New topic
Printablewahclavinet said: This has been a great thread. I noticed that we are not all on the same page with some of the terms being used, and it's pretty easy to mix them up without realizing it. One easy way to understand these terms is to just take the "re"s out...
The making of a CD involves three steps - 1. Recording 2. Mixing 3. Mastering. And if you add "re" to the beginning of any of these terms, it just means one of these steps is being done a second time, for example when older material is being worked on at a later date, like is the case with Ultimate. Step 1, Recording, is when the individual musical elements are put on tape (or nowadays on a hard drive) either one at a time like Prince often does, or all at once, like in a live recording. Either way, the result is a whole bunch of tape (or hard drive) tracks containing all of these elements separately. Step 2, Mixing is taking all of these individual musical elements and blending them together, or mixing them, into one stereo recording. Step 3, Mastering is the final preparation of the stereo recording created in step 2 for the intended format (i.e. CD, Vinyl, cassette, etc.), where the various frequencies (i.e. highs, mids and lows) are tweaked and also the dynamic range (the range between soft and loud sounds) is limited via compression. So, when a CD is "re"-mastered, what is being done is Step 3 only. Sometimes CDs are remixed from the original master tapes AND remastered, but those are two different steps, and doing both of these steps is a lot more rare than just remastering. So, if a CD is only advertised as being remastered, then Step 3 is all they are claiming to have done. Maybe they will "get" it this time around. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
It doesn't really matter what the technical definitions are. To the man on the street, in common parlance, the word "remastered" printed on a record cover would suggest a remix from the original source tapes.
Adjusting the EQ of an original master should be par for the course these days anyway, so why make it a selling-point? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Surely then, by this definition, the Hits and Very Best of were also remastered. There is no way all the tracks on these compilations would have played at the same volume without step 3 being undertaken… Yet these two compilations make no claims about remastering. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Rebeljuice said: Surely then, by this definition, the Hits and Very Best of were also remastered. There is no way all the tracks on these compilations would have played at the same volume without step 3 being undertaken… Yet these two compilations make no claims about remastering.
Exactly! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 All I know is Disc 2 sounds damn good to me!  I'm listening to Hot Thing right now.  The check. The string he dropped. The Mona Lisa. The musical notes taken out of a hat. The glass. The toy shotgun painting. The things he found. Therefore, everything seen–every object, that is, plus the process of looking at it–is a Duchamp. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Also, most engineers will tell you that the Analog-to-Digital converters, and other equipment they use, have really improved in the last 15-20 years, so even if they were using some of the same tapes that created the original CDs, an new mastering with this new equipment would most likely bring about better and more detailed sound quality #SOCIETYDEFINESU | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What ever they did, a lot of it sounds good, and some of it sounds downright crappy, at least in the files I have.
Diamonds and Pearls especially sounds worse than my 15 year old CD! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Justin1972UK said: It doesn't really matter what the technical definitions are. To the man on the street, in common parlance, the word "remastered" printed on a record cover would suggest a remix from the original source tapes.
Adjusting the EQ of an original master should be par for the course these days anyway, so why make it a selling-point? I like how you can just speak for all the men "on the street". It suggests nothing of the sort to the record buyers who are just educated enough about the realities of the record industry to know that 'remastered' is a catch phrase to entice the consumer to repurchase something made previously available. Whether they realize the sound has been made better or not, most do not presume to know how this is accomplished. Sometimes the 24 tracks are reworked and sometimes the safety masters are reworked. There is no standard for the word remastered. In this case Prince has possession of the original 24 track masters and Warners has the two track masters. If you were Warners, just knowing how Prince feels about his Masters, which would you use? Also, what was said above about re-mixing 24 track master tapes is right on point. You would never get back what is on those original two track masters. [Edited 4/3/06 17:02pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Justin1972UK said: It doesn't really matter what the technical definitions are. To the man on the street, in common parlance, the word "remastered" printed on a record cover would suggest a remix from the original source tapes.
No, I'm afraid it doesn't mean that "To the man on the street". Unless an included bit of text or label specifically says that they went back and remixed a 're-mastered' album then I would think nothing of the kind. Just about all of Joni Mitchell's albums have been re-mastered but only in the case of a SINGLE TRACK for one compilation were any of the songs 'remixed' in the process. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Jestyr said: Justin1972UK said: It doesn't really matter what the technical definitions are. To the man on the street, in common parlance, the word "remastered" printed on a record cover would suggest a remix from the original source tapes.
Adjusting the EQ of an original master should be par for the course these days anyway, so why make it a selling-point? I like how you can just speak for all the men "on the street". It suggests nothing of the sort to the record buyers who are just educated enough about the realities of the record industry to know that 'remastered' is a catch phrase to entice the consumer to repurchase something made previously available. Whether they realize the sound has been made better or not, most do not presume to know how this is accomplished. Sometimes the 24 tracks are reworked and sometimes the safety masters are reworked. There is no standard for the word remastered. In this case Prince has possession of the original 24 track masters and Warners has the two track masters. If you were Warners, just knowing how Prince feels about his Masters, which would you use? Also, what was said above about re-mixing 24 track master tapes is right on point. You would never get back what is on those original two track masters. [Edited 4/3/06 17:02pm] I think Justin1972UK has every right to speak for 'the man on the street' if you have the right to speak for 'just educated enough record buyers'! But I think you are more-or-less right, to me the average Joe on the street, a remaster means improved sound on the original release somehow, someway. However, I'd expect a bit more than just the sound level being higher, hell, I can just turn the volume up on my stereo to get that level of remastering! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metalorange said: Jestyr said: I like how you can just speak for all the men "on the street". It suggests nothing of the sort to the record buyers who are just educated enough about the realities of the record industry to know that 'remastered' is a catch phrase to entice the consumer to repurchase something made previously available. Whether they realize the sound has been made better or not, most do not presume to know how this is accomplished. Sometimes the 24 tracks are reworked and sometimes the safety masters are reworked. There is no standard for the word remastered. In this case Prince has possession of the original 24 track masters and Warners has the two track masters. If you were Warners, just knowing how Prince feels about his Masters, which would you use? Also, what was said above about re-mixing 24 track master tapes is right on point. You would never get back what is on those original two track masters. [Edited 4/3/06 17:02pm] I think Justin1972UK has every right to speak for 'the man on the street' if you have the right to speak for 'just educated enough record buyers'! But I think you are more-or-less right, to me the average Joe on the street, a remaster means improved sound on the original release somehow, someway. However, I'd expect a bit more than just the sound level being higher, hell, I can just turn the volume up on my stereo to get that level of remastering! His post was a sweeping generalization and you know it. Much more work was done on this set than just raising the volume. All kinds of EQ and passive filter and noise floor reduction work was done to make these tracks sound great. Don't presume that nothing but the volume was raised on a project you didn't work on yourself. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Jestyr said: I like how you can just speak for all the men "on the street".
Yes. I like it too. Jestyr said: It suggests nothing of the sort to the record buyers who are just educated enough about the realities of the record industry to know that 'remastered' is a catch phrase to entice the consumer to repurchase something made previously available.
You misunderstand the record-buying public to the point of being condescending. I personally believe that most punters would expect the label "remastered" to indicate that the original tracks had been reconfigured in some way, rather than the original master being cranked up to eleven on the loudness scale, in a Spinal Tap stylee. Whether or not a remix from the original source would be a true definition of the word "remaster" is a moot point - it's what the term has come to embody in common parlance. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
A classic example of a word changing it's meaning in common parlance would be "sanctimonious".
Originating from the words "sanctity" or "sanctitude", it once implied a saintliness or moral perfection in a person. Nowadays, it indicates a person whom feigns righteousness to the point of an unbearable smugness - regardless of whether they are right or not.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Justin1972UK said: Jestyr said: I like how you can just speak for all the men "on the street".
Yes. I like it too. Jestyr said: It suggests nothing of the sort to the record buyers who are just educated enough about the realities of the record industry to know that 'remastered' is a catch phrase to entice the consumer to repurchase something made previously available.
You misunderstand the record-buying public to the point of being condescending. I personally believe that most punters would expect the label "remastered" to indicate that the original tracks had been reconfigured in some way, rather than the original master being cranked up to eleven on the loudness scale, in a Spinal Tap stylee. Whether or not a remix from the original source would be a true definition of the word "remaster" is a moot point - it's what the term has come to embody in common parlance. Where do you get off!!?? I'm condescending? - take a look at what you are saying...that the record-buying public are so uninformed about recording technology that the word 'remastered' means whatever you deem it to mean. I suggest you stop confusing your personal ignorance with that of what you call 'most punters'. [Edited 4/4/06 17:02pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
I'm not sure if this has been noted yet, but has anyone noticed the clean-up on "Nothing Compares 2 U"? If you listen to The Hits/The B-Sides, you will hear feedback coming from a mic around 2:55. It's gone on Ultimate.
I'm no techie, so I'm not sure how that was done, but it is obvious that there has been at least some work done on the set. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Justin1972UK said: Whether or not a remix from the original source would be a true definition of the word "remaster" is a moot point - it's what the term has come to embody in common parlance.
...but it obviously hasn't because I don't look at it that way... and there's a lot more going on with Ultimate than just equalizing out the volume of the tracks. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |