[DGDevin]

"Mark-T" wrote in message
...

If the master is the original, then what does
"re-mastered" mean, as commonly used?
A genuine original copy?

The original raw multi-track tape (or these days data file) rarely does
anything but sit in a vault. A copy of that original is usually used to
produce a mixed master which contains the final (usually stereo) version
that will be released to the public, and that goes into the vault too while
copies or it are distributed to pressing plants to physically make LPs or
CDs, or presumably downloads today (sometimes with interim production copies
along the way). In the old days there could be different final versions for
singles and albums, or the U.S. or UK market and so on.

Re-mastering at least in theory means they started with the original raw
tracks and did the mixing and EQ all over again and carefully produced a new
mixed master recording with better quality than the old one. But sometimes
they start with the old final mix and just are more careful in making a
digital transer that will be used to make CDs. A lot of early CDs made from
analog tapes were not done very well, the analog to digital transfers were
poor, they benefited from more careful work later.

Unfortunately some re-mastered recordings have relied on too much noise
reduction software or compression and actually sound worse than previous
versions. There have also been re-mastered albums with questionable
choices, where somebody decided to edit tracks (I think I'll lose that
piano) or added reverb to the drums or whatever (to the outrage of fans who
loved the old version).

Of course since people will buy "re-mastered" versions there is a temptation
to use that label even if little or anything has been done to improve the
quality, and some supposedly re-mastered releases sound just like they did
the last time they were re-mastered with intense marketing before the band
switched labels.

"Waiter, I'll have the jumbo shrimp."

Stereo or 5.1 mix sir?