Genuine Remastering - Queen

[JackA]

Though my peers claim remastering does not include [re]mixing, and the best sound is obtained via a [spent] master tape. A friend who found my site claimed he only collects the real-deal original mixes and doesn't collect remixed "crap". For some reason he sent me Jackson Browne's, "Somebody's Baby" song. At first listening glance, I immediately knew it was remixed! Since then, not a word from him about remixed "crap". This is where I excel, knowing what is and isn't remixed.

Though little is known about Karaoke versions only marketed in Japan, the group Queen was included, as well as Van Halen, The Carpenters, even The Police. No, not rerecorded Karaoke, but original [music] backing tracks!!

The Queen Karaoke sounded pretty good, but these multi-tracks blew my mind. I did a quick mix JUST to see what I didn't hear, maybe due to an old master tape being used. When I heard the gentle tap of a cymbal [starting at 2:12] and the high-hat [below], neither of which I ever heard before, told me someone's marketing foul Queen audio!!....

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/werthechampions.mp3

Anyway, do you believe remixing session tapes provides the best possible sound quality?

I value your thoughts!! Thanks!

Jack
p.s. This, "We Are The Champions" song was a "B" side of the single. The "A" Plug-Side, "We Will Rock You" never charted!!

[JackA]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:26:21 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> Though my peers claim remastering does not include [re]mixing, and the best sound is obtained via a [spent] master tape. A friend who found my site claimed he only collects the real-deal original mixes and doesn't collect remixed "crap". For some reason he sent me Jackson Browne's, "Somebody's Baby" song. At first listening glance, I immediately knew it was remixed! Since then, not a word from him about remixed "crap". This is where I excel, knowing what is and isn't remixed.
>
> Though little is known about Karaoke versions only marketed in Japan, the group Queen was included, as well as Van Halen, The Carpenters, even The Police. No, not rerecorded Karaoke, but original [music] backing tracks!!


[Corrected "time" below. Sorry].
> The Queen Karaoke sounded pretty good, but these multi-tracks blew my mind. I did a quick mix JUST to see what I didn't hear, maybe due to an old master tape being used. When I heard the gentle tap of a cymbal [starting at 1:12] and the high-hat [below], neither of which I ever heard before, told me someone's marketing foul Queen audio!!....
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/werthechampions.mp3
>
> Anyway, do you believe remixing session tapes provides the best possible sound quality?
>
> I value your thoughts!! Thanks!
>
> Jack
> p.s. This, "We Are The Champions" song was a "B" side of the single. The "A" Plug-Side, "We Will Rock You" never charted!!

[John Williamson]

On 18/03/2015 21:26, JackA wrote:
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/werthechampions.mp3
>
And that whirring noise you hear underfoot, ladies and gentlemen, is
Freddie Mercury spinning in his grave.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 6:50:44 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 18/03/2015 21:26, JackA wrote:
> > http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/werthechampions.mp3
> >
> And that whirring noise you hear underfoot, ladies and gentlemen, is
> Freddie Mercury spinning in his grave.

As a drummer, Roger Taylor is renowned for his unique sound [thanks to Jack!!]

Jack :)
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[John Williamson]

On 18/03/2015 23:00, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 6:50:44 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 18/03/2015 21:26, JackA wrote:
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/werthechampions.mp3
>>>
>> And that whirring noise you hear underfoot, ladies and gentlemen, is
>> Freddie Mercury spinning in his grave.
>
> As a drummer, Roger Taylor is renowned for his unique sound [thanks to Jack!!]
>
What on earth has the drummer of Duran Duran got to do with a Queen
remix? You didn't get the master tapes mixed up, did you?


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 7:29:25 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 18/03/2015 23:00, JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 6:50:44 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 18/03/2015 21:26, JackA wrote:
> >>> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/werthechampions.mp3
> >>>
> >> And that whirring noise you hear underfoot, ladies and gentlemen, is
> >> Freddie Mercury spinning in his grave.
> >
> > As a drummer, Roger Taylor is renowned for his unique sound [thanks to Jack!!]
> >
> What on earth has the drummer of Duran Duran got to do with a Queen
> remix? You didn't get the master tapes mixed up, did you?

Not to worry, I'll save your pudgy fingers from searching the internet!...

"Not to be confused with Queen drummer Roger Taylor"....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Taylor_%28Duran_Duran_drummer%29

Jack

>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[[email protected]]

Don't know what JackA is thinking, but here is the
Queen drummer: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Taylor_(Queen_drummer)

[John Williamson]

On 18/03/2015 23:37, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 7:29:25 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 18/03/2015 23:00, JackA wrote:
>>> As a drummer, Roger Taylor is renowned for his unique sound [thanks to Jack!!]
>>>
>> What on earth has the drummer of Duran Duran got to do with a Queen
>> remix? You didn't get the master tapes mixed up, did you?
>
> Not to worry, I'll save your pudgy fingers from searching the internet!...
>
> "Not to be confused with Queen drummer Roger Taylor"....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Taylor_%28Duran_Duran_drummer%29
>
Some of us don't need to search the internet to know that. Some of us
also recognise when the mickey is being gently taken. ;-)


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:26:21 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> Though my peers claim remastering does not include [re]mixing, and the best sound is obtained via a [spent] master tape. A friend who found my site claimed he only collects the real-deal original mixes and doesn't collect remixed "crap". For some reason he sent me Jackson Browne's, "Somebody's Baby" song. At first listening glance, I immediately knew it was remixed! Since then, not a word from him about remixed "crap". This is where I excel, knowing what is and isn't remixed.
>
> Though little is known about Karaoke versions only marketed in Japan, the group Queen was included, as well as Van Halen, The Carpenters, even The Police. No, not rerecorded Karaoke, but original [music] backing tracks!!
>
> The Queen Karaoke sounded pretty good, but these multi-tracks blew my mind. I did a quick mix JUST to see what I didn't hear, maybe due to an old master tape being used. When I heard the gentle tap of a cymbal [starting at 2:12] and the high-hat [below], neither of which I ever heard before, told me someone's marketing foul Queen audio!!....
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/werthechampions.mp3
>
> Anyway, do you believe remixing session tapes provides the best possible sound quality?
>
> I value your thoughts!! Thanks!
>
> Jack
> p.s. This, "We Are The Champions" song was a "B" side of the single. The "A" Plug-Side, "We Will Rock You" never charted!!

John is correct, the vocals were too low (above). Also, there is no compression, no clipping here, no nothing, others than remixing, so Kman should be happy!!...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/werthechampions1.mp3

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "John is correct, the vocals were too low (above). Also, there is no compression, no clipping here, no nothing, others than remixing, so Kman should be happy!!... "

We ahould ALL be happy. Compression/
limiting in addition to any used on the original
masters is unnecessary and unauthentic
when remastering.

[geoff]

On 20/03/2015 3:39 a.m., wrote:
> JackA wrote: "John is correct, the vocals were too low (above). Also, there is no compression, no clipping here, no nothing, others than remixing, so Kman should be happy!!... "
>
> We ahould ALL be happy. Compression/
> limiting in addition to any used on the original
> masters is unnecessary and unauthentic
> when remastering.
>


Um, they don't add something to the original master. They take the
final mix-'tape' and remaster that from scratch.

geoff

[JackA]

On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 3:51:44 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 20/03/2015 3:39 a.m., wrote:
> > JackA wrote: "John is correct, the vocals were too low (above). Also, there is no compression, no clipping here, no nothing, others than remixing, so Kman should be happy!!... "
> >
> > We ahould ALL be happy. Compression/
> > limiting in addition to any used on the original
> > masters is unnecessary and unauthentic
> > when remastering.
> >
>
>
> Um, they don't add something to the original master. They take the
> final mix-'tape' and remaster that from scratch.

Now, Geoff, a serious question. Do you mean every premixed song, stereo or mono, has to be "mastered"? This is what I'm told, one person mixes (not sure what you call him, the mixer?) and another prepares it for a master tape.. Maybe edits each song for an album, maybe boosts volume and tweaks the fidelity, and he is the "masterer"? I'm guessing many tapes may be involved (various sessions), but all those are consolidated on one master tape, say for an album?

Thanks.

Jack
>
> geoff

[geoff]

On 20/03/2015 10:32 a.m., JackA wrote:
> On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 3:51:44 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>> On 20/03/2015 3:39 a.m., wrote:
>>> JackA wrote: "John is correct, the vocals were too low (above).
>>> Also, there is no compression, no clipping here, no nothing,
>>> others than remixing, so Kman should be happy!!... "
>>>
>>> We ahould ALL be happy. Compression/ limiting in addition to any
>>> used on the original masters is unnecessary and unauthentic when
>>> remastering.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Um, they don't add something to the original master. They take
>> the final mix-'tape' and remaster that from scratch.
>
> Now, Geoff, a serious question. Do you mean every premixed song,
> stereo or mono, has to be "mastered"?


Doesn't 'have' to be , but usually is as a final touch for an individual
song. But not only simply as an individual song, but to all the songs
in an album to sit well together. A very well-mixed song may not
actually need much (or anything) done to it if it is to exist in isolation.


>This is what I'm told, one
> person mixes (not sure what you call him, the mixer?) and another
> prepares it for a master tape.

Jeepers - you are quick on the uptake. From your great knowledge of
recording minutiae you will doubtless know the term Mix Engineer (such
as Bob Clearmountain), and Mastering Engineer (such as Bob Ludwig). You
will never be either, as your name isn't Bob. Or is it .....?

> Maybe edits each song for an album,
> maybe boosts volume and tweaks the fidelity, and he is the
> "masterer"? I'm guessing many tapes may be involved (various
> sessions), but all those are consolidated on one master tape, say for
> an album?

In old tape parlance, yes. More like EQs, dynamically processes, and
levels the tracks in an album. But "tweaks the fidelity" ?!!! Such
inane phrases like this give away the true nature of your posts..

geoff

[geoff]

On 20/03/2015 11:42 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:

>
> What leaves the mastering session is a sequenced medium that contains all
> the formatting information of a final release. In the case of an LP it
> would be a lacquer. In the case of a CD issue, it would be a PMCD or
> an Exabyte tape containing a DDP file, or if you are very unlucky a
> PCM 1610-format tape.

...... or this century a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM containing a DDP file.

geoff

[geoff]

On 20/03/2015 11:42 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:


> These three sessions may take place in the same building, but the mastering
> studio is a very different place than the recording studio. Many recording
> studios may be specialized too, with a room optimized for tracking and one
> optimized for mixing.


And possibly by the same person... And even all in the same room.

But any Mastering 'engineer' should audition the results in an
environment similar to where the end result is likely to be listened to.
And ideally in a variety of other environments as well.


geoff

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> What leaves the tracking session is a multitrack tape or an equivalent
> digital file.

> What leaves the mixing session (handled by the mixing engineer who may
> be the tracking engineer but may not be) is a 2-track tape or an
> equivalent digital file.

> What leaves the mastering session is a sequenced medium that contains
> all the formatting information of a final release. In the case of an LP
> it would be a lacquer. In the case of a CD issue, it would be a PMCD or
> an Exabyte tape containing a DDP file, or if you are very unlucky a
> PCM 1610-format tape. This goes directly to the pressing plant to make
> whatever is being released.

> These three sessions may take place in the same building, but the
> mastering studio is a very different place than the recording studio.
> Many recording studios may be specialized too, with a room optimized for
> tracking and one optimized for mixing.

Being broadcast based, I'm genuinely curious about why an involved
mastering stage is still needed. I do realise why it was for vinyl - but
CD, etc? I'd have thought all that would be needed after mixdown of
individual tracks might be some level only tweeks to make a cohesive
complete CD.

--
*It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[JackA]

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 3:43:15 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 20/03/2015 11:42 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>
> > These three sessions may take place in the same building, but the mastering
> > studio is a very different place than the recording studio. Many recording
> > studios may be specialized too, with a room optimized for tracking and one
> > optimized for mixing.
>
>
> And possibly by the same person... And even all in the same room.
>
> But any Mastering 'engineer' should audition the results in an
> environment similar to where the end result is likely to be listened to.


-- THAT is what I wanted to "hear"!!!

-- I only ask because, I can't say for sure (on vinyl), but two or more people generally aren't credited for "engineering". We haven't even addressed the recording engineer!!

Thanks to both of you!!

Jack


> And ideally in a variety of other environments as well.
>
>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 6:56:09 AM UTC-4, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> > What leaves the tracking session is a multitrack tape or an equivalent
> > digital file.
>
> > What leaves the mixing session (handled by the mixing engineer who may
> > be the tracking engineer but may not be) is a 2-track tape or an
> > equivalent digital file.
>
> > What leaves the mastering session is a sequenced medium that contains
> > all the formatting information of a final release. In the case of an LP
> > it would be a lacquer. In the case of a CD issue, it would be a PMCD or
> > an Exabyte tape containing a DDP file, or if you are very unlucky a
> > PCM 1610-format tape. This goes directly to the pressing plant to make
> > whatever is being released.
>
> > These three sessions may take place in the same building, but the
> > mastering studio is a very different place than the recording studio.
> > Many recording studios may be specialized too, with a room optimized for
> > tracking and one optimized for mixing.
>
> Being broadcast based, I'm genuinely curious about why an involved
> mastering stage is still needed. I do realise why it was for vinyl - but
> CD, etc? I'd have thought all that would be needed after mixdown of
> individual tracks might be some level only tweeks to make a cohesive
> complete CD.
>
> --
> *It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.
>
> Dave Plowman London SW
> To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave,

Thanks!! I'm guessing multiple people were needed, not because of expertise, but with the MANY albums, singles, etc., that had to be processed, when Big Record Companies existed, it was too much for one person to accomplish.

Jack

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Um, they don't add something to the original master. They take the
final mix-'tape' and remaster that from scratch.

geoff "


That is disappointing to hear. It opens the album up to modern
interpretation(in terms of remixing along with dynamics processing,
possibly even making some 1970s classic sound like something
from 2013!


I'm sure not all "remasters" are done in the manner you speak of,
and some are done from a final two-channel stereo master. Either
way, I've kept a wide distance from such reissues during the last
five years, and will continue to in my search for classic CD for
my collection.

[JackA]

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 9:23:56 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Um, they don't add something to the original master. They take the
> final mix-'tape' and remaster that from scratch.
>
> geoff "
>
>
> That is disappointing to hear. It opens the album up to modern
> interpretation(in terms of remixing along with dynamics processing,
> possibly even making some 1970s classic sound like something
> from 2013!
>
>
> I'm sure not all "remasters" are done in the manner you speak of,
> and some are done from a final two-channel stereo master. Either
> way, I've kept a wide distance from such reissues during the last
> five years, and will continue to in my search for classic CD for
> my collection.

When I first got internet, I bought a (Best Of?) Polydor German CD from CDNow (defunct), by the group, Player. I guess it would satisfy some, but it failed in audio quality compared to the vinyl album.

One Way Records (defunct) reissued two Player albums on one CD, and, to me, it sounds better than the vinyl LP album I had.

In other words, reissues are all over the map as far as sound quality is concerned. Hanging onto hopes of yesterday doesn't cut it.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 20/03/2015 11:42 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> JackA > wrote:
>
>> What leaves the mastering session is a sequenced medium that contains all
>> the formatting information of a final release. In the case of an LP it
>> would be a lacquer. In the case of a CD issue, it would be a PMCD or
>> an Exabyte tape containing a DDP file, or if you are very unlucky a
>> PCM 1610-format tape.
>
>..... or this century a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM containing a DDP file.

Would have to be a DVD-ROM, because the file is larger than the disc, but
that's probably the best solution. I'm still doing PMCDs with Sonic, but
I've had one test bad every once in a while too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 20/03/2015 11:42 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> These three sessions may take place in the same building, but the mastering
>> studio is a very different place than the recording studio. Many recording
>> studios may be specialized too, with a room optimized for tracking and one
>> optimized for mixing.
>
>And possibly by the same person... And even all in the same room.

I really, really would prefer if they weren't all done by the same person,
as this kind of defeats some of the point of having a second set of ears
in the mastering room checking things over.

But I WOULD like to have the same producer involved in the tracking, mixing,
and attended mastering sessions, and I'd like him to have a clue.

Sometimes you try and mix something that was tracked by someone else and
you find the piano and horn are on the same track and have to wonder if this
was done to make the horn sound fuller with the piano string resonances, or
if it was just a lack of tracks. Sometimes you hear comb filtering from
leakage of the guitar amp into the drum mike, and you wonder if the mike
placement was deliberate (to try and thin out the guitar sound) or if it
was an accident. If the producer is on the ball and involved, he can at least
explain what kind of sound he had in mind during tracking....

>But any Mastering 'engineer' should audition the results in an
>environment similar to where the end result is likely to be listened to.
>And ideally in a variety of other environments as well.

I don't think I have ever in my life seen a mastering engineer use any
check mix arrangement. I've heard producers use them and mixing engineers
use them and of course A&R guys.... "If it skips on the Close 'N Play it
doesn't leave the building" as a former studio manager used to say.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
>
>Being broadcast based, I'm genuinely curious about why an involved
>mastering stage is still needed. I do realise why it was for vinyl - but
>CD, etc? I'd have thought all that would be needed after mixdown of
>individual tracks might be some level only tweeks to make a cohesive
>complete CD.

Because you still need to lay out all the tracks in order and get levels
right and make sure the subcode bits are correct, creating an "album"
from individual songs and creating something in a format the pressing plant
can accept. This also usually involves converting from some wide word length
to 16-bit as well, putting in fades, etc.

As far as actual processing goes, sometimes there isn't any done at all
in the mastering room. Sometimes there's a whole lot. Depends on the
producer and the customer.

And sometimes, especially for classical stuff, it's possible that a teeny
tiny bit of limiting, just bringing down a handful of samples across the
entire disc, will bring the levels on the disc way up without having any
ill effect. Sometimes a teeny bit of limiting can be very harmful too.
You can listen in the mastering room and decide for yourself.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>
>-- I only ask because, I can't say for sure (on vinyl), but two or more people generally aren't credited for "engineering". We haven't even addressed the recording engineer!!

You will very seldom see the mastering engineer credited on the record jacket
but if you look at the leadout groove carefully you will see a stamp or
signature. Sometimes you'll see a funny symbol... George Piros always had a
funny GP sign kind of like the Georgia Tech Logo. Masterdisk always had a
stamp. JJ Johnson is just JJ and Europadisk pressings will have both a
Europadisk stamp and Don Grossinger's stamp. I'm just "KLUDGE" in block
letters.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 20/03/2015 14:11, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
>>
>> -- I only ask because, I can't say for sure (on vinyl), but two or more people generally aren't credited for "engineering". We haven't even addressed the recording engineer!!
>
> You will very seldom see the mastering engineer credited on the record jacket
> but if you look at the leadout groove carefully you will see a stamp or
> signature. Sometimes you'll see a funny symbol... George Piros always had a
> funny GP sign kind of like the Georgia Tech Logo. Masterdisk always had a
> stamp. JJ Johnson is just JJ and Europadisk pressings will have both a
> Europadisk stamp and Don Grossinger's stamp. I'm just "KLUDGE" in block
> letters.
> --scott
>
Talking of which, who was "Porky" in the late 60s and 70s, as in "A
Porky prime cut" in the days of Tamla Motown? He was *good*, a really
hot level on singles and no tracking problems. All our local discos
loved him.:-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 20/03/2015 14:30, John Williamson wrote:
> On 20/03/2015 14:11, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> JackA > wrote:
>>>
>>> -- I only ask because, I can't say for sure (on vinyl), but two or
>>> more people generally aren't credited for "engineering". We haven't
>>> even addressed the recording engineer!!
>>
>> You will very seldom see the mastering engineer credited on the record
>> jacket
>> but if you look at the leadout groove carefully you will see a stamp or
>> signature. Sometimes you'll see a funny symbol... George Piros always
>> had a
>> funny GP sign kind of like the Georgia Tech Logo. Masterdisk always
>> had a
>> stamp. JJ Johnson is just JJ and Europadisk pressings will have both a
>> Europadisk stamp and Don Grossinger's stamp. I'm just "KLUDGE" in block
>> letters.
>> --scott
>>
> Talking of which, who was "Porky" in the late 60s and 70s, as in "A
> Porky prime cut" in the days of Tamla Motown? He was *good*, a really
> hot level on singles and no tracking problems. All our local discos
> loved him.:-)
>
Ah, don't worry, I've found him. George "Porky" Peckham.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 10:39:03 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 20/03/2015 14:30, John Williamson wrote:
> > On 20/03/2015 14:11, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> JackA > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> -- I only ask because, I can't say for sure (on vinyl), but two or
> >>> more people generally aren't credited for "engineering". We haven't
> >>> even addressed the recording engineer!!
> >>
> >> You will very seldom see the mastering engineer credited on the record
> >> jacket
> >> but if you look at the leadout groove carefully you will see a stamp or
> >> signature. Sometimes you'll see a funny symbol... George Piros always
> >> had a
> >> funny GP sign kind of like the Georgia Tech Logo. Masterdisk always
> >> had a
> >> stamp. JJ Johnson is just JJ and Europadisk pressings will have both a
> >> Europadisk stamp and Don Grossinger's stamp. I'm just "KLUDGE" in block
> >> letters.
> >> --scott
> >>
> > Talking of which, who was "Porky" in the late 60s and 70s, as in "A
> > Porky prime cut" in the days of Tamla Motown? He was *good*, a really
> > hot level on singles and no tracking problems. All our local discos
> > loved him.:-)
> >
> Ah, don't worry, I've found him. George "Porky" Peckham.

Never heard of him, but Shorty Long - Here Comes The Judge!! :-)

When MCA purchased Motown material (late '80's?), it was written the tapes were in such poor shape, carelessly stored. But, I must say, they certainly made money off it, even in the form of true Karaoke!!

John
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[John Williamson]

On 20/03/2015 15:30, JackA wrote:
> On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 10:39:03 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 20/03/2015 14:30, John Williamson wrote:
>>> Talking of which, who was "Porky" in the late 60s and 70s, as in "A
>>> Porky prime cut" in the days of Tamla Motown? He was *good*, a really
>>> hot level on singles and no tracking problems. All our local discos
>>> loved him.:-)
>>>
>> Ah, don't worry, I've found him. George "Porky" Peckham.
>
> Never heard of him, but Shorty Long - Here Comes The Judge!! :-)
>
I doubt very much you ever heard Porky's work in America, as he cut his
masters in the UK from local or imported tapes.

> When MCA purchased Motown material (late '80's?), it was written the tapes were in such poor shape, carelessly stored. But, I must say, they certainly made money off it, even in the form of true Karaoke!!
>
It's not really surprising that they were carelessly stored, and we're
lucky they survived at all, as in the '50s, '60s and '70s, nobody really
thought that pop music of the era would have a value later. As far as
the companies (And, to an extent, the bands) were concerned, once it
dropped out of the charts, master tapes were just clutter to be kept as
long as it wasn't too much bother or expense, so the cutting masters
were left on a shelf in a cheap warehouse somewhere "just in case", and
the multi track tapes either binned, re-used or stuck on a shelf with
some notes stuck in the can. It's only in the last couple of decades
that the companies have woken up to the money to be made by mining in
the archives. It's also got a lot cheaper to keep a copy since everybody
went digital. The picture is, of course, different for the classical
labels, as they have always had a sense of the importance of the
performance and hall.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 20/03/2015 11:51 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>
> Being broadcast based, I'm genuinely curious about why an involved
> mastering stage is still needed. I do realise why it was for vinyl - but
> CD, etc? I'd have thought all that would be needed after mixdown of
> individual tracks might be some level only tweeks to make a cohesive
> complete CD.

For the different mixed tracks to sit well together.

And to give the producer a final say over the overall sound of the
finished item.

geoff

[geoff]

On 21/03/2015 2:54 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>> On 20/03/2015 11:42 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> JackA > wrote:
>>
>>> What leaves the mastering session is a sequenced medium that contains all
>>> the formatting information of a final release. In the case of an LP it
>>> would be a lacquer. In the case of a CD issue, it would be a PMCD or
>>> an Exabyte tape containing a DDP file, or if you are very unlucky a
>>> PCM 1610-format tape.
>>
>> ..... or this century a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM containing a DDP file.
>
> Would have to be a DVD-ROM, because the file is larger than the disc, but
> that's probably the best solution. I'm still doing PMCDs with Sonic, but
> I've had one test bad every once in a while too.
> --scott
>


A CD album doesn't have to be the max size possible, and the overhead
isn't *that* great !


geoff

[geoff]

On 21/03/2015 2:23 a.m., wrote:
> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Um, they don't add something to the original master. They take the
> final mix-'tape' and remaster that from scratch.
>
> geoff "
>
>
> That is disappointing to hear. It opens the album up to modern
> interpretation(in terms of remixing along with dynamics processing,
> possibly even making some 1970s classic sound like something
> from 2013!

Often that can give a huge improvement.

>
>
> I'm sure not all "remasters" are done in the manner you speak of,
> and some are done from a final two-channel stereo master. Either
> way, I've kept a wide distance from such reissues during the last
> five years, and will continue to in my search for classic CD for
> my collection.

Very few if any would be done quite that crudely. Though in early days
I suspect some masters-for-LP were simply transcribed.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff the salesman wrote: "On 21/03/2015 2:23 a.m., wrote:
> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Um, they don't add something to the original master. They take the
> final mix-'tape' and remaster that from scratch.
>
> geoff "
>
>
> That is disappointing to hear. It opens the album up to modern
> interpretation(in terms of remixing along with dynamics processing,
> possibly even making some 1970s classic sound like something
> from 2013!

Often that can give a huge improvement. "

Such "improvement" is entirely subjective, and of course I would expect
you to defend or promote such practice(you're in that business!)
I want to hear the different elements of a song in the same proportions
I've been used to hearing them for decades, and with the same dynamic
range, not some modern re envision of it, even if it was that artist's brainchild.

And as far as the "crudity" of a remaster direct from 2-track master, I'd
like to explore that in a little more depth.

[geoff]

On 21/03/2015 11:46 a.m., wrote:
> geoff the salesman wrote: "On 21/03/2015 2:23 a.m., wrote:
>> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
>> Um, they don't add something to the original master. They take the
>> final mix-'tape' and remaster that from scratch.
>>
>> geoff "
>>
>>
>> That is disappointing to hear. It opens the album up to modern
>> interpretation(in terms of remixing along with dynamics processing,
>> possibly even making some 1970s classic sound like something
>> from 2013!
> Often that can give a huge improvement. "
>
> Such "improvement" is entirely subjective, and of course I would expect
> you to defend or promote such practice(you're in that business!)
> I want to hear the different elements of a song in the same proportions
> I've been used to hearing them for decades, and with the same dynamic
> range, not some modern re envision of it, even if it was that artist's brainchild.

So listen to the old version then. I know I'd far rather listen to the
recent Abbey Road that the original CD version. And I'd rather the Dire
Straits and Supertramp re-masters I were given another attempt with
current technology (maybe they have already).

An interesting read
:https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct09/articles/beatlesremasters.htm .

Funny that this team turned out such rank-amateur results in comparison
with our JackAss. Ha.

Some 're-mastering' is truly awful. And a lot isn't, especially that
done in recent years. The horrible glary over-bright stuff from the '90s
was more a product of technologic limitations of the era.

>
> And as far as the "crudity" of a remaster direct from 2-track master, I'd
> like to explore that in a little more depth.

The original 2-track master may have been for vinyl, in which case the
dynamic range will be constricted, as would be the extremes of frequency
response.

If originally mastered for CD, then the mastering may have employed
technology of an era when higher bit-depths and sample-rates did not
exist, and may have unwanted artifacts from A-D, D-A and processing,
even if the mastering was done in the analogue domain.

[JackA]

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 7:47:41 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 21/03/2015 11:46 a.m., wrote:
> > geoff the salesman wrote: "On 21/03/2015 2:23 a.m., wrote:
> >> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> >> Um, they don't add something to the original master. They take the
> >> final mix-'tape' and remaster that from scratch.
> >>
> >> geoff "
> >>
> >>
> >> That is disappointing to hear. It opens the album up to modern
> >> interpretation(in terms of remixing along with dynamics processing,
> >> possibly even making some 1970s classic sound like something
> >> from 2013!
> > Often that can give a huge improvement. "
> >
> > Such "improvement" is entirely subjective, and of course I would expect
> > you to defend or promote such practice(you're in that business!)
> > I want to hear the different elements of a song in the same proportions
> > I've been used to hearing them for decades, and with the same dynamic
> > range, not some modern re envision of it, even if it was that artist's brainchild.
>
> So listen to the old version then. I know I'd far rather listen to the
> recent Abbey Road that the original CD version. And I'd rather the Dire
> Straits and Supertramp re-masters I were given another attempt with
> current technology (maybe they have already).
>
> An interesting read
> :https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct09/articles/beatlesremasters.htm .
>
> Funny that this team turned out such rank-amateur results in comparison
> with our JackAss. Ha.
>
> Some 're-mastering' is truly awful.

Can you be more specific? CD?

Thanks.

Jack

[JackA]

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 6:46:34 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> geoff the salesman wrote: "On 21/03/2015 2:23 a.m., wrote:
> > geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> > Um, they don't add something to the original master. They take the
> > final mix-'tape' and remaster that from scratch.
> >
> > geoff "
> >
> >
> > That is disappointing to hear. It opens the album up to modern
> > interpretation(in terms of remixing along with dynamics processing,
> > possibly even making some 1970s classic sound like something
> > from 2013!
>
> Often that can give a huge improvement. "
>
> Such "improvement" is entirely subjective, and of course I would expect
> you to defend or promote such practice(you're in that business!)
> I want to hear the different elements of a song in the same proportions
> I've been used to hearing them for decades, and with the same dynamic
> range, not some modern re envision of it, even if it was that artist's brainchild.

Then why not collect vinyl? What do you expect to gain over vinyl?
If vocals could have been clearer, you want them to remain that way?
It SEEMS your only gripe was with loudness, not sound quality.
Me, I want to hear what others preferred I didn't hear, like the cymbals on my recent Queen mix.

Jack
>
> And as far as the "crudity" of a remaster direct from 2-track master, I'd
> like to explore that in a little more depth.

[[email protected]]

JackA:

Would you also remaster the leaning tower of Pisa
so it no longer leans? Sometimes there's beauty in
those little imperfections - of legacy recordings and
of old bell towers.

And limiting or compressing the dynamics out of
something just to make those quieter portions louder and
clearer to you doesn't sound like "improving the sound
quality" to me. It sounds like fatiguing mush!

[geoff]

On 21/03/2015 2:52 p.m., wrote:
> JackA:
>
> Would you also remaster the leaning tower of Pisa
> so it no longer leans? Sometimes there's beauty in
> those little imperfections - of legacy recordings and
> of old bell towers.


With music beauty in artistic imperfections sure, but limitations of
technology of the day ?

>
> And limiting or compressing the dynamics out of
> something just to make those quieter portions louder and
> clearer to you doesn't sound like "improving the sound
> quality" to me. It sounds like fatiguing mush!
>

Can do. And sometimes judicious use of whatever process can make a
significant improvement.

Tell me that Let It Be Naked is in any way inferior to Spector's
mangling. Certainly the original is valid, but so is the remix. And the
LIB remaster is just fantastic compared to the original transfer.

geoff

[JackA]

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 7:47:41 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 21/03/2015 11:46 a.m., wrote:
> > geoff the salesman wrote: "On 21/03/2015 2:23 a.m., wrote:
> >> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> >> Um, they don't add something to the original master. They take the
> >> final mix-'tape' and remaster that from scratch.
> >>
> >> geoff "
> >>
> >>
> >> That is disappointing to hear. It opens the album up to modern
> >> interpretation(in terms of remixing along with dynamics processing,
> >> possibly even making some 1970s classic sound like something
> >> from 2013!
> > Often that can give a huge improvement. "
> >
> > Such "improvement" is entirely subjective, and of course I would expect
> > you to defend or promote such practice(you're in that business!)
> > I want to hear the different elements of a song in the same proportions
> > I've been used to hearing them for decades, and with the same dynamic
> > range, not some modern re envision of it, even if it was that artist's brainchild.
>
> So listen to the old version then. I know I'd far rather listen to the
> recent Abbey Road that the original CD version. And I'd rather the Dire
> Straits and Supertramp re-masters I were given another attempt with
> current technology (maybe they have already).
>
> An interesting read
> :https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct09/articles/beatlesremasters.htm .


Here's what they didn't say. "Even though JackA says we milked the cow Remastering The Beatles, we really didn't. It just took use 3 of the 4 years to learn how to make use of digital enhancing software!!!"

Jack :)
>
> Funny that this team turned out such rank-amateur results in comparison
> with our JackAss. Ha.
>
> Some 're-mastering' is truly awful.

[JackA]

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 9:52:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA:
>
> Would you also remaster the leaning tower of Pisa
> so it no longer leans? Sometimes there's beauty in
> those little imperfections - of legacy recordings and
> of old bell towers.

So, how do you exactly remember your music? From LPs? First pressings? The hit single 45s? Maybe reel to reel tape? Maybe cassettes? Maybe you're not old enough, but I sure Geoff remembers, I mean he was around when a fella named Edison did mastering, but maybe you, too, remember it sounding as it did over AM radio?

Not me, I want to hear my favorite songs sounding the best they can possible sound.

>
> And limiting or compressing the dynamics out of
> something just to make those quieter portions louder and
> clearer to you doesn't sound like "improving the sound
> quality" to me. It sounds like fatiguing mush!

But, unless you have something to compare to, I'd say it's difficult for you to remember how much compression was actually used.

Jack

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
geoff > wrote:
> On 20/03/2015 11:51 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> >
> > Being broadcast based, I'm genuinely curious about why an involved
> > mastering stage is still needed. I do realise why it was for vinyl -
> > but CD, etc? I'd have thought all that would be needed after mixdown
> > of individual tracks might be some level only tweeks to make a
> > cohesive complete CD.

> For the different mixed tracks to sit well together.

Yes - but is necessary to do much more than simple level matching after
the mix has been signed off?

> And to give the producer a final say over the overall sound of the
> finished item.

One keeps on reading about artists being happy with the sound of the mix
of any one track, but not of the resulting CD.

So why is the producer happy with the mixdown - but needs to alter things
at a later stage?

--
*The more I learn about women, the more I love my car

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>So, how do you exactly remember your music? From LPs? First pressings? The =
>hit single 45s? Maybe reel to reel tape? Maybe cassettes? Maybe you're not =
>old enough, but I sure Geoff remembers, I mean he was around when a fella n=
>amed Edison did mastering, but maybe you, too, remember it sounding as it d=
>id over AM radio?
>
>Not me, I want to hear my favorite songs sounding the best they can possibl=
>e sound.

Well, then forget all this audio stuff and go out and listen to some live
acoustic concerts.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > writes:

>In article >,
> geoff > wrote:
>> On 20/03/2015 11:51 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>> >
>> > Being broadcast based, I'm genuinely curious about why an involved
>> > mastering stage is still needed. I do realise why it was for vinyl -
>> > but CD, etc? I'd have thought all that would be needed after mixdown
>> > of individual tracks might be some level only tweeks to make a
>> > cohesive complete CD.

>> For the different mixed tracks to sit well together.

>Yes - but is necessary to do much more than simple level matching after
>the mix has been signed off?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

>> And to give the producer a final say over the overall sound of the
>> finished item.

>One keeps on reading about artists being happy with the sound of the mix
>of any one track, but not of the resulting CD.

That's bad mastering.

>So why is the producer happy with the mixdown - but needs to alter things
>at a later stage?

It's the distance of time from a project and moving into a different environment;
it's a different set of really skilled ears on a project with an "expanded universe"
if you will in terms of monitoring.

When I was helping some old classical music clients select a good mastering
engineer, I went to one guy I'd heard of but until then had never met. He was much
loved by those in the rock/rap/pop fields so I was apprehensive whether he'd be a
good fit.

I took along some really fine orchestral tracks I'd recorded from another group, and
with a few 1/2 dB boosts and cuts, he shocked the hell out of me as we A/B'd his
tweaks in and out. The raw tracks sounded really good, but he just managed to bring
out more. I was awed and pleased he'd found what I'd missed. We eventually went on
to do several projects together; his additions were always a big plus.

But it really depends on the guy. Another client, this time doing world music, had
already selected another engineer in town who had similar gear to the first guy.

But nice as both fellows were, one was deeply experienced and connected to the music
and did a fabulous job of supporting that music, regardless of genre, while the
other was a rock guitar player, apparently thought mastering was fun, but was a hack
at it. His ears weren't so great. During the first tune I asked, "What's that nasty
distortion on the kartels?" (Those are little finger cymbals used in classical Asian
Indian music, if I've gotten the right name and spelling.)

"What distortion?" he asked.

"There, THAT distortion. It's ripping the ears off the side of my head."

He looked at me like I was slightly looney. Normally, I'm polite but I was getting
very ****ed. The client had that deer-in-the-headlights look as two engineers were
heading toward fisticuffs.

He deflated somewhat then said, "Wull, gee, I've dialed in some tape saturation
effect with my Cranesong HEDD unit."

"Please, take it off," I said, gritting my teeth. The distortion went away, and the
bells sound crystal clear again.

Instances like that are examples of how a lot of mastering can go bad. You get
someone who doesn't have wide and deep musical experience, so-so ears, and has a "go
to" FX already in his mind for ANY project, regardless of suitability.

But done right mastering can be an extremely useful part of the production process.

However, many self-styled mastering engineers should follow the medical credo: "do
no harm". Too often they do not. There's more to mastering than sitting in front of
your home stereo and diddling with the bass and treble controls.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[[email protected]]

Frank Stearns wrote: "
>So why is the producer happy with the mixdown - but needs to alter things
>at a later stage?

It's the distance of time from a project and moving into a different environment;
it's a different set of really skilled ears on a project with an "expanded univSNIP!


The real answer?


MONEY.

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

>Frank Stearns wrote: "
>>So why is the producer happy with the mixdown - but needs to alter things
>>at a later stage?

>It's the distance of time from a project and moving into a different environment;
>it's a different set of really skilled ears on a project with an "expanded univSNIP!


>The real answer?
>MONEY.

Come now, don't be so cynical.

Yes, that is a motivation for many -- particularly the ones who are often least
adept at doing the job. (They flash and then squeeze the market, are found out, then
often disappear.)

But by the time you invest in a good room, good converters, Manley compressors along
with Weiss and Massenburg EQs, you've got a lot of capital expenditure to amortize.
Your take-home hourly rate is probably around $10-12/hour; a little more than that
once you get to be a known commodity and are good at it.

Very, very few approach anything like getting rich doing this, yet the value-add can
be worth every penny of the production cost assuming it's done right.

I don't know where you are located, but if you have the opportunity to sit in on a
real mastering session with a qualified engineer in a good room, you might be
surprised at what you hear and learn.

Ideally, for your interests, you'd want to find a session where the goal isn't
to make the product cinder-block loud. And yes, such sessions do take place.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[BBQ]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:26:13 -0700 (PDT), JackA
> wrote:

>Though my peers claim remastering does not include [re]mixing, and the best sound is obtained via a [spent] master tape. A friend who found my site claimed he only collects the real-deal original mixes and doesn't collect remixed "crap". For some reason he sent me Jackson Browne's, "Somebody's Baby" song. At first listening glance, I immediately knew it was remixed! Since then, not a word from him about remixed "crap". This is where I excel, knowing what is and isn't remixed.
>
>Though little is known about Karaoke versions only marketed in Japan, the group Queen was included, as well as Van Halen, The Carpenters, even The Police. No, not rerecorded Karaoke, but original [music] backing tracks!!
>
>The Queen Karaoke sounded pretty good, but these multi-tracks blew my mind. I did a quick mix JUST to see what I didn't hear, maybe due to an old master tape being used. When I heard the gentle tap of a cymbal [starting at 2:12] and the high-hat [below], neither of which I ever heard before, told me someone's marketing foul Queen audio!!....
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/werthechampions.mp3
>
>Anyway, do you believe remixing session tapes provides the best possible sound quality?
>
>I value your thoughts!! Thanks!
>
>Jack
>p.s. This, "We Are The Champions" song was a "B" side of the single. The "A" Plug-Side, "We Will Rock You" never charted!!

I loved the Queen and I loved (still love) these two masterpieces!

I think 70s and 80s music to be the best music we ever had, since
there was the maximum expression of creativity and freedom from music
industry.

It was a time of music experiments, and hifi was at its best. Yeah,
I'm probably old as many of you or also much older than you.

A friend was having a huge hifi system and we were passing the days
setting up harmonic exciters, equalizers, reverbs and stereo
enhancers.

No, it was not the pure original sound, but much much better. I don't
believe a live concert can please you. You must feel the frequencies
blowing your mind and if you can make that hidden instrument, or
sound, to reveal, it's a big success!
--

http://GasGrills.biz | The Best Grills Website for the Serious Griller!

[geoff]

On 22/03/2015 12:10 a.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> geoff > wrote:
>> On 20/03/2015 11:51 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Being broadcast based, I'm genuinely curious about why an involved
>>> mastering stage is still needed. I do realise why it was for vinyl -
>>> but CD, etc? I'd have thought all that would be needed after mixdown
>>> of individual tracks might be some level only tweeks to make a
>>> cohesive complete CD.
>
>> For the different mixed tracks to sit well together.
>
> Yes - but is necessary to do much more than simple level matching after
> the mix has been signed off?

Maybe be enough, and may not. And then there is tonality that may need a
touch of EQ to not make one track stick out over another like dog's
balls ...

>
>> And to give the producer a final say over the overall sound of the
>> finished item.
>
> One keeps on reading about artists being happy with the sound of the mix
> of any one track, but not of the resulting CD.
>
> So why is the producer happy with the mixdown - but needs to alter things
> at a later stage?


Up to the producer (and/or artist). Because each track is mixed in
isolation, at a different time, sometimes by different people, and maybe
even at different location(s).

geoff

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
geoff > wrote:
> > So why is the producer happy with the mixdown - but needs to alter
> > things at a later stage?


> Up to the producer (and/or artist). Because each track is mixed in
> isolation, at a different time, sometimes by different people, and maybe
> even at different location(s).

Well, yes. And the reason to use different studios and engineers may be to
get a unique sound?

--
*Eat well, stay fit, die anyway

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> In article >,
> geoff > wrote:

>> > So why is the producer happy with the mixdown - but needs to alter
>> > things at a later stage?

>> Up to the producer (and/or artist). Because each track is mixed in
>> isolation, at a different time, sometimes by different people, and maybe
>> even at different location(s).

> Well, yes. And the reason to use different studios and engineers may be to
> get a unique sound?

Nah, probably that they are en route on a tour.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

> --
> *Eat well, stay fit, die anyway
>
> Dave Plowman London SW
> To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
>In article >,
> geoff > wrote:
>> > So why is the producer happy with the mixdown - but needs to alter
>> > things at a later stage?
>
>> Up to the producer (and/or artist). Because each track is mixed in
>> isolation, at a different time, sometimes by different people, and maybe
>> even at different location(s).
>
>Well, yes. And the reason to use different studios and engineers may be to
>get a unique sound?

It might be, but it's also possibly because the band was on tour and stopped
off wherever they could along the way to lay down tracks at local studios
in whatever town they were in that week.

Or it might be because they started out in one studio but got kicked out
for smashing the windows (or they burned the place down) and had to finish
up in a second studio.

No matter WHAT happened, it's important that the mastering engineer knows
about the producer's vision and whether he wants the tracks to sound similar
or not.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 22/03/2015 11:53 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> geoff > wrote:
>>> So why is the producer happy with the mixdown - but needs to alter
>>> things at a later stage?
>
>
>> Up to the producer (and/or artist). Because each track is mixed in
>> isolation, at a different time, sometimes by different people, and maybe
>> even at different location(s).
>
> Well, yes. And the reason to use different studios and engineers may be to
> get a unique sound?
>


Yep, but it still needs to sit well with the other tracks. That does
not mean 'sound the same'.

geoff

[JackA]

On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 7:51:23 PM UTC-4, BBQ wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:26:13 -0700 (PDT), JackA
> > wrote:
>
> >Though my peers claim remastering does not include [re]mixing, and the best sound is obtained via a [spent] master tape. A friend who found my site claimed he only collects the real-deal original mixes and doesn't collect remixed "crap". For some reason he sent me Jackson Browne's, "Somebody's Baby" song. At first listening glance, I immediately knew it was remixed! Since then, not a word from him about remixed "crap". This is where I excel, knowing what is and isn't remixed.
> >
> >Though little is known about Karaoke versions only marketed in Japan, the group Queen was included, as well as Van Halen, The Carpenters, even The Police. No, not rerecorded Karaoke, but original [music] backing tracks!!
> >
> >The Queen Karaoke sounded pretty good, but these multi-tracks blew my mind. I did a quick mix JUST to see what I didn't hear, maybe due to an old master tape being used. When I heard the gentle tap of a cymbal [starting at 2:12] and the high-hat [below], neither of which I ever heard before, told me someone's marketing foul Queen audio!!....
> >
> >http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/werthechampions.mp3
> >
> >Anyway, do you believe remixing session tapes provides the best possible sound quality?
> >
> >I value your thoughts!! Thanks!
> >
> >Jack
> >p.s. This, "We Are The Champions" song was a "B" side of the single. The "A" Plug-Side, "We Will Rock You" never charted!!
>
> I loved the Queen and I loved (still love) these two masterpieces!

-- I did "We Will Rock You", too, though it appears to be shortened, I think.
>
> I think 70s and 80s music to be the best music we ever had, since
> there was the maximum expression of creativity and freedom from music
> industry.
>
> It was a time of music experiments, and hifi was at its best. Yeah,
> I'm probably old as many of you or also much older than you.
>
> A friend was having a huge hifi system and we were passing the days
> setting up harmonic exciters, equalizers, reverbs and stereo
> enhancers.
>
> No, it was not the pure original sound, but much much better. I don't
> believe a live concert can please you. You must feel the frequencies
> blowing your mind and if you can make that hidden instrument, or
> sound, to reveal, it's a big success!

Lots of '70's+ hit songs were mixed near monophonic. So few even mention that, that tells me lots of people don't actually listen to music. Not that hard to isolate instruments, but the trick is to make them sound like it was originally there. I'm like you, like all kinds of music (eras), very few actually do.

Jack
> --
>
> http://GasGrills.biz | The Best Grills Website for the Serious Griller!

[JackA]

On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 7:51:23 PM UTC-4, BBQ wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:26:13 -0700 (PDT), JackA
> > wrote:
>
> >Though my peers claim remastering does not include [re]mixing, and the best sound is obtained via a [spent] master tape. A friend who found my site claimed he only collects the real-deal original mixes and doesn't collect remixed "crap". For some reason he sent me Jackson Browne's, "Somebody's Baby" song. At first listening glance, I immediately knew it was remixed! Since then, not a word from him about remixed "crap". This is where I excel, knowing what is and isn't remixed.
> >
> >Though little is known about Karaoke versions only marketed in Japan, the group Queen was included, as well as Van Halen, The Carpenters, even The Police. No, not rerecorded Karaoke, but original [music] backing tracks!!
> >
> >The Queen Karaoke sounded pretty good, but these multi-tracks blew my mind. I did a quick mix JUST to see what I didn't hear, maybe due to an old master tape being used. When I heard the gentle tap of a cymbal [starting at 2:12] and the high-hat [below], neither of which I ever heard before, told me someone's marketing foul Queen audio!!....
> >
> >http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/werthechampions.mp3
> >
> >Anyway, do you believe remixing session tapes provides the best possible sound quality?
> >
> >I value your thoughts!! Thanks!
> >
> >Jack
> >p.s. This, "We Are The Champions" song was a "B" side of the single. The "A" Plug-Side, "We Will Rock You" never charted!!
>
> I loved the Queen and I loved (still love) these two masterpieces!

Here's - We Will Rock You. It isn't shortened as I initially thought. At one time, these two songs were played back to back on radio...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/wewillrockyou-rm.mp3

Jack



>
> I think 70s and 80s music to be the best music we ever had, since
> there was the maximum expression of creativity and freedom from music
> industry.
>
> It was a time of music experiments, and hifi was at its best. Yeah,
> I'm probably old as many of you or also much older than you.
>
> A friend was having a huge hifi system and we were passing the days
> setting up harmonic exciters, equalizers, reverbs and stereo
> enhancers.
>
> No, it was not the pure original sound, but much much better. I don't
> believe a live concert can please you. You must feel the frequencies
> blowing your mind and if you can make that hidden instrument, or
> sound, to reveal, it's a big success!
> --
>
> http://GasGrills.biz | The Best Grills Website for the Serious Griller!

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> geoff > wrote:
> >On 20/03/2015 11:42 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> JackA > wrote:
> >
> >> What leaves the mastering session is a sequenced medium that contains all
> >> the formatting information of a final release. In the case of an LP it
> >> would be a lacquer. In the case of a CD issue, it would be a PMCD or
> >> an Exabyte tape containing a DDP file, or if you are very unlucky a
> >> PCM 1610-format tape.
> >
> >..... or this century a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM containing a DDP file.
>
> Would have to be a DVD-ROM, because the file is larger than the disc, but
> that's probably the best solution. I'm still doing PMCDs with Sonic, but
> I've had one test bad every once in a while too.
> --scott

Last three masters with which I have been assocated were DDP files FTP'd
to the plant.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:

> In article >,
> geoff > wrote:
> > On 20/03/2015 11:51 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Being broadcast based, I'm genuinely curious about why an involved
> > > mastering stage is still needed. I do realise why it was for vinyl -
> > > but CD, etc? I'd have thought all that would be needed after mixdown
> > > of individual tracks might be some level only tweeks to make a
> > > cohesive complete CD.
>
> > For the different mixed tracks to sit well together.
>
> Yes - but is necessary to do much more than simple level matching after
> the mix has been signed off?

Dave, why expect a general rule, when down to it, each product is a bit
different than the rest? One set of mixes for an album might need
nothing but ISRC and metadata additions, and the next set of mixes might
take lots of work, particularly with EQ, to sit well together.

> > And to give the producer a final say over the overall sound of the
> > finished item.
>
> One keeps on reading about artists being happy with the sound of the mix
> of any one track, but not of the resulting CD.

So many possibilities, but these days a primary driver of
dissatisfaction is the mess made of the mixes on the sonic battlefield
of the loundess war.

> So why is the producer happy with the mixdown - but needs to alter things
> at a later stage?

When I take a set of mixes into Jerry Tubb's mastering studio in Austin
I will hear things that escaped notice in the mix room of the studio
mixing environment. His room is single-purpose, and tweaked to very fine
point. _All_ the money got spent on acoustics and playback. Even with
Duntechs in both settings, in Jerry's room finer details will be
perceived. We deal with those details in that mastering stage.

I'm not talking about being unhappy with the mixes. If it hit me that
hard I go mix again. It's down to the last little details, often tiny
elements that improve cohesiveness of the sequence of tracks. In my case
I also do not need to screw around with some label honcho wanting to
**** it all up with crush. Still, the finished product enjoys a more
refined presentation via the work done in mastering.




--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Frank Stearns > wrote:

> writes:
>
> >Frank Stearns wrote: "
> >>So why is the producer happy with the mixdown - but needs to alter things
> >>at a later stage?
>
> >It's the distance of time from a project and moving into a different
> >environment; it's a different set of really skilled ears on a project
> >with an "expanded univSNIP!
>
>
> >The real answer?
> >MONEY.
>
> Come now, don't be so cynical.

He is not being cynical. He is trolling.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:

> In article >,
> geoff > wrote:
> > > So why is the producer happy with the mixdown - but needs to alter
> > > things at a later stage?
>
>
> > Up to the producer (and/or artist). Because each track is mixed in
> > isolation, at a different time, sometimes by different people, and maybe
> > even at different location(s).
>
> Well, yes. And the reason to use different studios and engineers may be to
> get a unique sound?

Sometimes, but more often because artists work as they travel to
perform, using studios where they find them, or at a lower level, they
work in spurts as they gather enough money for the next track, and book
whatever studio(s) they can get. Often, as a result, due to the vareity
of rooms and playback systems and engineers, the mixes sit poorly
together, and it's the mastering engineer's job to fix that.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic