Help remastering

GoldWave general discussions and community help
Steven37
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:35 pm

Help remastering

Post by Steven37 »

im trying to remaster my grandpa's old songs that he recorded back in the late 80's.. i need help doing it the type of genre is country
DougDbug
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: Help remastering

Post by DougDbug »

It depends on what's wrong with the recording and/or what changes you want to make...

Usually, you can make some improvement. Often you can turn a good recording into a great recording. But if the recording is bad, sometimes there is nothing you can do.

This all needs to be done "by ear". Every recording is different, and there are no magic presets. One "trick" the pros use is to find a good reference recording in the same genre, and compare your recording to that reference as you go-along. It's also a good idea to compare your remastered track to the original, to make sure you are really making it better, not worse. ;) And when you're all done, come back the next day and listen again... It's easy to get carried-away of over-do things. The pros also listen on several different systems.... Check your recording on your iPod, on your home stereo, in your car... Whatever you can get your hands on.

- Of course, back-up your file before you start messing-around. ;)

- If there is background noise, I'd start with Noise Reduction (Effect -> Filter -> Noise Reduction). It's a bit tricky, so read the help file. The best approach is usually to copy a "fingerprint" of noise-only (from the beginning or end of the recording, etc.) into the GoldWave clipboard. Then choose the Clipboard Noise Print preset. You can get artifacts (side-effects), so you may have to experiment with the settings, or you may find that the recording sounds better with no noise reduction... With noise reduction, sometimes "The cure can be worse than the disease".

- Equalization AKA "EQ" (Effect -> Filter -> Equalizer) is very common in mastering/re-mastering. Older recordings can often benefit from boosting the higher frequencies (i.e. 6000Hz & 15kHz). Just experiment with all of the sliders to see if you can make an improvement, and compare to your reference recording.

- Dynamic Compression (Effect -> Compressor/Expander) is the most common mastering/re-mastering effect. It's used to make the track louder by increasing the overall-average level, without boosting/clipping the peaks. But if you over-do it, you'll squish all of dynamic contrast out of the song and it become constantly-loud and boring .

With GoldWave, compression is a 3-step process:

1. Volume Maximize (to get a starting point).
2. Compress (use the Reduce Peaks or Reduce Loud Parts preset).
3. Volume Maximize ("make-up gain" to bring-up the overall volume).
(Repeat steps 2 & 3 as desired).


- As the last step, it's a good idea to Maximize Volume (Effect -> Volume -> Maximize Volume), or MaxMatch (Effect -> Stereo -> MaxMatch) before saving. Many effects can boost the volume level, but if you go over 0dB (basically the "digital maximum") and then save the file, you can get clipping (distorted flat-topped waves). Maximize (or Max/Match) will bring the peaks down to a safe level if they are too high, or if the peaks are below maximum, it will bring the volume up.

There are other effects you can try too, such as Reverb, or Echo. Sometimes, just a tiny amount of reverb or echo can make an improvement... Just enough so you don't really notice it, but so that "something seems missing" when you compare the original. Or, you can go all-crazy with it if you want! (Remember to Maximize after adding effects.)

Have Fun!
Gord
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 4:26 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Help remastering

Post by Gord »

Great advice from Doug, as usual. My only addition:

You may get more relevant advice if you tell us the source of those recordings. Was your grandfather a musician and are they recordings of him playing (either live, or in the studio)? Are they cassette recordings of vinyl LPs (in which case some Pop/Click filtering might help)? Are they multi-generation cassette dubs ("tapes of tapes") where hiss and loss of high-end might be an issue? Stuff like that....
Steven37
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: Help remastering

Post by Steven37 »

He was a musician and yes they were recorded at arts studio,Nashville, Tennessee and Premier studio, Nashville, Tennessee in 1988 ..
they are on tapes right now but im in the process of moving them onto my computer
DougDbug
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: Help remastering

Post by DougDbug »

1/4 inch open-reel tape? Studio open-reel tapes from the 80's should be excellent!

If you don't hear any problems, I wouldn't mess with it... But, it wouldn't hurt to normalize the volume (Maximize or MaxMatch).

Digital recording in the studio has made an improvement, but studio equipment was actually very-good by the 60's & 70's. Before digital, the really weak link was on the consumer playback-side (vinyl records & cassettes). Home audio on 1/4", 7.5ips tape was also very good, but commercial recordings were not distributed that way.

If there is any audible quality difference between an 80's tape and a modern digital recording, the analog tape might have a slightly higher noise floor.

If noise is audible, it's probably only audible during silence and during quiet parts and/or during fade-in/fade-out. You can mute the silence between songs for absolute digital silence. There's not much downside to that, unless it's distracting when the song starts and the background hiss suddenly kicks-in.

Then if you want to try the noise reduction filter, I'd use it only where the noise is audible so that you don't "touch" the majority of the audio.

P.S.
It's probably a good idea to save a copy of the original unaltered digital copy as a permanent archive.
JackA
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 5:52 pm

Re: Help remastering

Post by JackA »

Steven37 wrote:im trying to remaster my grandpa's old songs that he recorded back in the late 80's.. i need help doing it the type of genre is country
Hi Steve,

Not sure these songs still have to be mixed (and edited) from (analog) multi-track tapes, or already mixed down. Have a friend who can do analog multi-track transfers to digital. Just to help me gain knowledge, I'd like to help, even if it's just one song! I have my own plan of attack how to enhance audio. Let me know if I can be of help. Thanks! :P
Steven37
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: Help remastering

Post by Steven37 »

Hey Jack what do you have in mind?
JackA
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 5:52 pm

Re: Help remastering

Post by JackA »

Steven37 wrote:Hey Jack what do you have in mind?
Steve, sorry for the delay! Just thought if you needed help, I'm here. I can do (stereo) mixing, if needed.

Here's Boston's, "Peace Of Mind", but with an acoustic feel...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/i ... mind-r.mp3

Best,
Jack
DewDude420
Posts: 1171
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Contact:

Re: Help remastering

Post by DewDude420 »

Remastering is fun. At some point; I moved away from all the editing and such (because once you get to a point you're really good at it; you rarely have to practice) and focused more on remastering. Then I started doing things to enhance audio that mastering engineers would cringe at.

When digitizing these things; do it at 24-bit. This will allow you to leave more headroom to prevent clipping during digitization, without worrying about having desired audio get lost in the quantization. When I digitize my vinyl; the recording itself rarely peaks above -15dbFS; making sure that if something does clip; it's a scratch I'm going to just be removing later. You can't really fix the clipping (completely) once it's in the digital master; so record it on the softer side with plenty of resolution and digitally boost the volume later.

Like Doug said; if you don't think it needs anything; then it likely doesn't. If you do add some EQ; I suggest you always back your sliders down a bit. It's a lot easier to add more later; than it is to try and re-EQ something with too much bass.

Jack: That track wasn't bad. It needed a bit more low-end to balance out the brightness of the guitars. It also needed some slight limiting or something because it clips entirely too much for a digital track.

I don't care what the pros do; clipping is bad. Period. I don't understand in a world of audio editors that can scan the max sample and make sure it doesn't exceed 0dbFS I still see things that clip. It's not clipped horribly; to I do see some flattened waveforms..
JackA
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 5:52 pm

Re: Help remastering

Post by JackA »

DewDude420 wrote:Remastering is fun. At some point; I moved away from all the editing and such (because once you get to a point you're really good at it; you rarely have to practice) and focused more on remastering. Then I started doing things to enhance audio that mastering engineers would cringe at.

When digitizing these things; do it at 24-bit. This will allow you to leave more headroom to prevent clipping during digitization, without worrying about having desired audio get lost in the quantization. When I digitize my vinyl; the recording itself rarely peaks above -15dbFS; making sure that if something does clip; it's a scratch I'm going to just be removing later. You can't really fix the clipping (completely) once it's in the digital master; so record it on the softer side with plenty of resolution and digitally boost the volume later.

Like Doug said; if you don't think it needs anything; then it likely doesn't. If you do add some EQ; I suggest you always back your sliders down a bit. It's a lot easier to add more later; than it is to try and re-EQ something with too much bass.

Jack: That track wasn't bad. It needed a bit more low-end to balance out the brightness of the guitars. It also needed some slight limiting or something because it clips entirely too much for a digital track.

I don't care what the pros do; clipping is bad. Period. I don't understand in a world of audio editors that can scan the max sample and make sure it doesn't exceed 0dbFS I still see things that clip. It's not clipped horribly; to I do see some flattened waveforms..
DD, you sound like me! :-)

I agree on more low end for Boston song! Was meant to be an acoustic version, so I laid low on bass. I sometimes go too far, the song sounds too intense, so I saved previous tries and pick out the one I like best, later on! You just have to learn where to stop enhancing. I do admire the "Reduce Peaks" (Compression/Expansion) function Chris added. So, you might say, I'm a clipper, but conservatively! Like mowing the lawn! :) But, seriously, as I discovered, not many are into sound quality. Decades back, I thought EVERYONE preferred Stereo versions, but was not the case.

I learned quickly, edit and save in a 32 bit environment. I'm intrigued with MP3s. Though it's never mentioned anywhere, I still say, the better the sound quality (low distortion), the lower you can set the bit-rate while encoding an MP3, without much audio harm. A good example of this is the song "Give It To Me", by J. Geils. Atlantic Studios gave it a try and it didn't turn out well (on CD). They later used Sterling Sound to digitally enhance, but encoding it at a low bit-rate, and it falls apart. It needs to be remixed-remaster, but I guess session tapes are lost.

Take care. Jack
DewDude420
Posts: 1171
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Contact:

Re: Help remastering

Post by DewDude420 »

(Steve, sorry if it seems like I'm hi-jacking your thread here. When you return with more info on tapes; I'd be glad to help you out.)

Hahaha. I sat around and played with the track myself; but I don't like keeping things I've done from lossy unless it's absolutely important; and this wasn't. I seem to remember tweaking the EQ, running a multiband compressor to tighten up just the mid-bass; and a gentle tube-modeled compressor just to tweak the sound a bit. Oh, and this magical declipper tool I have was able to reconstruct most of the clipped peaks. Yes, it's an acoustic; but a low-E does dip in to the mid-bass range; so if you neglect that, the whole thing comes out sounding VERY mid heavy. I also own and somewhat play a vintage Ibanez acoustic; and I don't know if you've ever heard an Ibanez acoustic, but once you have...you'll identify it every time. The last time I mixed a track for fun; before even reading the session notes I said to myself, "Someone's playing an Ibanez". It's a very, very rich sound.

As far as the clipping; if you use a compressor/expander properly, you don't really get clipping. The waveform is slightly deformed; but it's not flattened out. However, I say this as someone who admittedly doesn't use Goldwave on a daily basis anymore, so I haven't played with it enough to know what it's output is compared to some of the VST effects I'm using anymore. (I "graduated" to bigger and better things; but knew *nothing* when I started with GW.) I won't really get too deep in to my opinions on what happened to people's perception of quality, mono vs stereo. I got bored one night and compiled a few years of research and experimentation in to a "white-paper" that kind-of touches on that subject. http://dewdu.de/haecocsg.pdf It contains a couple of errors I didn't catch till after exporting, and I lost the original layout file. As far as going liberal with the enhancing; if you saw some of the DSP chains and multi-track effect racks I've come up with, your head would likely explode. :lol:

The thing to remember about MP3, besides the fact it's lossy; it's compression relies on storing information largely in frequency domain. Distortion is somewhat interesting in frequency domain; so it breaks down at lower bitrates much easier. The other thing you need to take in to account is mid/side matrix encoding. Most, if not all recent encoders, encode the mp3 using the m/s matrix joint-stereo mode. This is actually fine; the m/s matrix isn't the problem in itself. MP3 uses the ability to dedicate more of the bit-pool to one stream over another; so as the stereo image gets more complex; the side signal requires more bits and quality degrades across the board. I could go on and on about optimizing audio for lossy encoding....because somewhere I do have an optimization rack for 48kbps AAC; that's for some other time. But as interesting as MP3 is, it's nothing compared to the 2.882MHZ/1-bit format used for SACD.

-Jay
JackA
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 5:52 pm

Re: Help remastering

Post by JackA »

DewDude420 wrote:(Steve, sorry if it seems like I'm hi-jacking your thread here. When you return with more info on tapes; I'd be glad to help you out.)

Hahaha. I sat around and played with the track myself; but I don't like keeping things I've done from lossy unless it's absolutely important; and this wasn't. I seem to remember tweaking the EQ, running a multiband compressor to tighten up just the mid-bass; and a gentle tube-modeled compressor just to tweak the sound a bit. Oh, and this magical declipper tool I have was able to reconstruct most of the clipped peaks. Yes, it's an acoustic; but a low-E does dip in to the mid-bass range; so if you neglect that, the whole thing comes out sounding VERY mid heavy. I also own and somewhat play a vintage Ibanez acoustic; and I don't know if you've ever heard an Ibanez acoustic, but once you have...you'll identify it every time. The last time I mixed a track for fun; before even reading the session notes I said to myself, "Someone's playing an Ibanez". It's a very, very rich sound.

As far as the clipping; if you use a compressor/expander properly, you don't really get clipping. The waveform is slightly deformed; but it's not flattened out. However, I say this as someone who admittedly doesn't use Goldwave on a daily basis anymore, so I haven't played with it enough to know what it's output is compared to some of the VST effects I'm using anymore. (I "graduated" to bigger and better things; but knew *nothing* when I started with GW.) I won't really get too deep in to my opinions on what happened to people's perception of quality, mono vs stereo. I got bored one night and compiled a few years of research and experimentation in to a "white-paper" that kind-of touches on that subject. http://dewdu.de/haecocsg.pdf It contains a couple of errors I didn't catch till after exporting, and I lost the original layout file. As far as going liberal with the enhancing; if you saw some of the DSP chains and multi-track effect racks I've come up with, your head would likely explode. :lol:

The thing to remember about MP3, besides the fact it's lossy; it's compression relies on storing information largely in frequency domain. Distortion is somewhat interesting in frequency domain; so it breaks down at lower bitrates much easier. The other thing you need to take in to account is mid/side matrix encoding. Most, if not all recent encoders, encode the mp3 using the m/s matrix joint-stereo mode. This is actually fine; the m/s matrix isn't the problem in itself. MP3 uses the ability to dedicate more of the bit-pool to one stream over another; so as the stereo image gets more complex; the side signal requires more bits and quality degrades across the board. I could go on and on about optimizing audio for lossy encoding....because somewhere I do have an optimization rack for 48kbps AAC; that's for some other time. But as interesting as MP3 is, it's nothing compared to the 2.882MHZ/1-bit format used for SACD.

-Jay
Hey, Jay!

Haeco CSG. Yeah, The Association! Some thought this was Haeco, but it's a (stereo) remix, offered only, to the best of my knowledge, in Japan (CD)...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/i ... mary-r.mp3
You can tell session tapes are still available, to remaster, when renditions like this appear...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/i ... mary-i.mp3

Just curious if you are familiar with BSN (Both Sides Now) Stereo chat forum? This Haeco encoding was mentioned there, along with The Association.

Not much into technical discussions, started using Goldwave to bring back the vinyl sound in audio CDs!
On TV, they had a independent test who could detect current digital vs analogue recordings. It was a 50-50 split.
Binary HQ formats. That gets me, when there aren't many into HQ sound/audio to begin with.

In closing, In My Life (1965) - Stereo (edited) Remix:
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/i ... life-r.mp3

Best, Jack (John)
DewDude420
Posts: 1171
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Contact:

Re: Help remastering

Post by DewDude420 »

JackA wrote:]

Haeco CSG. Yeah, The Association! Some thought this was Haeco, but it's a (stereo) remix, offered only, to the best of my knowledge, in Japan (CD)...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/i ... mary-r.mp3
You can tell session tapes are still available, to remaster, when renditions like this appear...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/i ... mary-i.mp3
I'm sorry to tell you this; but that's not a stereo remix. I don't know who said it is; but it doesn't fit any of the criteria. If anything; it sounds like the same digital master for Greatest Hits; with a limiter applied and some tweaking of the Haeco encoded content. The vocals don't sound "centered"; nor do they sound the right-heavy it should be (i'll explain why). I still detect the 90 degree shift. Shifting it back 90 degrees; the vocals are back in phase but right heavy, where as the un-Haeco original pretty much bounces to center. This however can be explained by some stereo-enhancement or other stereo image modification tool.

The other thing that gets me is the track stays perfectly in-sync when compared to audio off G.H. If it was a remix; or even a new transfer of the original master; it wouldn't match so perfectly. I suppose if it was a new transfer of the original master; it''d sync up if they happen to use the same clock reference. But very rarely does a "remaster" sync up with an original "pre-remastered" CD due to variances in the sample clock.

IMO, it should sound something like this: http://dewdu.de/comesmary-improved.mp3

The existence of what sounds like an early demo mix doesn't indicate they're sessions. If someone were to remix them now; they wouldn't have a mono mix like that. I think that's an early mix tape that managed to get saved.
Just curious if you are familiar with BSN (Both Sides Now) Stereo chat forum? This Haeco encoding was mentioned there, along with The Association.
Nope, I hadn't actually ever heard of them. But I also tend to keep what I do to myself; at least for now.

Here's a little something I did three years ago when I decided to dive head first in to mixing/production. Didn't really have a mastering stage with this, since all those adjustments were made within the mix. ;)

http://dewdu.de/audio/maggiemay-v2-dewdude.mp3
JackA
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 5:52 pm

Re: Help remastering

Post by JackA »

DewDude420 wrote:
JackA wrote:]

Haeco CSG. Yeah, The Association! Some thought this was Haeco, but it's a (stereo) remix, offered only, to the best of my knowledge, in Japan (CD)...

You can tell session tapes are still available, to remaster, when renditions like this appear...
I'm sorry to tell you this; but that's not a stereo remix. I don't know who said it is; but it doesn't fit any of the criteria. If anything; it sounds like the same digital master for Greatest Hits; with a limiter applied and some tweaking of the Haeco encoded content. The vocals don't sound "centered"; nor do they sound the right-heavy it should be (i'll explain why). I still detect the 90 degree shift. Shifting it back 90 degrees; the vocals are back in phase but right heavy, where as the un-Haeco original pretty much bounces to center. This however can be explained by some stereo-enhancement or other stereo image modification tool.

The other thing that gets me is the track stays perfectly in-sync when compared to audio off G.H. If it was a remix; or even a new transfer of the original master; it wouldn't match so perfectly. I suppose if it was a new transfer of the original master; it''d sync up if they happen to use the same clock reference. But very rarely does a "remaster" sync up with an original "pre-remastered" CD due to variances in the sample clock.

IMO, it should sound something like this: http://dewdu.de/comesmary-improved.mp3

The existence of what sounds like an early demo mix doesn't indicate they're sessions. If someone were to remix them now; they wouldn't have a mono mix like that. I think that's an early mix tape that managed to get saved.
Just curious if you are familiar with BSN (Both Sides Now) Stereo chat forum? This Haeco encoding was mentioned there, along with The Association.
Nope, I hadn't actually ever heard of them. But I also tend to keep what I do to myself; at least for now.

Here's a little something I did three years ago when I decided to dive head first in to mixing/production. Didn't really have a mastering stage with this, since all those adjustments were made within the mix. ;)

http://dewdu.de/audio/maggiemay-v2-dewdude.mp3
Very nice song! Nice fidelity! Who is it, tell me more, please. I like real instruments and real singing; not the garb' I hear as hit music, these days! Overdubbing is a turn-off, I want "real" talent.
As far as the Association, we disagree, but that is okay! :D

Elton John was remixed, not for a Greatest Hits package, but more as audiophile style mixes, by Elton's producer, before Gus passed. A key sign something was remixed is by the absence or addition of sound. Here, a drum riff (I call it) is missing. Daniel...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/i ... ielrx1.mp3

Take Blood, Sweat & Tears. Sounded ho-hum from what Sony issued (other CDs). But, abroad, a CD was released, with what I feel is superior mixes to the originals. You didn't find any remastering credits, or any sign of enticing marketing. My guess, someone discovered the Quadraphonic mixes and decided to publish them. This favorite song, just sounded too bland, unlike the others that sounded nicer. From my memory of the vinyl LP, some sounds have changed. Go Down Gambling...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/i ... ielrx1.mp3

If you remember Nancy Sinatra, her (hit) material could have been remixed, session tapes are available, but what is to gain, why spend money, like with The Association, if the (stereo) Master tapes still sound fine, for stateside releases.

Take care, Jay!
DewDude420
Posts: 1171
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Contact:

Re: Help remastering

Post by DewDude420 »

JackA wrote:
Very nice song! Nice fidelity! Who is it, tell me more, please. I like real instruments and real singing; not the garb' I hear as hit music, these days! Overdubbing is a turn-off, I want "real" talent.
I don't even know if I have the stems I used to create that mix anymore (probably; I have major projects from the last 3 years still on this laptop). The band is called "Man About A Dog"; I originally got this off the MixOff forums; which is a forum where bands can upload raw tracks/stems and people can fool with them and share the results. The band has kind of...disappeared. No activity on the facebook page for a couple years.

That track did have what you might consider over-dubs; but I did the entire thing so it sounded a bit more "organic". I was playing with convolution a lot at that point because it seemed like with a mix; it was a great excuse to play with it. Take those studio tracks and add a bit of ambiance to it. I like the sound of guys playing music in a room; I don't like the dead studio sound.

Oddly enough; I seem to recall most people on the thread for that track didn't care for my mix because "it wasn't loud enough"; meaning I didn't squash enough dynamics for them. I actually added more compression than I wanted...but you need some to make a good mix. It was also "backwards" compared to most people's. I think they listened to a fully mixed version and went from that...where as I started out with all tracks/stems mixed to mono and built from there. Putting something here; something there; trying to figure out how to mix drums. It took me close to 6 hours to make that mix; so I decided maybe I should do some reading on modern mixing techniques and practices...just never found the books.
As far as the Association, we disagree, but that is okay! :D
Depends which part you're disagreeing on me with. :D I still stand by my statement that the mp3 you posted was too perfectly synced to the original to be a remix. As far as the sample I posted....98% of that is simply removing Haeco from the original CD.
Elton John was remixed, not for a Greatest Hits package, but more as audiophile style mixes, by Elton's producer, before Gus passed. A key sign something was remixed is by the absence or addition of sound. Here, a drum riff (I call it) is missing. Daniel...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/i ... ielrx1.mp3
I haven't listened to enough Elton John to really say. But usually when something is remixed; it's never 100% right. I have a very sensitive audible memory; so unless I'm unsure about the original source to begin with, it doesn't really slip past me. The only Elton I've critically listened to is the Captain Fantastic SACD when I got my first SACD player a year ago. Some older CD pressings of it I got didn't jump out at me.

But I'm not doubting that sessions for stuff are still in existence. Look at all the multi-channel DVD-Audio and SACD stuff that has come about. They have to go back from sessions to do a proper 5.1; so it's out there. I remember when I watched the extras on my Eagles - Hotel California DVD-A; they spoke about how they had a little difficulty locating the session tapes; then had to bake them so they could get a transfer out of them. I don't know if they just retransferred the master for the stereo portion of that disc; or if they actually recreated it from the sessions. It doesn't sound any different; aside from being much clearer. But the original engineer worked on them...and it is possible if they were using session stems rather than raw tracks; you could "re-mix" the stereo while maintaining 100% of the mix. Usually you have to start trying to cue in to other aspects; like the amount of compression...which is thrown off by any mastering-stage limiting.

It was very apparent on the Dark Side of the Moon SACD that the stereo mix was the original master and not a remix; I can hear the deep tape distortion and degradation on the SACD version. The 5.1 mix sounds absolutely perfect; but I'll talk about my issues with making "quad" or 5.1 mixes stereo after this....
Take Blood, Sweat & Tears. Sounded ho-hum from what Sony issued (other CDs). But, abroad, a CD was released, with what I feel is superior mixes to the originals. You didn't find any remastering credits, or any sign of enticing marketing. My guess, someone discovered the Quadraphonic mixes and decided to publish them. This favorite song, just sounded too bland, unlike the others that sounded nicer. From my memory of the vinyl LP, some sounds have changed. Go Down Gambling...
BS&T is interesting. Most of the stuff of thiers I've heard; has been on vinyl. One reason is because I found it to be some outstandingly mixed and mastered stuff. The only CD I had for a while was Greatest Hits; and it was the recent re-issue which used newer masters. The original Greatest Hits LP used single-edits; largely to fit everything on to an LP. My Best of Van Morrison CD has all album cuts while the LP version uses radio edits. But for years; fans were disappointed with the GH CD because of it's not-so-steller sound quality and lack of album-cuts. Not only were they inferior radio-edits; the biggest hits weren't even stereo mixes.

The only other non-LP BS&T I've listened to is the 96/24 version of the first album that's on HDTracks. I'm not sure if that was a previous DVD-A or SACD release with a 5.1 mix; but nothing jumped out at me. I also don't know it as well as I know some other albums.

Going to stereo from quad or 5.1 often doesn't leave you with as powerful a stereo image as you'd think. Unless you run something to remove all phase differences from both channels; it can sometimes leave a dead sound. I've tried it with some old quad reels I've had; but I was never too satisfied with the result.

Of course; I don' t know. And they don't tend to be too forthcoming about how they've done things. Like you mentioned the lack of a mastering credit; I believe sometimes if it was mastered by an in-house engineer; they often don't get credit.

If you remember Nancy Sinatra, her (hit) material could have been remixed, session tapes are available, but what is to gain, why spend money, like with The Association, if the (stereo) Master tapes still sound fine, for stateside releases.
I think it's probably a matter of legal and licensing. Sometimes artists don't want that done; regardless of how much better it'll sound.

One major difference that's stood out for quite some time is Moody Blue's Days of Future Passed. They remixed that album in 1978 because the original master degraded (and judging from the various Dream LP's of the 68 version I have, it was dying from the day it was recorded). As a result, the mix was slightly reworked and it has a few major differences. (One day; I'll get a decent transfer from a Dream LP). I think that caught the ire of some people back then...and that might be why they avoid the issue.

-Jay
Post Reply