[Sonic Defender]

It is a shame that the discussion has become personal. I realize that over an extended period of interaction and debate, if the parties have opposite views you will inevitably get some flare-ups. In this case it really feels like things are just becoming mean which is a shame as we never really learn when our minds are closed. We pretend or convince ourselves that we are listening to each other, but we're not, we are simply waiting for the other to finish talking so that we can talk and demonstrate how wrong they are. It is fine, that is human nature as far as I have ever been able to tell, but I still think personal attacks always make a persons arguments less persuasive. The information not the ire should be what the reader notices and can evaluate.

I found this interesting research like approach article. Because I am not a sound engineer I can't determine if there are logic errors, or other plausible alternative explanations, but it does seem to be a very relevant read and quite well done. For those of you who have already read it you likely won't care, but for those who haven't, hopefully you'll find it as thought provoking as I did. I had myself been thinking that perhaps musical approaches literally during sessions, and stylistic differences may account for a great deal of what has been the shift in musical dynamic perception. Maybe music itself has changed? Anyway, good read if you have about 15 minutes https://www.uaudio.com/blog/sos-feature-loudness-war/

 

[castleofargh]

He's paying their rent though. He decides what he wants, and doesn't, and will stop paying their rent if they piss him off by not providing it. Simple ecomomics, man.

if it was as you describe and the vast majority of people really though modern mastering was bad, why would anybody keep doing it after so many years? how do they still have a job? your "simple economics" can't begin to describe a realistic model of what is going on. usually it's a pretty reliable sign that the model is wrong.

Yeah, but some politician - there, I said it: POLITICIAN - will come along telling you the bottom version is "just as dynamic as the original", and to ignore that visual evidence.

I see evidence that what's called the loudness war exists and that some people go very far with the tools they are given. I do not see evidence that modern mastering is just raising the volume even in specific music genres. nor do I see evidence that everybody will always prefer the less compressed version of every album. in fact I remember a study suggesting the very opposite(up to a point obviously). also up to a point, the loudness war works subjectively. that's why it came to be in the first place. and not because there is a conspiracy to ruin everything.

would I prefer the original to the extreme Prodigy remaster given as example by @71 dB ? probably, although I'd have to try. but then there is the issue that I almost always prefer the stuff I'm already used to, because it's the version I'm familiar with. sometimes it can be tricky to tell what is "better". but that's just personal taste in the end, not some right to delegitimize a practice. let's say I really can't enjoy any brickwalled masters, is that a reason to want the practice gone and go convince people to join in the battle that could almost do something? I also can't enjoy a vast range of Jazz, should I, like you, go preach how it's bad music and how they're so bad they can't properly follow a score?
must I hate autotune because some crank it to 11 on their albums? what if they wanted it to sound like that? should I still demand for them to stop and go create content the way I love it? should I forget about all the albums that were basically saved and made enjoyable thanks to autotune used skillfully? I can take almost anything and turn it into a good vs evil fake battle thanks to taking a few extreme caricatures and pretend it's the norm. or simply by calling right, anything I prefer. but what if all this is just how modern music is? and you treating it like sound engineers don't know their job, is yet another iteration of "it was better before" that every single generation has to hear over and over again from the previous one? I'm not claiming that it is so, only pointing out that it could be. maybe they're all wrong, but maybe we're just getting old. I always have that idea at the back of my head when something is successful and I can't stand it.

 

[Sonic Defender]

Yes, there are times I have ended up preferring the re-master over the original. One such case (albeit one of few for me) is that of Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms. I do find the extra energy in the re-master version to be more engaging than the original, and I have both versions on CD on hand. That may simply mean this was a case where the re-mastering was done in a measured, and artful way, as opposed to a blunt crank it up approach. I am sure there are other examples. I have the 35th anniversary edition of Fleetwood Mac - Rumours here, and while I grew up with the vinyl and even 8 track versions of that album (yes it is true) I don't have any original issues on hand to compare with.

 

[bigshot]

More examples of improvement from remastering... David Bowie, Elton John, Stevie Wonder, Fleetwood Mac, Steely Dan, Pink Floyd, Little Feat, Frank Zappa, Jethro Tull, Yes.... Recently I got a remastered greatest hits album of music by Lynyrd Skynyrd. Their music never sounded that good on LP. And the remaster of Sly Stone's Greatest Hits is phenomenal. You'd never expect that, but it is. There are lots of examples of great jobs of remastering. Maybe you are just focused on a narrow genre that hasn't been given the same kind of attention. Back catalog has been overrun with cheapie $7 reissues. I'm sure those are just crapped out to just keep the title in print. But there are a lot of high quality reworkings too.

Your opinion might change if you just spoke with knowledgeable collectors who could point you to the good releases.

Yow! I finished this post and posted it and then realized that I hadn't even mentioned the Stones and Beatles mono boxes, the Doors or the Beatles surround remixes. You won't find better versions of that stuff.

 

[Sonic Defender]

@bigshot, were you addressing my post? Not sure, but if you were I wasn't saying that there aren't potentially lots of decent remasters around, just not many that have crossed my path. This isn't meant to be a swipe at you, but you mentioned people (me, the OP?) needing to audition a broader, less focused genre of remasters, but they examples you provide were arguably pretty much all very close to each other in the genre scheme of things, and quite close to my Dire Straits example. I would be interested in some suggestions from you that stray deeper afield such as say jazz or folk/bluegrass/new-grass. Those would be from a different genre and certainly where I have less experience. Cheers.

 

[gregorio]

Of course, to mastering engineers like yourself, EVERYTHING is 'better ... Again, it's a line you have to toe to represent the industry you work in - even if those statements aren't true in every case!

Really, is that it, is that all you've got? Just personal insults and the two lies I've quoted above? Why don't you try learning some facts and debating like an adult?

G

 

[bigshot]

I would be interested in some suggestions from you that stray deeper afield such as say jazz or folk/bluegrass/new-grass. Those would be from a different genre and certainly where I have less experience. Cheers.

The only stuff that I’ve run into with bad remasters in old time country music are some of the early Bear Family sets. But those are early 1950s records which might not survive in good quality. Jazz is pretty much always well mastered. The problems you’ll run into there are live recordings that weren’t well recorded in the first place.

This is really only a problem with pop music, and it’s most common with B grade back catalog. Current pop music is the way it is by design.

 

[tansand]

if it was as you describe and the vast majority of people really though modern mastering was bad, why would anybody keep doing it after so many years? how do they still have a job? your "simple economics" can't begin to describe a realistic model of what is going on. usually it's a pretty reliable sign that the model is wrong.

If there were even limited truth to that, the world would be a much better place right now, don't you think? That being the case, you shouldn't claim to differentiate a 'realistic model" from an unrealistic one. Really you're just clouding the issue.

 

[tansand]

Really, is that it, is that all you've got? Just personal insults and the two lies I've quoted above? Why don't you try learning some facts and debating like an adult?

Ho Ho, check out this guy. You couldn't do the above if you tried, don't go crying about it now.

 

[gregorio]

Ho Ho, check out this guy. You couldn't do the above if you tried, don't go crying about it now.

I take it that's a "no" then, you don't understand "extremely simple economics". Thanks for clearing that up.

G

 

[tansand]

The bottom line problem for me of remastering is where the engineer imagines their creative input is wanted, and starts junking up the original recording. The band and the original creatives had their ideas about what they intended, a lot of their energy went into making things sound a certain way (for good records, I mean, in general). They had a logic, and communication about what they were trying to create together.

All of that is unavailable to some jackasses 20 years later, who just want it to sound different so they can call it improved, and sell a few more. Or some egotistical freak thinks he knows better, and wants to destroy what they've done to 'prove' it.

It's horseshit.

 

[Sonic Defender]

Well, there are certainly some valid reasons for a re-master, but I don't deny that likely as with any area of work where pride and artistry are involved that some engineers or label managers might want to put their stamp on a re-issued album. There are some recordings that just need some help and with some skill and respect for the sound of the album improvements could be possible. I like when the original artists collaborate such as with the last round of Led Zeppelin remastering efforts. Not sure about the outcome of those efforts, I have purchased a few of them, but didn't really compare them that much. I also think that we need to be cognizant that a remaster can only be as good as the original master and if they were done poorly, or the equipment was just not able to capture the true dynamic range we have come to expect in the contemporary context, then the results of the remastering are already quite limited.

 

[tansand]

I also think that we need to be cognizant that a remaster can only be as good as the original master and if they were done poorly, or the equipment was just not able to capture the true dynamic range we have come to expect in the contemporary context, then the results of the remastering are already quite limited.

This implies a value judgement, the sound of an original recording (not a remaster) is an inherently valid part of the creation whether that sound is said to be 'good' or 'bad'.

 

[Sonic Defender]

This implies a value judgement, the sound of an original recording (not a remaster) is an inherently valid part of the creation whether that sound is said to be 'good' or 'bad'.

Yes, but just because something was created doesn't mean that the creators were pleased, or had they been able to capture more or different detail with technology unavailable doesn't mean that they wouldn't want to make changes, or try new things. If people were pleased with the state of things, new innovation would likely never happen. And everything is a value judgement, you feeling that nobody should judge the value of others work is itself a value judgement. We all use them, part of the human experience and not inherently bad. For instance I can make a value judgement that putting people into concentration camps is bad. Hard to get around making value judgements if you're going to discuss the how and why of anything people put their hands and minds to, in my opinion.

 

[tansand]

Get a grip. Claiming everything is a value judgement doesn't address my point, which is that:

the sound of an original recording (not a remaster) is an inherently valid part of the creation whether that sound is said to be 'good' or 'bad'.

and neither does you imagining what might have been going on when they made it. It's just you digressing.

Yes, but just because something was created doesn't mean that the creators were pleased, or had they been able to capture more or different detail with technology unavailable doesn't mean that they wouldn't want to make changes, or try new things.