance" the sound of digital music. cmiiw ?

post #23 of 31

The ADC doesn't really affect the sound. The DAC shouldn't really either - a good implementation of either element is transparent. Neither one is automatically a degradation or enhancement - just a necessary step between analog sound and digital data. 

post #24 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFF View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post

Compared to the master tape, vinyl is a very degraded source.


Not always. It depends on the mastering involved and the quality of the pressing. I know of many an instance where the master tape sounds WORSE than the vinyl. Please see the link I referenced above if you want to know why or learn more.

I was only comparing a new master tape and a newly pressed LP from that master tape andI thought that the vinyl master pressing was directly cut from the master tape after a RIAA equalisation.
post #25 of 31

But there are no new master tapes. Everything is digital now. If you're talking about 24 track 2 inch master tapes, you're talking about something that is at least 20 years old, or as much as 60. A lot can happen to a tape in that time. Today, a new old stock record pressing can sound better than the old and damaged master. It all depends on the condition of the master.

post #26 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

But there are no new master tapes. Everything is digital now. If you're talking about 24 track 2 inch master tapes, you're talking about something that is at least 20 years old, or as much as 60. A lot can happen to a tape in that time. Today, a new old stock record pressing can sound better than the old and damaged master. It all depends on the condition of the master.

 

There are a few places that still do 2 inch masters, but mostly boutique houses that do so on request only (Pink Martini, for instance, prefers to record to tape, for some reason). 

post #27 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

But there are no new master tapes. Everything is digital now. If you're talking about 24 track 2 inch master tapes, you're talking about something that is at least 20 years old, or as much as 60. A lot can happen to a tape in that time. Today, a new old stock record pressing can sound better than the old and damaged master. It all depends on the condition of the master.

When comparing different technologies, it's usually more appropriate to ignore factors external to the technology itself. It's basically like claiming that SACD is a better technology because there exists better masters taht were only released on SACD.
post #28 of 31

The fact that remastered CDs are being produced from damaged masters is a very pertinent point to LP record collectors.

post #29 of 31

Bigshot - what we should be cautious of, is blanket assumptions that the masters are damaged, or that the vinyl was a good pressing, etc. It may be sometimes true, but it should not be assumed to always be the case, and LP collectors shouldn't take this to justify something to themselves about sound quality - too many case by case variables.

post #30 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

The fact that remastered CDs are being produced from damaged masters is a very pertinent point to LP record collectors.

We are talking of two different things, you are considering the technology from the pov of the record collector and I'm considering it in a general pov.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Old music recording remaster process ?