Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

.... is to know the song(s) well enough to make it even better than the previous stereo mix!! Sadly, a lot of people who Remastered were in it for money only, never to compete with sound quality. I like Scott's "Transfer Jockies", as that is all most did, transferred analog to digital! Major accomplishment!!

I wasn't a big Van Halen fan, but this song is nice. After mixing, I listened to it, the original mix, online, JUST to compare. I attempted to mix more stereo into it, unlike lazy people don't!! Recording engineers are a dime a dozen.

Anyway, from 1979, Dance The Night Away, with non-faded ending. Feel free to throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at me if you wish, if it sounds that bad!!!

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...enightaway.mp3

Jack
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

JackA while you're at it: Repaint the Cistine Chapel ceiling and
straighten out the Leaning Tower too!

...some things just shouldn't be messed with....
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Angus Kerr Angus Kerr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters


I wasn't a big Van Halen fan, but this song is nice. After mixing, I listened to it, the original mix, online, JUST to compare. I attempted to mix more stereo into it, unlike lazy people don't!! Recording engineers are a dime a dozen.

Anyway, from 1979, Dance The Night Away, with non-faded ending. Feel free to throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at me if you wish, if it sounds that bad!!!

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...enightaway.mp3

Jack


I am struggling to find out why you would bother to fiddle with remixing and remastering old songs.

I also think that too much credit is given to music or mastering or whatever that was done in the past. I mean, at the time, it was just a job of many that the mastering engineer had to do. And in the time of LP's mastering had more meaning than it has today, not to say that I am an old timer, when CD's came out I was one of the first to buy a player, because I was just so sick and tired of buying an LP, and listening to the crackle and hiss of a bad pressing.

Remastering is tricky. I'm a big Led Zeppelin fan, and my brother got the remastered (by Jimmy Page himself) box set of all of the albums when it came out. 'Whole lotta love' is one of my favourite songs, and I remember thinking to myself, what happened to that lovely ballsy bottom end of the original? The newer, improved, remastered version was sanitized and just didn't move me at all. It was all tight and controlled and I immediately made sure that I had the original copy secured.

I say leave well alone, I mean can you really do better than the original mix? I am pretty sure that the producer and engineer had the mix exactly as they wanted it, and if the producer wanted more stereo he would have asked for it. I don't really enjoy hard panned instruments, they kind of take your attention from where it should be - bit parts start to grab your attention when they shouldn't.

I mean there are fads going around, and there always will be , and that's fine, but I kind of like to listen to something with an idea of a sense of space around the instruments and singer, like you would experience in a love theatre or room. YMMV.

Not that I'm going to stop you, but I really wonder why.....

-Angus.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Angus Kerr Angus Kerr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

-snip-
I wasn't a big Van Halen fan, but this song is nice. After mixing, I listened to it, the original mix, online, JUST to compare. I attempted to mix more stereo into it, unlike lazy people don't!! Recording engineers are a dime a dozen.

Anyway, from 1979, Dance The Night Away, with non-faded ending. Feel free to throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at me if you wish, if it sounds that bad!!!

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...enightaway.mp3

Jack


I am struggling to find out why you would bother to fiddle with remixing and remastering old songs.

I also think that too much credit is given to music or mastering or whatever that was done in the past. I mean, at the time, it was just a job of many that the mastering engineer had to do. And in the time of LP's mastering had more meaning than it has today, not to say that I am an old timer, when CD's came out I was one of the first to buy a player, because I was just so sick and tired of buying an LP, and listening to the crackle and hiss of a bad pressing.

Remastering is tricky. I'm a big Led Zeppelin fan, and my brother got the remastered (by Jimmy Page himself) box set of all of the albums when it came out. 'Whole lotta love' is one of my favourite songs, and I remember thinking to myself, what happened to that lovely ballsy bottom end of the original? The newer, improved, remastered version was sanitized and just didn't move me at all. It was all tight and controlled and I immediately made sure that I had the original copy secured.

I say leave well alone, I mean can you really do better than the original mix? I am pretty sure that the producer and engineer had the mix exactly as they wanted it, and if the producer wanted more stereo he would have asked for it. I don't really enjoy hard panned instruments, they kind of take your attention from where it should be - bit parts start to grab your attention when they shouldn't.

I mean there are fads going around, and there always will be , and that's fine, but I kind of like to listen to something with an idea of a sense of space around the instruments and singer, like you would experience in a live theatre or room. YMMV.

Not that I'm going to stop you, but I really wonder why.....

-Angus.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

Angus Kerr wrote: "but I really wonder why..... "


Something to ask the record labels. And
to ask someone here who gets really ****ed
off at any mention of the topic of this thread.


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 8:25:13 AM UTC-4, Angus Kerr wrote:
-snip-
I wasn't a big Van Halen fan, but this song is nice. After mixing, I listened to it, the original mix, online, JUST to compare. I attempted to mix more stereo into it, unlike lazy people don't!! Recording engineers are a dime a dozen.

Anyway, from 1979, Dance The Night Away, with non-faded ending. Feel free to throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at me if you wish, if it sounds that bad!!!

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...enightaway.mp3

Jack


I am struggling to find out why you would bother to fiddle with remixing and remastering old songs.

I also think that too much credit is given to music or mastering or whatever that was done in the past. I mean, at the time, it was just a job of many that the mastering engineer had to do. And in the time of LP's mastering had more meaning than it has today, not to say that I am an old timer, when CD's came out I was one of the first to buy a player, because I was just so sick and tired of buying an LP, and listening to the crackle and hiss of a bad pressing.

Remastering is tricky. I'm a big Led Zeppelin fan, and my brother got the remastered (by Jimmy Page himself) box set of all of the albums when it came out. 'Whole lotta love' is one of my favourite songs, and I remember thinking to myself, what happened to that lovely ballsy bottom end of the original? The newer, improved, remastered version was sanitized and just didn't move me at all. It was all tight and controlled and I immediately made sure that I had the original copy secured.

I say leave well alone, I mean can you really do better than the original mix? I am pretty sure that the producer and engineer had the mix exactly as they wanted it, and if the producer wanted more stereo he would have asked for it. I don't really enjoy hard panned instruments, they kind of take your attention from where it should be - bit parts start to grab your attention when they shouldn't.

I mean there are fads going around, and there always will be , and that's fine, but I kind of like to listen to something with an idea of a sense of space around the instruments and singer, like you would experience in a live theatre or room. YMMV.

Not that I'm going to stop you, but I really wonder why.....

-Angus.


Angus, a very fair question to ask. If audio was meant to be heard one way, there would have been no quadraphonic, Surround Sound, Stereo and/or Mono, etc..

My goal was to find something "unusual" about US Top 40 songs, even a simple count-off is welcomed. A co-worker found a Rolling Stones tune on YouTube that he knew I'd be interested in. The next day when I asked for the link, it had been removed from YouTube, since it involved multi-tracks. Later, I track these multi-tracks down and find some of my favorite song, unedited, possibly never to be published. It's the same with Van Halen tunes, the hits fade, but the multi-tracks continue on - just what I was looking for.

Some songs were remixed, like All Right Now, by the group, Free, in 1991, and it recharted, Top 10, in the UK. So, who really says a song should only sound one way? Besides, after I heard (multi-tracks of) Band On The Run (McCartney), I lost all respect for Abbey Road. Obviously, someone there didn't like McCartney or their audio skills were meant to butcher the song.

Finally, I lost interested in stereo sound when man HAD TO have a zillion tracks (staring early 70's) to record with and away went the thrill of Stereophonic Sound.

Jack
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 8:25:13 AM UTC-4, Angus Kerr wrote:
-snip-
I wasn't a big Van Halen fan, but this song is nice. After mixing, I listened to it, the original mix, online, JUST to compare. I attempted to mix more stereo into it, unlike lazy people don't!! Recording engineers are a dime a dozen.

Anyway, from 1979, Dance The Night Away, with non-faded ending. Feel free to throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at me if you wish, if it sounds that bad!!!

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...enightaway.mp3

Jack


I am struggling to find out why you would bother to fiddle with remixing and remastering old songs.

I also think that too much credit is given to music or mastering or whatever that was done in the past. I mean, at the time, it was just a job of many that the mastering engineer had to do. And in the time of LP's mastering had more meaning than it has today, not to say that I am an old timer, when CD's came out I was one of the first to buy a player, because I was just so sick and tired of buying an LP, and listening to the crackle and hiss of a bad pressing.

Remastering is tricky. I'm a big Led Zeppelin fan, and my brother got the remastered (by Jimmy Page himself) box set of all of the albums when it came out. 'Whole lotta love' is one of my favourite songs, and I remember thinking to myself, what happened to that lovely ballsy bottom end of the original? The newer, improved, remastered version was sanitized and just didn't move me at all. It was all tight and controlled and I immediately made sure that I had the original copy secured.

I say leave well alone, I mean can you really do better than the original mix? I am pretty sure that the producer and engineer had the mix exactly as they wanted it, and if the producer wanted more stereo he would have asked for it. I don't really enjoy hard panned instruments, they kind of take your attention from where it should be - bit parts start to grab your attention when they shouldn't.

I mean there are fads going around, and there always will be , and that's fine, but I kind of like to listen to something with an idea of a sense of space around the instruments and singer, like you would experience in a live theatre or room. YMMV.

Not that I'm going to stop you, but I really wonder why.....

-Angus.


p.s. Led Zeppelin? Jimmy Page? At a website where you had to give to get (the new mentality of file trading), they had the multi-tracks to four Zeppelin songs, second album, out of place. I was neat to hear the REAL endings to the songs, but YOU had to mix....

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...whatwillbe.mp3

Thanks, Jimmy Page?

Jack
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 5:35:31 AM UTC-4, wrote:
JackA while you're at it: Repaint the Cistine Chapel ceiling and
straighten out the Leaning Tower too!

..some things just shouldn't be messed with....


Okay, so you brought us brick-walled complaints. That is good. But, if you're actually happy with everything else, I question why you are here? Personally, I am not happy with what my peers accomplished on audio CD. I really don't care to hear someone else tweak the sound of a spent master tape.

Jack
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Angus Kerr Angus Kerr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 3:51:32 PM UTC+2, JackA wrote:
-snip-
Not that I'm going to stop you, but I really wonder why.....

-Angus.


Angus, a very fair question to ask. If audio was meant to be heard one way, there would have been no quadraphonic, Surround Sound, Stereo and/or Mono, etc..

My goal was to find something "unusual" about US Top 40 songs, even a simple count-off is welcomed. A co-worker found a Rolling Stones tune on YouTube that he knew I'd be interested in. The next day when I asked for the link, it had been removed from YouTube, since it involved multi-tracks. Later, I track these multi-tracks down and find some of my favorite song, unedited, possibly never to be published. It's the same with Van Halen tunes, the hits fade, but the multi-tracks continue on - just what I was looking for.

Some songs were remixed, like All Right Now, by the group, Free, in 1991, and it recharted, Top 10, in the UK. So, who really says a song should only sound one way? Besides, after I heard (multi-tracks of) Band On The Run (McCartney), I lost all respect for Abbey Road. Obviously, someone there didn't like McCartney or their audio skills were meant to butcher the song.

Finally, I lost interested in stereo sound when man HAD TO have a zillion tracks (staring early 70's) to record with and away went the thrill of Stereophonic Sound.

Jack


ramble

Look, whatever floats your boat, that's fine.

From what I've been told, from the mid sixties till the early seventies, the state of the art tape recorder was a Studer J37, which did a whole 4 tracks. I think they might have been able to sync two together to get 8, but a lot of the early stuff like beatles, doors etc, was in quasi stereo, where the final 2 tracks were separate tracks with no panning in between at all. As I have been told, you recorded 2 tracks or 3 tracks and then bounced them down to 1, even maybe while playing live with the 3 playing leaving 3 free tracks. The limitations of the day means you weren't able to bounce down to a stereo pair, since you could only start with 2 tracks anyway.

I would have thought they monitored in mono when they mixed the final tracks. What amazes me is how well balanced some of that stuff sounds, considering that in some the kit and bass are on one channel and the vocals and guitars are on the other.

I'm sure when 24 track 2" came around in the early seventies, people breathed a sigh of relief, because if you were running 4 or 8 tracks, you really had to plan your production, and you could find later on that the composite track didn't really sit well in the mix, there wasn't much you could do.....I really take my hat off to those early pioneers, because they made great sounding records with gear that is much more limited than the average guy nowadays has in the most basic of systems.

When I started recording, all I had was an 8 track, and if you wanted to record a band, your setup for a fully miked up kit would be kick, snare, 1 for toms, 2 overheads (5 tracks) and 1 more for a mash up for everything else on a mono guide track (bass, guitars, vocals etc). You then bounce the kit to a stereo pair, while eqing, gating and compressing whole shebang (kick drum and snare and overheads for what you hope will work in the final mix), and then cross fingers that you've got the levels and eq good enough that the song works. Once you start recording overdubs over the separate drum tracks, there's no going back. And you've only got 6 tracks left. Bass, guitars and vocals and backing vocals. Maybe another submix, and then a finger riding old school mix with manual 'automations' of reverb sends, muting, etc.

The mix was a performance in itself, I often had all my fingers busy once I had upgraded to 16 tracks, and if you mad a mistake, you started again. Once you were happy with the mix, you reset the desk for the next song. If a remix was required, you would have to set up all the eq, reverbs, compressors and whatever else you had going, and start again.

So that's a small glimpse of what the engineers and producers had to do. No automation, until the late 80's (I think) and even then only the most expensive studios had that.

I started in the late nineties, I was using 2 synchronised 8 track hard disk recorders, each of which had a 500MB hard drive that could do 20 minutes of audio! To back up the sessions, it did this via stereo optical pair 2 tracks at a time to a DAT machine, the 20 minutes of 16 track audio took 160 minutes! Just last night, I transferred 275MB of audio onto a friends cell phone in a matter of seconds.

But, I do think bear in mind what people, particularly in the sixties had to work with and what constituted a 'mix'. It was manual, and extremely limited.

I still think it's much better to develop your skills by taking a multitrack from a band you don't know, recorded in a rubbish space and make it sound amazing.

/ramble

-Angus.
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 8:32:04 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Angus Kerr wrote: "but I really wonder why..... "


Something to ask the record labels. And
to ask someone here who gets really ****ed
off at any mention of the topic of this thread.


Even The Beatles are getting an audio face-lift....

http://www.amazon.com/CD-Blu-ray-Aud...84AJ4H 8RK5NB

Jack


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

On 02/10/2015 19:39, Angus Kerr wrote:
But, I do think bear in mind what people, particularly in the sixties had to work with and what constituted a 'mix'. It was manual, and extremely limited.

I still think it's much better to develop your skills by taking a multitrack from a band you don't know, recorded in a rubbish space and make it sound amazing.

Or, better still, take a multitrack (Ideally one you have recorded
yourself) of a band that you do know in real life, and mix it with at
least one band member present. Then you can discover what musicians like
to hear, and find out at least some of the real life restrictions the
mix engineers that JackAss so despises had to deal with when they were
producing the hits of yesteryear.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 5:00:36 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/10/2015 19:39, Angus Kerr wrote:
But, I do think bear in mind what people, particularly in the sixties had to work with and what constituted a 'mix'. It was manual, and extremely limited.

I still think it's much better to develop your skills by taking a multitrack from a band you don't know, recorded in a rubbish space and make it sound amazing.

Or, better still, take a multitrack (Ideally one you have recorded
yourself) of a band that you do know in real life, and mix it with at
least one band member present. Then you can discover what musicians like
to hear



I know what they'd (past artists) LOVE to hear, their hit song remixed and recharting AGAIN! What you mention makes ME think of Stereo reproduction. Sadly, I had to answer my own question, why I prefer Stereo over Mono. If you don't know what the difference is, you shouldn't be involved with audio, period.

Jack


, and find out at least some of the real life restrictions the
mix engineers that JackAss so despises had to deal with when they were
producing the hits of yesteryear.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.


  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 2:39:55 PM UTC-4, Angus Kerr wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 3:51:32 PM UTC+2, JackA wrote:
-snip-
Not that I'm going to stop you, but I really wonder why.....

-Angus.


Angus, a very fair question to ask. If audio was meant to be heard one way, there would have been no quadraphonic, Surround Sound, Stereo and/or Mono, etc..

My goal was to find something "unusual" about US Top 40 songs, even a simple count-off is welcomed. A co-worker found a Rolling Stones tune on YouTube that he knew I'd be interested in. The next day when I asked for the link, it had been removed from YouTube, since it involved multi-tracks. Later, I track these multi-tracks down and find some of my favorite song, unedited, possibly never to be published. It's the same with Van Halen tunes, the hits fade, but the multi-tracks continue on - just what I was looking for..

Some songs were remixed, like All Right Now, by the group, Free, in 1991, and it recharted, Top 10, in the UK. So, who really says a song should only sound one way? Besides, after I heard (multi-tracks of) Band On The Run (McCartney), I lost all respect for Abbey Road. Obviously, someone there didn't like McCartney or their audio skills were meant to butcher the song.

Finally, I lost interested in stereo sound when man HAD TO have a zillion tracks (staring early 70's) to record with and away went the thrill of Stereophonic Sound.

Jack


ramble

Look, whatever floats your boat, that's fine.


I like YOU! :-)
Thanks. It just keeps me occupied. It's fun, and that's the most important thing. Sounds like you were busy in the past recording and such. I never got that chance.

But making a rubbish sounding recording sparkle is sometime next to impossible. Maybe the rubbish sound needs more sparkle, but no sparkle is there. Sure, you could ADD to the song, a tambourine, cymbals, but I don't feel that's being fair. BUT, Angus, one music group got so mad, they decided to SUE, because studio musicians made the multi-tracks, not only sound (content) VERY close to the hit, but improved audio quality. It was one time, actually, a couple times, studio musicians and recording engineers replicated (or exceeded) what others had done in the past!

So, may I have your opinion... do you feel great audio quality is important to achieve a hit record?

Thanks!

Jack


From what I've been told, from the mid sixties till the early seventies, the state of the art tape recorder was a Studer J37, which did a whole 4 tracks. I think they might have been able to sync two together to get 8, but a lot of the early stuff like beatles, doors etc, was in quasi stereo, where the final 2 tracks were separate tracks with no panning in between at all.. As I have been told, you recorded 2 tracks or 3 tracks and then bounced them down to 1, even maybe while playing live with the 3 playing leaving 3 free tracks. The limitations of the day means you weren't able to bounce down to a stereo pair, since you could only start with 2 tracks anyway.

I would have thought they monitored in mono when they mixed the final tracks. What amazes me is how well balanced some of that stuff sounds, considering that in some the kit and bass are on one channel and the vocals and guitars are on the other.

I'm sure when 24 track 2" came around in the early seventies, people breathed a sigh of relief, because if you were running 4 or 8 tracks, you really had to plan your production, and you could find later on that the composite track didn't really sit well in the mix, there wasn't much you could do.....I really take my hat off to those early pioneers, because they made great sounding records with gear that is much more limited than the average guy nowadays has in the most basic of systems.

When I started recording, all I had was an 8 track, and if you wanted to record a band, your setup for a fully miked up kit would be kick, snare, 1 for toms, 2 overheads (5 tracks) and 1 more for a mash up for everything else on a mono guide track (bass, guitars, vocals etc). You then bounce the kit to a stereo pair, while eqing, gating and compressing whole shebang (kick drum and snare and overheads for what you hope will work in the final mix), and then cross fingers that you've got the levels and eq good enough that the song works. Once you start recording overdubs over the separate drum tracks, there's no going back. And you've only got 6 tracks left. Bass, guitars and vocals and backing vocals. Maybe another submix, and then a finger riding old school mix with manual 'automations' of reverb sends, muting, etc.

The mix was a performance in itself, I often had all my fingers busy once I had upgraded to 16 tracks, and if you mad a mistake, you started again. Once you were happy with the mix, you reset the desk for the next song. If a remix was required, you would have to set up all the eq, reverbs, compressors and whatever else you had going, and start again.

So that's a small glimpse of what the engineers and producers had to do. No automation, until the late 80's (I think) and even then only the most expensive studios had that.

I started in the late nineties, I was using 2 synchronised 8 track hard disk recorders, each of which had a 500MB hard drive that could do 20 minutes of audio! To back up the sessions, it did this via stereo optical pair 2 tracks at a time to a DAT machine, the 20 minutes of 16 track audio took 160 minutes! Just last night, I transferred 275MB of audio onto a friends cell phone in a matter of seconds.

But, I do think bear in mind what people, particularly in the sixties had to work with and what constituted a 'mix'. It was manual, and extremely limited.

I still think it's much better to develop your skills by taking a multitrack from a band you don't know, recorded in a rubbish space and make it sound amazing.

/ramble

-Angus.


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

On 2/10/2015 10:22 PM, Angus Kerr wrote:
I also think that too much credit is given to music or mastering or
whatever that was done in the past. I mean, at the time, it was just
a job of many that the mastering engineer had to do. And in the time
of LP's mastering had more meaning than it has today, not to say that
I am an old timer, when CD's came out I was one of the first to buy a
player, because I was just so sick and tired of buying an LP, and
listening to the crackle and hiss of a bad pressing.


Same here.

Remastering is tricky. I'm a big Led Zeppelin fan, and my brother got
the remastered (by Jimmy Page himself) box set of all of the albums
when it came out. 'Whole lotta love' is one of my favourite songs,
and I remember thinking to myself, what happened to that lovely
ballsy bottom end of the original? The newer, improved, remastered
version was sanitized and just didn't move me at all. It was all
tight and controlled and I immediately made sure that I had the
original copy secured.

I say leave well alone, I mean can you really do better than the
original mix?


Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The idea that the original mix is *always*
perfect makes me laugh. And in the old days there were often completely
different mono and stereo mixes. Which was perfect? Now there are often
radio, CD, club and other mixes. Which is perfect?
IME often none of them, and I am quite happy to remaster todays pop
songs to suit myself. (not remix since I don't have the original
multitracks) That is often just removing the (c)Rap bit that many
artists now seem to think is necessary to sell a few more copies.
(Why do artists like Alicia Keys think it is necessary? Probably stupid
A&R people I guess, that was usually the case in the old days anyway :-(


I am pretty sure that the producer and engineer had the
mix exactly as they wanted it,


I am sure they thought so, whether we must always agree with them is
another matter. And as you said, they often change their mind as well.

Trevor.

  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 2/10/2015 10:22 PM, Angus Kerr wrote:
I also think that too much credit is given to music or mastering or
whatever that was done in the past. I mean, at the time, it was just
a job of many that the mastering engineer had to do. And in the time
of LP's mastering had more meaning than it has today, not to say that
I am an old timer, when CD's came out I was one of the first to buy a
player, because I was just so sick and tired of buying an LP, and
listening to the crackle and hiss of a bad pressing.


Same here.

Remastering is tricky. I'm a big Led Zeppelin fan, and my brother got
the remastered (by Jimmy Page himself) box set of all of the albums
when it came out. 'Whole lotta love' is one of my favourite songs,
and I remember thinking to myself, what happened to that lovely
ballsy bottom end of the original? The newer, improved, remastered
version was sanitized and just didn't move me at all. It was all
tight and controlled and I immediately made sure that I had the
original copy secured.

I say leave well alone, I mean can you really do better than the
original mix?


Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The idea that the original mix is *always*
perfect makes me laugh. And in the old days there were often completely
different mono and stereo mixes. Which was perfect? Now there are often
radio, CD, club and other mixes. Which is perfect?
IME often none of them, and I am quite happy to remaster todays pop
songs to suit myself. (not remix since I don't have the original
multitracks) That is often just removing the (c)Rap bit that many
artists now seem to think is necessary to sell a few more copies.
(Why do artists like Alicia Keys think it is necessary? Probably stupid
A&R people I guess, that was usually the case in the old days anyway :-(


I am pretty sure that the producer and engineer had the
mix exactly as they wanted it,


I am sure they thought so, whether we must always agree with them is
another matter. And as you said, they often change their mind as well.


My experience with Producers - is they get involved in music since it's easy money. Not sure what they actually produced, since it varies all over the map!Many Producer cashed in on audio CD, since THEY held multi-tracks and such. Philadelphia producers are not "nice" people, but producers like Mel Shaw, in Canada (The Stampeders producer) are very nice!

Glad to see another who doesn't believe music should sound one way only and that people who mix the tracks caused the song to chart!! Really?

Jack


Trevor.




  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default Objective of Anyone Who Remasters

On 02-10-2015 13:22, Angus Kerr wrote:

I am struggling to find out why you would bother to fiddle
with remixing and remastering old songs.


+1. To learn to mix go to http://www.raw-tracks.com and buy some tracks
to mix, only allowed distribution is upload to that site, you can then
link to your tracks.

-Angus.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen




Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Beatles Mono Remasters anthony High End Audio 0 November 21st 09 08:30 AM
Remasters UC High End Audio 60 November 13th 09 01:28 AM
Beatles remasters heading to USB haligonab Pro Audio 0 November 10th 09 10:57 PM
Beatles Remasters [email protected] Pro Audio 15 June 7th 09 01:10 PM
Beatles remasters MiNe 109 Audio Opinions 18 April 8th 09 04:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:24 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"