Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Remastering early digital recordings (Read 4289 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Remastering early digital recordings

Hello all --

I found an interesting thread on this topic from a while back, but it quickly devolved into a tiresome back-and-forth about stamping errors and jitter and other such phantoms that I'm not particularly interested in. So I'd like to try again... I have a good familiarity with all the technology, and I'm interested in the mechanics and the various approaches of remastering digital recordings from, say, 1984-1992. My intuition is that engineers often take the analog copy of the master that was made at the time and re-master from that, as opposed to going back to the Sony 3324 multitrack or the original digital master itself, if that's even possible. (I have heard of this for a fact in the remasterings of the "Poltergeist" and "The Black Hole" soundtracks by MGM; the engineers said that they had to go back to analog copies made at the time because the Soundstream masters obviously either don't exist or aren't playable.)

I have a number of questions about this process with slightly more modern, non-Soundstream recordings. Let's take a couple albums of the vintage and sound I am interested in for illustration purposes: Pet Shop Boys "Actually," Elton John "Sleeping with the Past," and the "Top Gun" soundtrack. (You may be horrified that I am interested in these albums, but please bear with me.) I choose these because I have original-issue CDs and fairly recent remasters of all three.

There are a couple of theoretical questions I have. First, because the remasters don't sound like remixes, it seems likely to me that they went from analog master copies. If so, wouldn't that represent a major--in relative mastering terms--change in the sound from the original? Even if the original digital sound on the CD is quiet and harsh, wouldn't that be closer to the sound of the actual recording, what they heard in the studio, than a remaster from an analog copy of that same material? (And in the case of the "Top Gun" soundtrack, wasn't it a joke to issue it on SACD because the original recordings were (I'm pretty sure) done on 16-bit Sony machines?)

My other questions are more mechanical: How did studios go about making these purported analog master copies in the first place? (Was it done pre-mastering processing?) And was the mastering done with an undisclosed analog stage anyway, getting the unmastered album from the recording studio to the mastering house? Or was the 1610 and 1630 good for transferring digital unmastered albums to the mastering houses?

In other words, I guess, I'm wondering in what sense these original CDs are direct digital representations of the recordings. (They must have gone through numerous A-D/D-A conversions so how accurately can they represent the original recordings?) If it would be possible to extract the bits off of some original recordings and re-mix/master from those, would that possibly produce a better result than just going with the analog copy made at the time?

Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated.

Patrick

Remastering early digital recordings

Reply #1 –
I don't see why you would assume that in the presence of digital masters (i.e., from recordings made entirely in the digital realm) an engineer would resort to an analog copy.

It seems more likely to me that in that time period many recordings were still originating on analog media prior to any digitizing, and thus the analog master may indeed be the closest thing to "original".

A remaster (that is, a revision of a 2 track mixed recording) is really a reflection of current technology and aesthetic. Early CDs sounded "harsh" for several reasons, among them the fact that mastering engineers were very much accustomed to mastering for LPs and cassettes. The same techniques and "rules of thumb" that had served them well for years now resulted in hard edged recordings. Over the years this has changed, and that is the primary justification for a remaster IMHO.

I will also note that in that time period home playback equipment changed considerably. A typical decent home loudspeaker circa 1978 is a very different animal from its modern cousin. Modern speakers are generally much brighter and have better bass extension and control due to advances in design and manufacture. Old speakers were much more forgiving of the high frequency distortion that plagued LP recordings.

Remixing is much, much more difficult and is thus rarely done unless the recording is of extraordinary value. To accurately duplicate all the instrument balances, placement and cuts of analog multitracks made 30+ years ago is a tall order!

Remastering early digital recordings

Reply #2 –
Quote
it seems likely to me that they went from analog master copies

Unless you have some tangible reason to believe that, I'd say it's a pretty big error to do so.  Why is it that you consider the existence of "analog master copies" to be such a given?  Why do you think the remastering/remixing engineers are using them?

Remastering early digital recordings

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Curtor on
Quote
it seems likely to me that they went from analog master copies

Unless you have some tangible reason to believe that, I'd say it's a pretty big error to do so.  Why is it that you consider the existence of "analog master copies" to be such a given?  Why do you think the remastering/remixing engineers are using them?


I guess I'm thinking this because of the following: What were the media for storing two-track unmastered albums digitally before the advent of DAT or ADAT, which weren't really around until say 1991? It would be 1610 or 1630 or some now-completely outmoded format like DASH or ProDigi. We know that the CD masters were stored on there, but what about the unmastered stuff? I had heard stories about there being analog backups of those other early digital recordings that I mentioned. So I was kind of wondering whether these remasters of 80s digital recordings were actually coming from unmastered digital mixdown tapes. I guess it's completely possible that they are.

However, in thinking some more about it, I would posit that an analog tape of the unmastered mixdown would probably be a better source to master from than a digital tape of the same source, because the digital tape would have gone through another round of A/D conversion because the signal chain would not have been completely digital. I'm wondering if anyone has experience with this, I can't seem to find much info on it, and I'm very interested in the sound and era of the recordings I'm talking about.

Remastering early digital recordings

Reply #4 –
I have PSB "actually". IIRC it states DDD on the label. I'd be interested to hear the remaster - what have they done?


Many engineers have worked in digital, bounced to analogue, and then mastered the CD from that analogue tape, just to get the sound of analogue tape. They like it. It's a "nice" form of compression.


Many CDs sound harsh simply because the EQ on them is very harsh. I don't buy the argument that engineers "kept doing what they had always been doing" to create this, though this is often stated. I think they had yet another format to master, and when it wasn't selling well (compared to, say, vinyl), they just didn't take care with it. What you hear on harsh CDs as an unmastered sound.

As Pio2001 has shown, you can often re-EQ a harsh CD to match the contemporary vinyl, and the "home remastered" CD sounds as good, if not better.

New remasters often smash the dynamics to modern levels, and this isn't good.


To answer your question, I don't know - but if you upload some bit-accurate rips to compare, then it might be possible to do some detective work.

Cheers,
David.