Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author | ||||
Drew 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: June 20 2005 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 12600 |
 Topic: Re-mastered?Posted: May 26 2008 at 12:37 |
|||
|
What does this really mean? How is the audio improved? Is it really improved?
Edited by Drew - May 26 2008 at 12:49 |
||||
|
|
||||
 |
||||
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: May 27 2008 at 03:40 |
|||
|
Depends who does it.
Remastering means going back to the original master tape and creating a new master source... Hold on... let's *rewind* a little (or maybe someone else can describe it more clearly/accurately!)...
The tape that contains the final mix by the engineer is the master tape, but the master source could be the "Father" platter used in creating a vinyl record, or the source CD that the retail copies are taken from.
Mastering is essentially the process of equalising the sound so that it still conveys the music properly on the new medium; Vinyl has a smaller dynamic range than tape, so traditionally, engineers would roll off the treble and bass (especially the bass, which had the tendency to make the grooves run into each other if it was too high - Chris Squire must've given a couple of engineers a headache!).
For CD, it's still a process of EQ'ing - but as I understand it, the process is a lot more complex and depends greatly on who is doing it and for whom;
For the iPod market, the music has to have a fairly flat dynamic range - people don't like to constantly turn the music up in quiet bits or down in the loud sections.
For the audiophile, this simply won't do - every aspect of the dynamic is relished.
Hence you see "Audiophile pressings" and suchlike - almost invariably of a much higher quality, and mastered at half speed so that more data is transferred from the source.
In summary, it depends. Re-mastered can simply mean re-eq'd from the old analogue mix to suit digital media - but which digital media is anyone's guess.
Some are good (e.g. the 24-bit reMastering of Marillion's "Script for a Jester's Tear"), while some are awful (e.g. the Quiex pressing of Led Zeppelin II, which is faster, and the pitch is not preserved, giving an awful quasi Micky-Mouse sound to Plant's vocals and suchlike).
So it depends
 |
||||
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sacred 22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 24 2006 Status: Offline Points: 1509 |
Posted: May 27 2008 at 03:51 |
|||
|
The original analog tapes are stored away in vaults and kept in pretty good order. As time goes by technology improves. When CD was first introdced the analog to digital equipment of the day was not to the same standard as it is now. As a result, many of the early CD's produced sounded harsh and overly bright and this was primarily due to jitter which is a form of digital distortion and poor filtering. Take those same analog tapes and use the equipment that is available today what with higher sampling rates, and bit depth not to mention much lower jitter than ever before and presto, you have a remastered digital copy of the original analog tapes. With DSP (digital signal processing) you can remove all the unwanted artifacts such as noise etc etc and now you have a CD remaster that sounds as good as the original analog tape.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: May 27 2008 at 04:45 |
|||
|
^I maintain it depends - just because you have a way of re-EQ'ing (which is all it boils down to) it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to make it sound better. And most (if not all) noise removal tools also remove "desirable" noise which is part and parcel of the original sound. It is entirely debatable (and there is no satisfactory technical answer) that any remaster is "as good as the original".
Also, not all tapes are kept in good order - and every time they're exposed to the elements, they degrade. Some of the stories I've heard from engineers about some masters would make you weep - one particular story I heard involved the master tape of "DSoTM"...
Listen to an original vinyl press of the album (1st press, naturally!), then listen to any subsequent release.
I defy anyone to actually prefer a later pressing.
|
||||
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
||||
|
||||
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005 Location: NE Indiana Status: Offline Points: 28057 |
Posted: May 27 2008 at 04:48 |
|||
|
An animal sacrifice is sometimes involved.
When one fails to appease the Master Tape god, bad things happen (re: Vapor Trails) |
||||
|
||||
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21206 |
Posted: May 27 2008 at 05:20 |
|||
Of course that's a definitive advantage of a digital recording process ... no tapes need to be stored, and digital backups can be made of the original recordings. |
||||
|
||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: May 27 2008 at 17:41 |
|||
|
It's not entirely down to the EQ'ing - though that is largely a matter of taste and preference rather than restricted by the recording medium, the major part of re-mastering is in the compression of the music after Equalisation has been applied. To my ears this is the most noticeable affect of re-mastering. In the past compression was used to limit the 'width' of the groove on the vinyl so more music could be recorded on a single side of the 12" disc(consider the visible groove difference between a 12" single and a 12" LP), in the digital realm you do not have this limitation, so can afford a wider dynamic range (the difference between quiet passages and loud).
In theory digital music should have wider dynamic range than vinyl, in reality it does not.
Unfortunately a wide dynamic range does not suit modern listening (small speakers, cheap headphones, pc-speakers etc.), so modern music is heavily compressed to make it all sound louder overall in what has been called "The Loudness War" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war]
|
||||
|
What?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Drew
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2005 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 12600 |
Posted: May 27 2008 at 19:51 |
|||
|
AWESOME guys- Thanks so much
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sacred 22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 24 2006 Status: Offline Points: 1509 |
Posted: May 27 2008 at 21:14 |
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: May 28 2008 at 04:31 |
|||
Yup - good point.
Equalisation is changing the frequency envelope of a sound. ALL effects do that, including compression. I simply wasn't making the distinction... just using EQ as shorthand
Don't get me started on digital compression...  Edited by Certif1ed - May 28 2008 at 04:32 |
||||
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: May 28 2008 at 04:38 |
|||
Eventhough the ADC's used in the 80s were 'inferior' to those used today, the bottom line is the data encoded on a CD is still 16-bits sampled at 44.1KHz regardless of the sampling frequency and the number of bits on the digital master. All you can compare between the ADCs of then and now is the Signal-to-Noise ratio and the Total Harmonic Distortion - these improvements are practically lost when the data is re-sampled to 16-bits @ 44.1KHz. Re-mastered CDs are effectively a downgrade of the digital master. You cannot even guage the 'improvements' of higher bit-rate 24-bit encoding of downloads when the original source material was lifted from the CD since any over-sampling and interpolation is an artifical recreation.
|
||||
|
What?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dick Heath
Special Collaborator
Jazz-Rock Specialist Joined: April 19 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 12813 |
Posted: May 28 2008 at 07:24 |
|||
|
If you want a reference point to what remastering can do, compare Deep Purple's In Rock on vinyl released in the early 70's against the remaster CD.
|
||||
|
The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS.
CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
||||
|
||||
|
TGM: Orb
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: October 21 2007 Location: n/a Status: Offline Points: 8052 |
Posted: May 28 2008 at 07:53 |
|||
|
Interesting thread
 |
||||
|
||||
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: May 28 2008 at 08:28 |
|||
That'd be interesting - the (1st press) vinyl absolutely ROCKS - not nearly as much as Led Zep II, but it's still a building-shaker on the right system.
(Note the lack of EMI logo - the subsequent EMI pressings weren't nearly as good)
 |
||||
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: May 28 2008 at 18:45 |
|||
|
Oh, to heck with it all, let's just stick to live music, like the good old days before any recording methods were invented.
|
||||
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sacred 22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 24 2006 Status: Offline Points: 1509 |
Posted: May 29 2008 at 02:46 |
|||
Intermodulation distortion is the one we have to worry about the most. This kind of distortion produces audio frequencies that are not related to the original music tones and most of this is a result of poor filtering and high jitter levels. We are still left with the original 44.1 KHz sample rate and 16 bit depth but the newer digital gear deals with the problem of jitter and filtering to a far better degree and as a result the sound is cleaner. Unother words we are left with less of those unwanted intermodulation distortion artifacts.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: May 29 2008 at 02:46 |
|||
If you don't want to discuss the topic or contribute to the thread, then feel free to not post. Edited by Certif1ed - May 29 2008 at 02:47 |
||||
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: May 31 2008 at 20:25 |
|||
Intermodulation Distortion, being non-harmonic, is reflected in the SNR figures and the effect of clock jitter on SNR is well documented (aka aperture error). The effects of jitter on a 16-bit coder are negligible compared to the quantisation error, so regardless of the number of bits in the source (24-bits digital or infinite-bits analogue) the 96dB absolute minimum noise-floor of a 16-bit digital signal is still the defining factor. Improvements in clock stability techniques have not improved the characteristics of 16-bit converters - what it has led to is the ability to make viable 24-bit converters.
The major filter (if not the only filter) in an ADC is the anti-aliasing filter which prevents spurious signals greater than 22.05kHz being aliased into the audio band - if the source is taken from master tape then there will be none of those frequencies present in the original recording anyway, all the anti-aliasing filters do is prevent any external signals from affecting the recording. Raising the sampling frequency to 192kHz has meant that making anti-aliasing filters has become easier since lower order (hence cheaper) filters can be used.
|
||||
|
What?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sacred 22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 24 2006 Status: Offline Points: 1509 |
Posted: June 01 2008 at 00:26 |
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
mystic fred
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 13 2006 Location: Londinium Status: Offline Points: 4252 |
Posted: June 17 2008 at 15:27 |
|||
I was very surprised to read this, last year i bought one of the Quiex Zeppelin albums to try and was very impressed at the sound quality, even against the original pressings. I subsequently bought all the other Zeppelin recordings among others. The worst quality vinyl "audiophiles" would be "Simply Vinyl" and much maligned "Arkarma" records made in Italy, though i have some very decent Arkama records.
Anyway to prove or disprove the above claims highlighted in red i decided to do a listening / timing test of my own on my Roksan Xerxes turntable with Rega arm between -
1. 1969 1st pressing plum/red near mint vinyl Atlantic copy of "Led Zeppelin 2" , (side 1)
2. mint copy of Quiex vinyl Led Zeppelin 2. ( side 1)
3. "remastered" CD copy of Led Zeppelin 2 (first 4 tracks)
On listening to the original pressing (1) , despite very slight surface noise and a little grain in the highs (these pressings were designed to play on 1969 equipment so are a little sharp) overall sound was rich, loads of bass, space and very involving. music time start to finish for side 1 clocked in at 21 minutes and 28 seconds.
Compared to the original the Quiex (2) was, as expected, quieter in the surface noise department but had lost none of the original music's excitement and involvement - the searing highs, metallic tings of Bonzo's cymbals and deep bass were all there, and the sound level was identical. Many claim these recordings have better detail than the original but i will be conservative and say it's exactly the same, though i was sure i caught a few extra details i hadn't noticed before in the mix. clocking in at 22 minutes and 5 seconds, this was 37 seconds longer than the original, so the "faster speeding up mickey mouse/donald duck" theory is - well, "mickey mouse" !!
Listening to the JP remastered CD (3) directly after the vinyl seemed slightly disappointing - i used my best CD player, a supposedly lively and analogue-sounding Rega Apollo, but it was as if a thin veil had been placed over the music, with the same volume setting the music sounded quieter, though slightly tidier the result was less exciting and less involving, in a word - "dry". I suppose a twiddle with the tone and volume controls could have livened it up but to keep the test fair and honest left them alone. time between tracks 1 and the end of track 4 "Thankyou" clocked in at 21 minutes and 17 seconds, a nano-tad faster than the original vinyl pressing!
so marks out of ten i would give the Quiex 9, the original Atlantic copy 8 (though not bad for 39 years old and many plays) , and the CD a slightly disappointing 6.
The Quiex recordings of Led Zeppelin are now deleted and as a result are fetching around 70 to 100 pounds each to buy, EX or NM copies of the original can be bought slightly cheaper, and the CD for a couple of pounds.
As for "remastering" i would add this - back in 1983 CD's were a sonic disaster, as they were direct transfers from analogue tapes, and most people were playing their vinyl on crappy music centres so the brand new CD system sounded "better". They, the manufacturers, found the original masters had to be re-eq'd, compressed and digitised for successful transfer to the digital 16 bit CD medium for best results, and so today's recordings are much much better, especially the 24 bit recordings, but still not as involving as vinyl in my opinion, many CD players still suffer from jitter and sampling problems .
do the ruddy test yourself if you don't believe me - don't listen to gossip!
Edited by mystic fred - June 18 2008 at 02:13 |
||||
 Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Re-mastered?
Topic Options
Certif1ed wrote:
