Remastering – (boy can it suck)

Message

Bob the Builder · #1 Post by **Bob the Builder** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:07 pm

I’m very quickly coming to the conclusion that 50% of the re-mastering work what is being done is just really bad, bad work man ship and quality.
I recently bought two cds off the Ocium Label (a Spanish label) and despite the care put into some multi-media extras on the CD’s the re-mastering is just really, really bad. The mid-highs sound like they are clipped and some of the mid-lows sound fuzzy. The thing is that these are 1950-52 recordings. Re-mastering should not be difficult.
Them aside, when I get in new CD’s where one or two of the track I have already, I generally like to do a sound comparison to them. Inevitably the track with out any re-mastering is the track I prefer. It will have a much fuller sound, a better degree of depth (even if it’s a mono recording) and it has a much better quality across its frequency range.
It kind of saddens me that much of the small number of CD’s that are being issued now are less quality than what was released 15 years ago. It does get back to the discussion about the record business, but I’m going to be very slow to buy “Re-mastered recordings” in the future if I can instead get my hands on an older un-mastered issue.

Brian

trev · #2 Post by **trev** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:29 pm

If i find the keywords "audio restoration" in the description of the disc i'm generally more optimistic about the quality of the remastering.

$5 CDs proclaiming "digitally remastered" by an anonymous source? No thanks.

Jerry_Jelinek · #3 Post by **Jerry_Jelinek** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:35 am

I find myself dissapointed at times. That is one reason I pick and choose the CDs based on the label very important.

At the top of my list is Mosaic of course. Always excellent quality. The highest priced sets. But the quality is always top notch.

I find Proper to be of this same quality. Excellent quality, good liner notes and great value.

Classics label for me is hit and miss. I have found some very good recordings and some dogs. I think for the higher price they command, it is a iffy buy. Thus I don't have as many Classics releases in my collection.

Jasmine I find to be of good quality. I have a handful of releases and all sound great.

These are just of the top of my head.

julius · #4 Post by **julius** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:07 pm

I've often wondered why you can't take two separate records (each presumably beat up to hell) of the same recording and somehow mathematically extract the sound while eliminating the scratches and hiss, since the scratches and hiss are different between the records but the music is the same.

Bob the Builder · #5 Post by **Bob the Builder** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:53 pm

Classics Label don't re-master, which is one reason I really like them. I also have no problem with their extra cost in comparison to other labels. By working through a Classics set of CD's you can pick up a much more comprehensive set of recordings, in stead of buying double the amount of CD's from multiple labels in order to do the same.
The only problem with Classics it that they don't always use the best recording master.
I don’t have much Proper CD’s but I do find them good. Most of the Tracks I do have off proper are off good Masters anyway. I would really like to hear what Proper would do with some bad Masters.
Trev, In general I would agree, but I have found it’s not always a cheap CD vs. an expensive CD. I’ve bought some $4 CDs that have been re-mastered a lot better than $30 re-mastered CD’s.

Brian

GemZombie · #6 Post by **GemZombie** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:42 pm

Of course they remaster. They might not do processing, but they definitely re-master. The original masters of all of our beloved vintage music would have been on a deteriorated format that would definitely be re-mastered in some way.

Bob the Builder · #7 Post by **Bob the Builder** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:58 pm

GemZombie wrote:Of course they remaster. They might not do processing, but they definitely re-master. The original masters of all of our beloved vintage music would have been on a deteriorated format that would definitely be re-mastered in some way.

I should have clarified in my first post. We are talking about Digitally enhancing the sound of tracks in the re-mastering stage. I apoligise for any confusion.
I have never come across (to date) any liner notes on the Classes label where they say they have Digitally enhanced any of their CD’s.

Brian

julius · #8 Post by **julius** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:34 pm

I think the phrase 'remastering' is all-encompassing and can include any of the following alterations: scratch/pop removal, pitch correction, equalization, stereo imaging. Basically it means producing a new master from which subsequent copies are made. I would assume Chronogical (sic) Classics would remaster everything they are putting out at least as far as scratch removal.

I would love to hear something like Chronogical Classics but with all the scratches and pops left in, just EQ and balance to make the sound right for modern stereo systems. My ears do a pretty good job of scratch removal sometimes!

Lawrence · #9 Post by **Lawrence** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:26 pm

Any time you tinker with the mastering, you run the risk of making it worse despite your best intentions. I'd say that your 50% awful rate is common among cheap-o vintage CDs, but not so much for major labels. The Verve remasters (typically in cardboard jewel cases) are all absolutely phenomenal.

AlekseyKosygin · #10 Post by **AlekseyKosygin** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:01 pm

Bob the Builder wrote:Classics Label don't re-master, which is one reason I really like them. I also have no problem with their extra cost in comparison to other labels. By working through a Classics set of CD's you can pick up a much more comprehensive set of recordings, in stead of buying double the amount of CD's from multiple labels in order to do the same.
The only problem with Classics it that they don't always use the best recording master.
Brian

Not sure why throwing a disc in front of a microphone should make a label eligible to charge you MORE money for a CD...but Classics has been going that route the entire time, true I'd rather have no remastering than bad remastering but I've talked to librarians at the Jazz Institute in Newark who say that guy will fly in to play the records there right off the turntable and record them with a basic mike, fly back to France and basically put them out without doing a thing to the recordings...sometimes I wonder if they even clean the dust off of the 78's... : )

Alex

Charleston Charlie · #11 Post by **Charleston Charlie** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:43 pm

I just bought two cd's from the Vintage Music Productions label - "Ina Ray Hutton & Her Melodears", and a Boswell Sisters title. Sharp songs, but there is this maddening intermittent hiss on some/most of the tracks (haven't listened to each to able to say for sure)

Is there anything I can do about it? It doesn't sound to me like that the hiss was part of the recordings; because it tends to be uniform, but intermittent.

I thought that perhaps I could try remastering them myself.

Any suggestions on software? Thanks for any replies, kids.