[AtTheEndofMyRope]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:57:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
om
"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.

If it still exists.

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.

Not at all. That would be called "re-mixing".

But sometimes

No, always.

they start with the old final mix and just are
more careful in making a digital transer that will be
used to make CDs.

No, not necessarily more careful, just different.

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.

No, what happened is that a goodly number of CDs released in the early-mid
1980s were made from what are known as "cutting masters". This means that
the recordings intentionally had the inverse of the losses in LP disc
cutting and playback incorperated into them. This usually results in a
shrill-sounding, thin-sounding recording. These were mistakes, but
management said: "Ship it!". Most of these were redone in the 1990s.



Genesis: The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway

So bad you can hear the tape hiss.

Genesis had many "remasters" on their disc library and the problem is
that they used OTHER masters, so what got put on the "Remastered discs"
were really re-mixed.

They suck too, because the original cuts are what we want, not some lame
****'s choice of what to put down out of the pile of tape he has in front
of him.