"Remastering" - what it is and what is should be

[anton]

Does anyone know how reissue labels such as Proper (I'll flame them in another post) or Definitive (I like) get hold of their "masters"? Definitive for instance claims to have used "analog masters" for their remastering job. This would mean that every existing master disc (made out of lacquer?) would have been shipped over to Andorra, processed, and then returned to the US. I don't believe it. The real masters, when they exist, are probably locked up in a vault somewhere.

So how do they do it? My theory (please correct me if you have some insight into the reissue industry works) is that the big record companies in the US have already transfered most of their precious masters to analog or digital tape over the last decades. Reissue labels can then acquire copies of these tapes, which can then be EQ:ed and processed further ("remastering") by the engineers at the reissue labels. Sometimes, of course, the big labels bring out the original masters again and produce top-quality reissues such as the deluxe Charlie Christian box (one of the best remastering jobs I've ever heard).

Unless you're a really crappy reissue label, of course. Like Documents, that produce the "Portrait" 10CD boxes. Judging from the quality, they seem to have used the Chronogical Classics series as their "masters", EQ:ed the tracks in the most horrible way and then put the stuff out. Who believes me?

[Toon Town Dave]

Here's an interview with the late John R. T. Davies, one of the most respected re-masterers that explains a little about how he re-mastered.

Given the effort he went through, I don't think "re-mastering" from a digital capture is going to be as good, probably pretty bad compared to the ideal sound.

[anton]

Thanks for the interview - interesting stuff. No doubt John R. T. Davies was a master in what he did. It seems though that he mainly worked with restoring old 78s. So, he falls into the same category as Cronogical Classics (although with much better final results).

What I am really trying to get straight is, what are the possible sources for what's called "remasters"? My theory goes:

1) The original medium (master disc) onto which the track was first recorded. This is where you can find never-before heard rehearsal takes, etc. "Official" deluxe reissues, the Mosaic Box sets (?), ...

2) Good-quality 78s. They are the only option if the original master is lost. Cronogical Classics, John R.T. Davies' stuff, ...

3) Tranfers of 1), sold (licenced) to reissue labels. Proper, Definitive, ...

4) Any available sources including commercially available CDs - pirate labels such as Documents

[Toon Town Dave]

That's probably a pretty complete list of sources.

I'd consider 1 & 2 to actually be re-mastering. 3 & 4 aren't really re-mastering.

[Haydn]

These discussions are about remastering of jazz music and should be of interest -

http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=7829

http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=6877


This one's about the Proper label -

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index. ... topic=9656


There's also a mention of the term on Wikipedia -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remaster

[Haydn]

This Organissimo site's quite good.

Here's another discussion, this time about the German Membran reissue label -

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index. ... opic=24086

[Eyeball]

I knew a jazz reissue producer who owuld go around looking for old reel to reel tapes made by long out of business comapnies and he would ue those for his 'masters'. He also would use stuff from 16 inch transcriptions.

A lot of current companies simply dub commercially available CDs and even old LPs to use as their 'masters'.

78s, too, of course.

The term "remastered"m when used by non legit companies, meaning the companies that did not at one time own or do now own the original recordings, is a fairly specious word and should not be given too much credence.

[Haydn]

The term "remastered"m when used by non legit companies, meaning the companies that did not at one time own or do now own the original recordings, is a fairly specious word and should not be given too much credence.

So is it like me buying a CD, adjusting the sound, and burning a new CD with the new sound?

[Haydn]

... Sometimes, of course, the big labels bring out the original masters again and produce top-quality reissues such as the deluxe Charlie Christian box (one of the best remastering jobs I've ever heard) ...

I'm guessing you mean this box set -

http://tinyurl.co.uk/c1md

[Eyeball]

The term "remastered"m when used by non legit companies, meaning the companies that did not at one time own or do now own the original recordings, is a fairly specious word and should not be given too much credence.

So is it like me buying a CD, adjusting the sound, and burning a new CD with the new sound?

Yes.

The record business has a long history of thievery....some of it very creative.

There was discussion on some forum recently about why should a legit reissue both to produce an expensive set when some bootlegger in another country can simply copy it and reissue his own version legally due to differing copyright laws.

Back in the 40s, there was a 'scandal' when it was discovered that RCA Victor was doing custom pressing for another label...and the material they were pressing was all their own stuff. They didn't have a clue.

I have some stuff I need to remaster.

[anton]

Great pointers to those forums, Haydn! After reading through all those posts, I realize that buying a Proper or Definitive box is not much better than downloading stuff from the Internet (well, worse, since those box sets cost money). Legal issues aside, those labels risk destroying the incentive for the original master owners to release deluxe remasters in the future. Why invest a lot of money in audio restoration if anyone can use your results?

So, my conclusion is that the only way to get top-quality tracks and to support future top-notch remastering efforts is to go for the expensive stuff like the Mosaic sets.

Btw, I just got the Basie Complete Clef/Verve set and I love it! Including a detailed Producer's Note stating: "The source material for this set comes from the original analog tapes at Universal Music. However, we were not able to locate a first generation reel or lacquers for sessions (A), (B) and (K) and therefore used what is now the earliest source which are transfers from the original lacquers to reel made sometimes back in the 50's." This is exactly the kind of info I was asking for!

[Haydn]

So, my conclusion is that the only way to get top-quality tracks and to support future top-notch remastering efforts is to go for the expensive stuff like the Mosaic sets.

But as far as I know, Mosaic don't do 30s music, do they? They do later stuff.

[lipi]

mosaic does plenty of earlier stuff, as you can see on their website. bix, bunny berigan, the oop sidney bechet set someone was drooling over earlier, etc.

incidentally, i've seen quite a few accusations in those threads (and in amazon reviews) of proper, definitive, and even jsp copying mosaic sets. i've yet to find such a copy. (and, let's be honest, if i find it, i'm buying it freakin' immediately.) i'm going to take a wild guess and say half of this is in people's heads. it is, after all, far cooler to post on a forum and say "these guys are pirates!" than it is to post "these guys happened to release similar material, and they may have copied stuff, but i don't have both sets, so i didn't actually listen to them to check my theory". the one accusation i bothered to check (bunny berigan jsp/mosaic -- see the review of the jsp set on the u.s. amazon site) seems bogus. the two sets don't have the same number of tracks, davies worked with jsp on other sets, etc.

that said: the ella "everyone's wrong but me" set from membran/document is clearly a rip of the chrono classics series. (well, at least i now filled in the two chrono classics discs i could not find.)

[anton]

incidentally, i've seen quite a few accusations in those threads (and in amazon reviews) of proper, definitive, and even jsp copying mosaic sets. i've yet to find such a copy.

Still, it leaves the question of where the reissue labels actually get there masters from. The alternatives I can figure out are:

1. They legally buy copies from the master owners. (But would they be interested in selling?)

2. They find old, late-generation tapes that are probably floating around in the world (old CD, LP masters, etc.). Not legal, I would guess.

3. They rip off commerically available CD sets, add their own EQ, omit a few tracks, etc, to disguise the theft.[/quote]

[Eyeball]

Why does this puzzle you so?

The answers have been revealed to you.

These companies don;t really HAVE ANY so called "masters". It is ALL ripped off previusly issued commercial releases.

It is as simple as that.

You're getting hung up on the word "masters" as if it were the God's truth that these 'secondary companies actually have access or own any "masters".

The cases are few and far between where actual bootleggers actually had any "masters".

There were rare instances, prior to the last 20 years, where actual RCA and Columbia test pressing from the original studio recordings were in the hands of record reissue producers.

And there are times when 'subsidiary' reissue producers...like even MOSIAC, actually lease the masters from the legal owners, remaster them and issue them.

EVERYTHING ELSE is dubbed from commercially issued material either 78s, 45s, 33s, tapes, CDs, 16 inch transcriptions, whatever.

There is no mystery.