Define "Remastered"

[Penny Dreadful]

What does it mean when they say an album has been "Remastered?"

Does this mean they take the album, go over it with a fine tooth comb and make adjustments where they feel it's necessary?
ie...boost the drums here, or drop back the guitar in this part. Things like that?

 

[middy]

In the literal sense it means taking the already mixed source be it analog or digital and reprocessing the final mastering which includes everything from spacing songs, balancing song volume levels as well as overall album volume, compressing and limiting to eq, reverb and much more. Basically redoing the final polishing which can have a dramatic effect on the overall feel and charachter both dynamically and artistically even. I really don't know if the term "remastered" has been generalized in the industry in recent years to also include messing with the original mix itself. Someone way more knowledgable could probably answer that.

 

[Freddy G]

When you hear the term "remastered" its usually about bringing the RMS or loudness of the record up to today's standards. The loudness wars have been insidiously making releases louder and louder (and the trade off is the loss of dynamic range).
Mastering or remastering is not the same as remixing but if the brickwall limiting is severe enough it can seem as if it were remixed. For example, if you make a hot master of a classic old record that has subtle low level material in the mix, the low level stuff is not so low level anymore and will stand out more. You can hear this effect on things like reverb, which are low level in a normal state. But when limited hard the same track will sound wetter because the peaks are being lowered closer to the level of the reverb.

 

[middy]

When you hear the term "remastered" its usually about bringing the RMS or loudness of the record up to today's standards. The loudness wars have been insidiously making releases louder and louder (and the trade off is the loss of dynamic range).

Mastering or remastering is not the same as remixing but if the brickwall limiting is severe enough it can seem as if it were remixed. For example, if you make a hot master of a classic old record that has subtle low level material in the mix, the low level stuff is not so low level anymore and will stand out more. You can hear this effect on things like reverb, which are low level in a normal state. But when limited hard the same track will sound wetter because the peaks are being lowered closer to the level of the reverb.

I'd have to agree that the primary reason for remastering is to bring the RMS up. I'm sure there are the exceptions such as a poor job mastering in the first place.
I really dislike the whole crushed BW effect. It's everywhere. I love synthesizers and I used to cut through Macys to get to my morning coffee shop. This particular area in Macys always had synth driven instrumental music on fairly loud. Not my cup of tea musically but I'll stop and listen to anything if it has interesting aspects to it. I stopped one day in the middle of the aisle and thought there's a million synths going in this tune, it's kranked through some decent speakers in a dept store with 30ft high ceilings. Why the heck is this so uninspiring to someone who stopped and watched a guy play the spoons in the subway for 15 minutes the other day. It's because it was so compressed and limited it took every fascinating buzz, nuance, morph, filter effect and tickle out of every single synth track the song had to offer. Why even bother. Even the bass becomes a dull thud.

 

[Penny Dreadful]

Thanks for the information guys.

I have a remastered "Sgt. Pepper" and compared it to a first edition Pepper cd that was released in the late 80's.

There is a huge difference. The bass alone was really pushed hard in the mix, and the separation of instruments was very noticable. It was much more musical if thats the proper term to use. I enjoyed the remastered cd much more than the original. But, I suppose that is the point of remastering as you lads have stated.

I also believe the original was in mono back in 1967. So there was no where to go but up. lol

 

[Username1]

Thanks for the information guys.

I have a remastered "Sgt. Pepper" and compared it to a first edition Pepper cd that was released in the late 80's.

There is a huge difference. The bass alone was really pushed hard in the mix, and the separation of instruments was very noticable. It was much more musical if thats the proper term to use. I enjoyed the remastered cd much more than the original. But, I suppose that is the point of remastering as you lads have stated.

I also believe the original was in mono back in 1967. So there was no where to go but up. lol

i have the remastered beetles, and before i had most of them from the 87 (?) releases and most of the records-- the remasters sound pretty good, slightly louder than their 87 counterparts, but i wasn't much impressed by it

The original was mixed and released both in mono and stereo. The Beatles and George Martin over saw the mixing of the mono master as it was the standard of the day, stereo was considered a kind of gimmick, this eventually changed, but you should give some of their mono records a list, ESPECIALLY sgt peppers. The bass kicks you in the face and feels like a road map to the rest of the song, where the poor 60's stereo separation kind of exposes weakness, quiets rhythm parts, and makes doubled voices really apparent, hard panned vocals (so annoying)-- the mono is tight, delicious, and deep, deep! The only drawback to the remastered mono is it's incredibly quiet, i'm talking quiet to old pre loudness wars standards

 

[rockstar232007]

The first "Remastered" album I ever bought was LZ. After listening to the original back-to-back, they were like night and day.

 

[SKATTERBRANE]

Too bad they did not REMIX the Revolver album to put the vocals in the center, like they did with the Yellow Submarine Songbook from 1999. I want ALL the Beatles songs to have the vocals in the center. They originally able to do it from A Hard Day's night up EXCEPT for the entire album Rubber Soul and select songs from albums since Rubber Soul. Compare Elenor Rigby on Revolver to Elenor Rigby on Yellow Submarine Songbook, or Nowhere Man on Rubber Soul to the same song on Yellow Submarine Songbook, and you will see what I mean.

 

[JCM900MkIII]

Remaster example that doesn't just cover loudness:


Original
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbxxTbuolms]Jerusalem - Sleep - YouTube[/ame]


Remaster
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dZFH2M_9VY]Sleep: Dopesmoker (remastered) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Penny Dreadful]

Remaster example that doesn't just cover loudness:


I can notice the difference big time. I also believe that song shows a good example of tube sag. Sounds good though, it's got that vibe.

 

[ginormous]

There's another side to remastering: restoration. For example, when the original tape is so aged and torn up that the waveforms practically have to be redrawn by hand, or when there's nothing left of the original sessions, and the only thing left is vinyl/acetate or 3rd gen safety copies. Those may require serious clean-up, EQ and noise reduction.

I'm of the opinion that if the source material has been well-preserved, and is still good quality, then leave it alone. Don't boost the RMS for the sake of being louder.

 

[martin H]

Amother aspect of "remastering" is that the original master tape may not reflect what was actually on the original vinyl version of the album. Some of the 60's and 70's cutting engineers added their own compression and eg tweaks between the master tape and the disk master. The Beatles were a prime example of this, in that EMI's disk cutters rolled the bass off all the early records because they believed that a strong bass signal made the stylus more likely to "skip" and this would lead to returned records. When Capitol got ahold of the second Beatles album, their engineers compleltly re-eq it "to American standards" during the disk mastering process, and , I belive, added some reverb as well!

Amuseingly, when the early recordings were first re-issued, I remember complaints about the "obnoxious over boosted bass" compared to the original recordings. In fact it was the opposite. We were hearing the true master tape for the first time.

 

[SKATTERBRANE]

Loud bass takes up space on vinyl. Master tapes typically have lower and louder bass than records do (did)

 

[Username1]

When Capitol got ahold of the second Beatles album, their engineers compleltly re-eq it "to American standards" during the disk mastering process, and , I belive, added some reverb as well!

Fun fact, Yes ALOT of reverb was added to the American Beatle releases.

You wanna know how they did this?

So at the bottom of the Capitol Records building they have a big fvcking parking lot-- you know underground concrete, etc etc (think All The President's Men) They would replay the songs and record them echoing off the walls of these underground parking lots god, Capitol butchered The Beatles worse then Lorena Bobbitt

 

[Leendrix]

Great information posted so far. But why are there standards as to how loud a track should be? If there is more dynamic in an old version of a song, why mess with it? Given the night and day difference.

Basically, doesn't the "level matching" to match a track to today's standards hurt the track, since music is mixed so loudly now a day's?

 

[Username1]

Great information posted so far. But why are there standards as to how loud a track should be? If there is more dynamic in an old version of a song, why mess with it? Given the night and day difference.

Basically, doesn't the "level matching" to match a track to today's standards hurt the track, since music is mixed so loudly now a day's?

FWIW i hate how loud music is mastered these days, you can't hear any of the subtle dynamics-- it's just a gun being shot by your ear, sure you hear the blast, but that's about all you hear.

 

[Freddy G]

Great information posted so far. But why are there standards as to how loud a track should be?

Simply put, labels don't want their new release to be quieter than the last guy. They want it to sound louder and more attention grabbing. That's why it's referred to as "loudness wars". But the problem is we've run out of room on digital medium (long ago) and now the only way to get it louder is to severely limit the dynamics. That's why it's insidious.

 

[Username1]

Simply put, labels don't want their new release to be quieter than the last guy. They want it to sound louder and more attention grabbing. That's why it's referred to as "loudness wars". But the problem is we've run out of room on digital medium (long ago) and now the only way to get it louder is to severely limit the dynamics. That's why it's insidious.

new material hurts my ears, i always have to turn my stereo down at least by 10 notches when i'm switching from something from the 60s or 70s to something contemporary.

Funny thing i have a album from The Strokes on record and it's incredibly quiet! i didnt understand this as the record was made in 2006 and the CD counterpart is loud as hell, until i realized they probably couldn't put it that loud on wax because the needle might jump off the groove

 

[Leendrix]

Simply put, labels don't want their new release to be quieter than the last guy. They want it to sound louder and more attention grabbing. That's why it's referred to as "loudness wars". But the problem is we've run out of room on digital medium (long ago) and now the only way to get it louder is to severely limit the dynamics. That's why it's insidious.

It's an unfortunate thing.

I remember David Gilmour saying in a interview, "A good mix is like a performance". I guess most people would rather compete with others than sound best. I really admire that about your mixes, Freddy. You don't get caught up in the war.

 

[Freddy G]

It's an unfortunate thing.

I remember David Gilmour saying in a interview, "A good mix is like a performance". I guess most people would rather compete with others than sound best. I really admire that about your mixes, Freddy. You don't get caught up in the war.

Thanks! But really, I am caught up in it, I just have my limits. I don't ever like to go beyond approx. -12db RMS. I try to make it loud enough to satisfy a client yet still retain dynamic range.
The most liberating mixes for me however are mixes that are not meant to translate to anywhere other than the room that I'm mixing in. That is awesome. Let me explain, when mixes are released for the public to play in their own systems you have to worry about the mix translating to all different types of speakers, systems, listening volumes and a lot of other variables.
But when I'm creating something for a specific room (for instance when I do a sound design for live theatre), I make it sound fantastic for that venue and that venue alone. I don't give a damn about what it sounds like anywhere else because it will never be played anywhere else. Live sound mixing is another example...it's exactly the same. The mix lives and breaths in the very moment, you use all your instincts and just make it sound as good as you can, doing whatever you have to do to get it. You never have to second guess what you are doing because the moment is there and gone. In the studio, you have time to sweat over things, to make adjustments, listen, tweak, second guess, and ultimately risk losing the raw in the moment gut instincts that force you to be sharp.