What a great primer you gave! For a music lover like me, yet stranger to all the musical technicalities, that has been a very instructive 20 minutes lesson. I now go and compare (metal) stuff with a fresh pair of eyes. Thanks!
There is a reason why streaming services are lowering the volume with LUFS measurement tools. I can see that a lot of people in the business are waking up to what the benefits are of mastering for dynamics instead of loudness. I display the benefits of doing this by using some of your favorite music and create videos that showcase sound before and after the loudness is lowered and the range is used for optimal dynamic range mastering.
I look at it as simple gain-staging: You produce a really 'hot'(levels-wise) CD or album, the user(at home or in their car) cannot set an optimal volume level on their equipment. Audio in the digital realm can be more readily abused/manipulated in this fashion, even though digital itself is the superior carrier(flat frequency resp, low/no noise, super high dynamic range). If I were engineering recorded material, the end listener would HAVE to turn their volume way up, for even a conversational listening level. Look at a live PA concert rig: You'll notice the house amps, and even the monitor amps, are set, at minimum, to half way up. Even three-quarters of the way up. And properly gained, you'd see none of the VU meters exceeding +2 dB.
Do you mean to say, "mastering for all around dynamics instead of just loudness?" because loudness is a dynamic just like quietness and the transition between the two.
I wrote an article few years ago, where I pointed out differences between remastering and restoration, because these terms are mixed up by many people. Remastering is basically creating a new master from the original master and it doesn't matter if you just keep the transfer as it is, or you are doing some little tweaks to it. But restoration is modifying the source material using tools like noise reduction, click&pop elimination and other filters to 'clean' the sound, if the source material suffered from decay, or you are using a copy of a master, which has some flaws or degradation. But today's view on remastering is basically a mixture of remastering and restoration, with a recreation of each mastering engineers who are modifying the sound so much, it doesn't resemble the original intention of original engineers, artists and producers. Remixing is another story.
The Beatles remasters are thin sounding. Yes, they are very clear, you can hear separation in the instruments and vocals, but the original vinyl masters had a loudness that the remasters don't . Very disappointing. Great video, BTW.
I had all their vinyl from the 60s. I was thrilled about the idea of their music coming out on CD. However, when I did notice the sound was crystal clear, it also lacked the sheer power of the vinyl recordings.
Thank you. I have been reamed on YT for criticizing the remastered tapes of the Beatles' songs, their voices sound too pretty without the loudness and rawness. Thank you. Yes, I agree, the video is outstanding.
@@patricias5122 There is an album with Yellow Submarine on it. It might have been a compilation. But that one sounded really good and full. And the Sgt Pepper remix from a few years ago that Giles Martin did is outstanding. But the remastered official albums are lifeless sounding to me. Cheers!
Nice video, informative! One thing I would have done is break down, in basic terms, the difference between reMIX and reMASTER. The former concerns changes in the composition of a song itself(changes to individual instruments and their relations to each other). The latter affects changes to the final stereo(typically two-channel) master. The recent concept of 'stems' has blurred the distinction between mixing and mastering/remastering somewhat, but that is it in a nutshell. So what turned me off, largely to remastering, and to acquiring or keeping existing remasters in my collection? 1. A remaster is a step away from the sound of the original intent of the thing as it was released 20 or 200 years ago. 2. The CD remastering craze overlapped somewhat with the digital-era Loudness War(mid-1990s to almost present). This means that the catalogs of everyone from AC/DC to Johnny Cash to Run-DMC to ZZ-Top has been little more than 'compress, limit & crank-em-up' jobs! I've kept a few of the more egregious examples, along side original CDs I painstakingly sought out in Goodwills, Salvation Armies, and online from sites like Discogs, as monuments to the excesses of over-processing in what I feel should be an archival process(remastering), not just to make something sound 'different' for the sake of different itself.
I was always under the impression that remastering was being done to improve the perceived sound quality of older records. But I have found that probably 90% of the remastered albums I ever listened to sounded almost exactly the same or exactly the same as an earlier version of the same album. But I didn't and don't have primo equipment.
Remastering is a very subtle art when done right, to make songs fit the new medium they’re being delivered on. If you don’t hear a difference then they’ve done it right!
@@adamsteelproducer But then my response would be, if our goal is to make the album sound exactly the same, why are we remastering it in the first place? The first examples that come to mind are the classic '80s Metallica records. They sounded kind of meh on CD back in the day because of the "limitations of the original recording equipment", but the remastered albums really don't sound any different to my ears. Maybe a tiny bit louder? So if they weren't looking to improve the sound, why remaster?
Because you want to present a mix in its best light, and different formats (vinyl, cd, streaming etc) have different requirements to make it work. With vinyl you need to do things to stop the needle from jumping for example, but try and not make it audible. With CDs people expect a certain loudness but we don’t want to hear limiting distortion etc- so if it sounds the same to you then the mastering process has worked. It’s not about sounding “better”, just about being as good as it can be on the format it’s presented on
@@adamsteelproducer Thanks for the responses. But I feel like maybe I'm not being clear here. Maybe a more recent example. An apples to apples comparison. Stone Temple Pilots' first album, Core, was released in 92, and was remastered in 2017 for the 25th anniversary. I have my original 92 cd and the remaster sounds identical to my ears. If both versions were intended for the cd medium, and they both sound the same to my ears, then what could have been the goal of the remaster? Marketing?
Many times remixing is asking for trouble. You're basically removing someone's fingerprints from the audio that our ears first perceived. It's like removing the paint and repainting it with the same paint, yet painted differently. They tried to remix Days of Future Past by The Moody Blues. People like myself were very disappointed that they lost certain background vocals and instruments that were in the original mix. Aside from that, you would think that songs from the sixties would be a lot easier to remix because there were less tracks to keep track of and there was only so much that you could do with it.
I just listened to 2 recently remastered songs by Evanescence on YT, for which I had the old version in 320kb/s MP3 and it sounds the same. I was wondering what remastering really means, did perhaps YT compression killed their efforts... :) Great video, thanks!
If you like your vinyl sound , you can record it and listen it digital with the best recording format available ( AIFF ). Vinyl has limitation Many mix were recording wrong because some of the instrument can't be listen on vinyl . . The compression was so hard that eliminate some instruments ''not intentionally''. Now you can hear the whole mix even with separation of instruments in just 2 channel . That is why sound diferent . Evolution of recording started ; MONO , then 4 recording channel 6, 8, 12 , 16 , etc . Is a very long history .
Iam just a lowly drummer , 57 yrs olds who virtually knows squat about remastering but do quite a bit of recording (which is fun btw) for me personally I get a kick out of hearing old recordings come to life with remastering...now thats not to say that they ALL sound really good remastered (and believe me there are quite a few that I cant even tell the difference!) but for the most part most of the remastered recordings have sounded amazing ....
Nice perspective on that! I didn't know about remastering music that is from the peak of the loudness war. Without the original stems, that seems pretty tough right? I guess if the original stems were used then it would technically be a "remix" similar to what Megadeth and DT did, but it seems like that would be the cleanest way to rescue some of those heavily-limited tunes from a decade ago. Is "decompressing" a printed mix really feasible yet? Aside from boosting transients or using an expansion setup (ie compressor with a ratio under 1) I'm not sure what could be done.
+Brinekind well the thing with remastering loud music, is that generally the 'mix' itself isn't heavily compressed, the master is a separate process- so if you've got access to the original mix you should be able to start the master again with a clean slate. There will be engineers who 'master' at the same time (for example Joey Sturgis) where you would need to go back to the project files and disable the limiting on the master buss.... decompressing isn't really easy to do because of the distortions introduced. But time and technology roll ever onward....
Thank you for this video. I haven't really listened to music much in the last idk.. alot of years so I'm just getting back into it and I had no clue what the terms meant. I mean, I assumed but you know what they say if you assume. Lol so I appreciate your knowledge. Thank you
Agreed that Dave Mustaine went too far with the remixes of the early Megadeth stuff. One track that really stands out for me was Into the Lungs of Hell. He made it sound stupid.
excellent, and I tend to agree about what you said the album captures the time and specific sound of the era however I rally love what Perl Jam did with 10 Remastered-Reissue edition double LP , one LP the original and second LP Remastered which sounds way better . I also listened to some interview not sure who form the band gave it could be Eddie who said they where never really satisfied with the sound of the final mix or release of the original 10 Album so they decided to remaster it . Cant remember from the interview if the also played some sections new the most concerning thing as far as I recall was the sound of the drums and the overall dynamics . I have the album on the vinyl and the remaster sounds way better I'm glad they did it . They also released the LP's on 180gram Vinyl's "Vinyl Collection (2-LP set) LP 1: original Ten tracklisting remastered for vinyl LP 2: original Ten tracklisting remastered for vinyl and remixed by Brendan O'Brien LP 3 & 4: Drop in the Park Live at Magnuson Park in Seattle on September 20, 1992 (audio mixed by Brendan O'Brien)
Another recent "remasters that are actually remixes" was Freddie Mercury Mr Bad Guy Special Edition. All songs were completely recreated [except Freddy's vocals (albeit heavily pitch corrected on some songs) and his piano]. You can listen to it on Spotify.
Hop Pole Studios yeh. The original release was underwhelming, sold less than a million. Other than that, the original was inconsistently mixed. Most of the songs in the Special Edition did improve upon the original. The best one in my opinion was "Love Me Like There's No Tomorrow". 😊
Thank you for explaining this. I appreciate it. Just 1 question. Is it usually a good idea to listen to remastered stuff? I know it depends but in general on digital formats would it be generally a better idea to go for the remastered stuff?
I’d definitely be looking at remastered work myself, as it likely sounds better for the modern medium that we’re listening on. In fact, try listening to the old versions and compare- a lot of the time you may be really shocked at how much detail was lost on those old vinyl masters
this is old question but for anyone else… think of it like this. you buy something for $60 , you hand me $100. what do you want back for change? remaster = nice crisp 20 dollar bill or original = two 20 bills but they are old and beat up. thats my analogy
Thanks for this.. These bleeding things just keep coming and coming. Haven't even listened to white album and kate bush is here. I have a 24 os marantz and my cds have never sounded better. I suspect their victims are people that don't have high end gear. But the remixes of the Beatles are pretty brilliant. I stress remix not remaster! LOL
I remember seeing another video of many of the Iron Maiden sounds on the remasters are beyond the threshold of sound? Huh? What does that exactly mean? Cause I thought it's when it could make someone deaf. Is this another kind of deafening thing? If someone wanted to hide something subliminal, then would blast over top!? Hmm..... .. .. Could reverse mastering be done? Thank you.
Um can you do a video if you haven't. About the difference between reverse polarity on remastering. Like XTC skylarking. Whats the difference. And any other bands doing that.
@@adamsteelproducer many don't, see w skylarking by xtc. But other band masters can work better w that way. I figured wires being crossed somewhere or tape put on weird. Seems to take muddy sound out.
The problem with any remaster made from the original tapes is that they have been sitting around for decades, and tapes degrade just sitting on the shelf. That's one reason why many remasters sound bad no matter how well -intentioned the engineer.
for me remastered is always going to sound clear, it’s digitally sourced. everyone says, “but it sounds so clear, the sound is so clear, it’s so clear”. OF COURSE, it clear! its digital! the problem most people seem to miss is the loss you get from digital. the compression. bottom line. you’re missing out if you buy remasters (provided the LP is pre digitally released). all tou have to do is compare runouts
Not necessarily, but in an ideal world yes. The better quality copy you have of the original mixes the better the result would be- but I know of quite a few examples of where songs from the 50s/60s were remastered from vinyl or tape masters
You can remaster any recording tape regardless of when it was made.. But yes I would go with the originals, multiple remasters over one another will eventually sound like crap down the road..
I am a little late to the discussion, but wanted to comment on a remastered copy of Black Sabbath's Paranoid CD. The remastered version is no where near as good as the original CD. It's just horrible. The drums are toned down, dynamic range is gone, and the music just sound congested to my ears with no space between the notes. Now, for well remastered CD's, let talk about Steve Wilson's remastering of King Crimson CD's. He cleaned up the some background noise, retained the dynamic range, and brought forth some micro detail that was previously difficult to hear on the original recordings. A great example of a remastering done right !
Although I know there are rules in place, I think a lot of remastering is just done by someone who "thinks" it should be played another way.. I have always said that I don't need some young kid remastering my classic rock, especially if they have never even heard the album. Background noise if fine but leave the classic Black Sabbath and others alone! Although I have heard other remasters that came out superb.
Technically yes, but chances are you’re fighting with someone else’s process and will get less than desirable results. Best approach is to try and source the original mix and start fresh
So, remastering is NOT remixing, in the strictest sense. I’m just wondering because David Coverdale’s hobby seems to have become remastering Whitesnake tunes. Every year. Over and over, again. Some of the early “remasters” of 1987 seemed to me to limit John Sykes’ guitar. But that could be me expecting sour grapes from Coverdale as part of the fallout of a nasty breakup. I feel like Coverdale still only grudgingly acknowledges the contributions of Neil Murray, John Sykes, and Aynsley Dunbar - the musicians who wrote and recorded the music for 1987, but who were unceremoniously terminated and replaced with the pretty boys who toured the album: Vivian Campbell, Adrian Vandenberg, Rudy Sarzo, and Tommy Aldridge. Just wondering why Coverdale feels the need to “noodle” with Slide It In and Whitesnake (‘87) all the time? These are without any question whatsoever the two best albums Whitesnake ever recorded (though Slip of the Tongue ranks a pretty close third). Nothing Coverdale did after Sykes/Vandenberg/Vai was worth paying attention to in my grossly undereducated opinion. No offense to the stand-ins that include some ridiculously talented guys (like Reb Beach), they were put in the impossible position of aping the originals for decades and really didn’t get much of a chance to create their own sound. What do you think of Coverdale and his endlessly remastered, reissued and anniversary releases?
@@adamsteelproducer RHCP's Californication is also another casualty. Rick Rubin completely fucked up the sound quality and dynamic range. The guy gets way too much praise.
I've heard some remixes or remastering which I'm not quite sure what this band did with their music but the band was Stryper and what they did was pretty much ruined the original successful Songsfor being a Christian rock heavy metal group just breaking out into LA ,but they paved the road for a lot of others to come over 30 years and more!
I'd be interested in hearing a remixed 'And Justice For All' by Metallica, maybe with re-recorded drum parts, just to know how it could have sounded. I think with some low-budget classic albums with very poor mixes, the songs do deserve better and might justify a remix. This is a pretty obscure example, but the album Bizarro by The Wedding Present has some of the most amazing songs but very basic recording/mixing (search for Brassneck by The Wedding Present to hear what I mean).
Hop Pole Studios - Thanks. Was that done just by remastering the track from the CD? If so, that's impressive that the almost non-existent bass can be extracted and enhanced that much without remixing.
I have remasters of metallica vinyl records and I have 1 og press on vertigo and to tell you the truth the remasters sound flat. Was dispointed and don't want to listen to the remasters.
About what I think should be a remastered I don't know if you play games But The tales of symphonia Remastered They give us For video game systems that are out now Things are not happy because they want to go in a corner and cry Cause it's a remastered tales of symphonia from steam The PC version Fans are not happy because Namco bandai Did not remaster the original Game Cube version Which was released in 2004 on nintendo gamecube That's the tales of symphonia fans come and know and love and have a lot of the Nostalgic Memories Which also is a game cube version ran at 60 frames per 2nd Of tales of symphonia Ran at 60 friends for 2nd on king cube But the remastered version they gave us of symphonia remastered only runs at 30 frames per 2nd which is causing fans to want to cry because it's not running at the original framerate the game Cube Frame rate ran at which was 60 Frames And a lot of fans are complaining the game is running really slow when not running as fast as it should it's having a lot of lag Causing tales of Symphonia remastered The feel like a disappointment to fans cause it's not a remastered version of the original game cube version Making fans not happy
Remastering is evil! You take a hot record and remaster it to make that original magic disappear! You also sell multiple versions of the same song so that’s gotta help profits! What if I loved the original mix? I have on many an occasion felt that the remastered version looses its original appeal! Glad I bought all those cd’s with the original versions! I am listening to Led Zeppelin over the hills and far away and OMG is that a butchered Remaster!
Remixing is a SIN and it should be punished! A profanity, a desecration! I recently listened to the youthanasia remixed album 'cause I lost my original cd and I got so angry. Nobody should change a work of art. It's like playing God or trying to erase the past.
You, my friend, are going NUTS over Remastering "Changing" art, as you say, might fit more into the "remixing" section, where Reverbs, tempos, instrumentals, lyrics & vocal takes are "changed" & you can say they "changed" art I understand your concerns of remastering but unfortunately you're wrong, imagine taking food recipies with the ingredeants & the same cook, but just cooking in a much more precise atmosphere & gear You see remastering takes & removes the flaws such as the amount of volume & audio clarity, i believe your criticism is absurd because the original copy has some type of nostalgic grain & bad quality to it but no thank you, i want the remaster, it's what the artists heard in their studio
@@amirmohammad4261 I'm ok with remastering, I have no problem with that. I'm against remixing which is a completely different process. When u take the master tapes and remix an album, you can make it sound completely different and that IMO is wrong and sinful 😁. Remastering doesnt change things.
This is true some of the time.. Taking out background nice and or hiss, etc is fine. But completely changing the dynamics or compressing the audio quality to a point of changing the entire sound of an album is inexcusable. There are tons and tons of examples that support this.. This is not to say all remastering is terrible, quite the contrary but many classic albums were changed to a point where you can't even hear certain parts (drums, guitars, vocals too loud, other stuff drowning out other parts).
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm amazed that you shared so much information with little to no cuts in the video. very nice knowledge
every time i see a lengthy video, i just jump to comment sections and it's effective. thank you comment section community lol
I still found this video very engaging to watch
Am I the only one to notice the other arm rest of the chair is missing?
Not the first- it’s on purpose, I remove the right arm so I can have a guitar in the seat, but also have something to lean on
@@adamsteelproducer
Ah makes sense, btw very informative video
Well when you called my attention to it I did
I have the same thing, can't play guitar with arms🤣
What a great primer you gave! For a music lover like me, yet stranger to all the musical technicalities, that has been a very instructive 20 minutes lesson. I now go and compare (metal) stuff with a fresh pair of eyes. Thanks!
There is a reason why streaming services are lowering the volume with LUFS measurement tools. I can see that a lot of people in the business are waking up to what the benefits are of mastering for dynamics instead of loudness. I display the benefits of doing this by using some of your favorite music and create videos that showcase sound before and after the loudness is lowered and the range is used for optimal dynamic range mastering.
I look at it as simple gain-staging:
You produce a really 'hot'(levels-wise) CD or album, the user(at home or in their car) cannot set an optimal volume level on their equipment.
Audio in the digital realm can be more readily abused/manipulated in this fashion, even though digital itself is the superior carrier(flat frequency resp, low/no noise, super high dynamic range).
If I were engineering recorded material, the end listener would HAVE to turn their volume way up, for even a conversational listening level.
Look at a live PA concert rig: You'll notice the house amps, and even the monitor amps, are set, at minimum, to half way up. Even three-quarters of the way up. And properly gained, you'd see none of the VU meters exceeding +2 dB.
What's LUFS?
Do you mean to say, "mastering for all around dynamics instead of just loudness?" because loudness is a dynamic just like quietness and the transition between the two.
Great video, very informative. Thanks for making it!
I wrote an article few years ago, where I pointed out differences between remastering and restoration, because these terms are mixed up by many people. Remastering is basically creating a new master from the original master and it doesn't matter if you just keep the transfer as it is, or you are doing some little tweaks to it. But restoration is modifying the source material using tools like noise reduction, click&pop elimination and other filters to 'clean' the sound, if the source material suffered from decay, or you are using a copy of a master, which has some flaws or degradation. But today's view on remastering is basically a mixture of remastering and restoration, with a recreation of each mastering engineers who are modifying the sound so much, it doesn't resemble the original intention of original engineers, artists and producers.
Remixing is another story.
The Beatles remasters are thin sounding. Yes, they are very clear, you can hear separation in the instruments and vocals, but the original vinyl masters had a loudness that the remasters don't . Very disappointing. Great video, BTW.
I think they sound amazing. But I haven't listened to the vinyl records since the late 80s.
I had all their vinyl from the 60s. I was thrilled about the idea of their music coming out on CD. However, when I did notice the sound was crystal clear, it also lacked the sheer power of the vinyl recordings.
@@magneto7930 totally. The vinyl sound was so much better.
Thank you. I have been reamed on YT for criticizing the remastered tapes of the Beatles' songs, their voices sound too pretty without the loudness and rawness. Thank you. Yes, I agree, the video is outstanding.
@@patricias5122 There is an album with Yellow Submarine on it. It might have been a compilation. But that one sounded really good and full. And the Sgt Pepper remix from a few years ago that Giles Martin did is outstanding. But the remastered official albums are lifeless sounding to me. Cheers!
Thanks a lot for explanation! I found it strange that everyone underrate this topic, there is a lot of interesting stuff to discuss
Nice video, informative! One thing I would have done is break down, in basic terms, the difference between reMIX and reMASTER. The former concerns changes in the composition of a song itself(changes to individual instruments and their relations to each other). The latter affects changes to the final stereo(typically two-channel) master. The recent concept of 'stems' has blurred the distinction between mixing and mastering/remastering somewhat, but that is it in a nutshell.
So what turned me off, largely to remastering, and to acquiring or keeping existing remasters in my collection?
1. A remaster is a step away from the sound of the original intent of the thing as it was released 20 or 200 years ago.
2. The CD remastering craze overlapped somewhat with the digital-era Loudness War(mid-1990s to almost present). This means that the catalogs of everyone from AC/DC to Johnny Cash to Run-DMC to ZZ-Top has been little more than 'compress, limit & crank-em-up' jobs!
I've kept a few of the more egregious examples, along side original CDs I painstakingly sought out in Goodwills, Salvation Armies, and online from sites like Discogs, as monuments to the excesses of over-processing in what I feel should be an archival process(remastering), not just to make something sound 'different' for the sake of different itself.
YES!!!!!!!
very interesting.. it really makes you think of all the technical things that go on behind the scenes
I respect your knowledge 👏👏
I was always under the impression that remastering was being done to improve the perceived sound quality of older records. But I have found that probably 90% of the remastered albums I ever listened to sounded almost exactly the same or exactly the same as an earlier version of the same album. But I didn't and don't have primo equipment.
Remastering is a very subtle art when done right, to make songs fit the new medium they’re being delivered on. If you don’t hear a difference then they’ve done it right!
@@adamsteelproducer But then my response would be, if our goal is to make the album sound exactly the same, why are we remastering it in the first place? The first examples that come to mind are the classic '80s Metallica records. They sounded kind of meh on CD back in the day because of the "limitations of the original recording equipment", but the remastered albums really don't sound any different to my ears. Maybe a tiny bit louder? So if they weren't looking to improve the sound, why remaster?
Because you want to present a mix in its best light, and different formats (vinyl, cd, streaming etc) have different requirements to make it work. With vinyl you need to do things to stop the needle from jumping for example, but try and not make it audible. With CDs people expect a certain loudness but we don’t want to hear limiting distortion etc- so if it sounds the same to you then the mastering process has worked. It’s not about sounding “better”, just about being as good as it can be on the format it’s presented on
@@adamsteelproducer Thanks for the responses. But I feel like maybe I'm not being clear here. Maybe a more recent example. An apples to apples comparison. Stone Temple Pilots' first album, Core, was released in 92, and was remastered in 2017 for the 25th anniversary. I have my original 92 cd and the remaster sounds identical to my ears. If both versions were intended for the cd medium, and they both sound the same to my ears, then what could have been the goal of the remaster? Marketing?
Many times remixing is asking for trouble. You're basically removing someone's fingerprints from the audio that our ears first perceived. It's like removing the paint and repainting it with the same paint, yet painted differently. They tried to remix Days of Future Past by The Moody Blues. People like myself were very disappointed that they lost certain background vocals and instruments that were in the original mix. Aside from that, you would think that songs from the sixties would be a lot easier to remix because there were less tracks to keep track of and there was only so much that you could do with it.
Really good video thank you
I just listened to 2 recently remastered songs by Evanescence on YT, for which I had the old version in 320kb/s MP3 and it sounds the same. I was wondering what remastering really means, did perhaps YT compression killed their efforts... :)
Great video, thanks!
If you like your vinyl sound , you can record it and listen it digital with the best recording format available ( AIFF ). Vinyl has limitation Many mix were recording wrong because some of the instrument can't be listen on vinyl . . The compression was so hard that eliminate some instruments ''not intentionally''. Now you can hear the whole mix even with separation of instruments in just 2 channel . That is why sound diferent . Evolution of recording started ; MONO , then 4 recording channel 6, 8, 12 , 16 , etc . Is a very long history .
Iam just a lowly drummer , 57 yrs olds who virtually knows squat about remastering but do quite a bit of recording (which is fun btw) for me personally I get a kick out of hearing old recordings come to life with remastering...now thats not to say that they ALL sound really good remastered (and believe me there are quite a few that I cant even tell the difference!) but for the most part most of the remastered recordings have sounded amazing ....
Awesome video. Thanks for this explanation
This was great. Very informative man.
Cheers. Love the username!
Never ever thought about different formats needing their own master to suit it
I had to look up this video because I really didn't notice a difference between Radiohead's OK computer's original and remastered version :D
Nice perspective on that! I didn't know about remastering music that is from the peak of the loudness war. Without the original stems, that seems pretty tough right? I guess if the original stems were used then it would technically be a "remix" similar to what Megadeth and DT did, but it seems like that would be the cleanest way to rescue some of those heavily-limited tunes from a decade ago. Is "decompressing" a printed mix really feasible yet? Aside from boosting transients or using an expansion setup (ie compressor with a ratio under 1) I'm not sure what could be done.
+Brinekind well the thing with remastering loud music, is that generally the 'mix' itself isn't heavily compressed, the master is a separate process- so if you've got access to the original mix you should be able to start the master again with a clean slate. There will be engineers who 'master' at the same time (for example Joey Sturgis) where you would need to go back to the project files and disable the limiting on the master buss.... decompressing isn't really easy to do because of the distortions introduced. But time and technology roll ever onward....
Thank you for this video. I haven't really listened to music much in the last idk.. alot of years so I'm just getting back into it and I had no clue what the terms meant. I mean, I assumed but you know what they say if you assume. Lol so I appreciate your knowledge. Thank you
Agreed that Dave Mustaine went too far with the remixes of the early Megadeth stuff. One track that really stands out for me was Into the Lungs of Hell. He made it sound stupid.
excellent, and I tend to agree about what you said the album captures the time and specific sound of the era however I rally love what Perl Jam did with 10 Remastered-Reissue edition double LP , one LP the original and second LP Remastered which sounds way better . I also listened to some interview not sure who form the band gave it could be Eddie who said they where never really satisfied with the sound of the final mix or release of the original 10 Album so they decided to remaster it . Cant remember from the interview if the also played some sections new the most concerning thing as far as I recall was the sound of the drums and the overall dynamics . I have the album on the vinyl and the remaster sounds way better I'm glad they did it . They also released the LP's on 180gram Vinyl's
"Vinyl Collection (2-LP set)
LP 1: original Ten tracklisting remastered for vinyl
LP 2: original Ten tracklisting remastered for vinyl and remixed by Brendan O'Brien
LP 3 & 4: Drop in the Park Live at Magnuson Park in Seattle on September 20, 1992 (audio mixed by Brendan O'Brien)
Def Leppard Hysteria was a great remaster they didn't change the sonic character but just cleaned and glued the master a bit better.
Another recent "remasters that are actually remixes" was Freddie Mercury Mr Bad Guy Special Edition. All songs were completely recreated [except Freddy's vocals (albeit heavily pitch corrected on some songs) and his piano]. You can listen to it on Spotify.
Wasn’t that the album that bombed spectacularly on release?
Hop Pole Studios yeh. The original release was underwhelming, sold less than a million. Other than that, the original was inconsistently mixed. Most of the songs in the Special Edition did improve upon the original. The best one in my opinion was "Love Me Like There's No Tomorrow". 😊
Thank you for explaining this. I appreciate it. Just 1 question. Is it usually a good idea to listen to remastered stuff? I know it depends but in general on digital formats would it be generally a better idea to go for the remastered stuff?
I’d definitely be looking at remastered work myself, as it likely sounds better for the modern medium that we’re listening on. In fact, try listening to the old versions and compare- a lot of the time you may be really shocked at how much detail was lost on those old vinyl masters
this is old question but for anyone else… think of it like this. you buy something for $60 , you hand me $100. what do you want back for change?
remaster = nice crisp 20 dollar bill or
original = two 20 bills but they are old and beat up.
thats my analogy
Thanks for this..
These bleeding things just keep coming and coming.
Haven't even listened to white album and kate bush is here.
I have a 24 os marantz and my cds have never sounded better.
I suspect their victims are people that don't have high end gear.
But the remixes of the Beatles are pretty brilliant.
I stress remix not remaster! LOL
I agree about the Beatles. The Sgt. Pepper remix is awesome. Not so much the digital remasters which sound thin to me.
TYVVM
I remember seeing another video of many of the Iron Maiden sounds on the remasters are beyond the threshold of sound? Huh? What does that exactly mean? Cause I thought it's when it could make someone deaf. Is this another kind of deafening thing? If someone wanted to hide something subliminal, then would blast over top!? Hmm..... .. .. Could reverse mastering be done? Thank you.
@@lilfireworkz Possibly, I would remember listening to an album and there was presence. If that makes any sense.
Good video!
Who also came here because of the Beatles' stereo remixes? XD
Um can you do a video if you haven't. About the difference between reverse polarity on remastering. Like XTC skylarking. Whats the difference. And any other bands doing that.
I have no idea what you mean
@@adamsteelproducer many don't, see w skylarking by xtc. But other band masters can work better w that way. I figured wires being crossed somewhere or tape put on weird. Seems to take muddy sound out.
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who thought the original mixes of "Pull me under" and the other remixed DT songs sounded much better!
The problem with any remaster made from the original tapes is that they have been sitting around for decades, and tapes degrade just sitting on the shelf. That's one reason why many remasters sound bad no matter how well -intentioned the engineer.
for me remastered is always going to sound clear, it’s digitally sourced. everyone says, “but it sounds so clear, the sound is so clear, it’s so clear”. OF COURSE, it clear! its digital! the problem most people seem to miss is the loss you get from digital. the compression. bottom line. you’re missing out if you buy remasters (provided the LP is pre digitally released). all tou have to do is compare runouts
I like your intro
Thanks
So the question is if you did remastering you would need the original recording tapes correct?
Not necessarily, but in an ideal world yes. The better quality copy you have of the original mixes the better the result would be- but I know of quite a few examples of where songs from the 50s/60s were remastered from vinyl or tape masters
You can remaster any recording tape regardless of when it was made.. But yes I would go with the originals, multiple remasters over one another will eventually sound like crap down the road..
can you do video what is Remixes
Incredible.
I am a little late to the discussion, but wanted to comment on a remastered copy of Black Sabbath's Paranoid CD. The remastered version is no where near as good as the original CD. It's just horrible. The drums are toned down, dynamic range is gone, and the music just sound congested to my ears with no space between the notes. Now, for well remastered CD's, let talk about Steve Wilson's remastering of King Crimson CD's. He cleaned up the some background noise, retained the dynamic range, and brought forth some micro detail that was previously difficult to hear on the original recordings. A great example of a remastering done right !
Although I know there are rules in place, I think a lot of remastering is just done by someone who "thinks" it should be played another way.. I have always said that I don't need some young kid remastering my classic rock, especially if they have never even heard the album. Background noise if fine but leave the classic Black Sabbath and others alone! Although I have heard other remasters that came out superb.
My dad has got T REX records and he's all so got T REX on CD and it sounds the same as the records very interesting thank you
Is it possible to remaster the that was once mastered?
Technically yes, but chances are you’re fighting with someone else’s process and will get less than desirable results. Best approach is to try and source the original mix and start fresh
That's true about albums and the more tracks the less quality. In the day it was said that the last track on an album was the worst quality.
I want you to really review the first Maiden album
So, remastering is NOT remixing, in the strictest sense. I’m just wondering because David Coverdale’s hobby seems to have become remastering Whitesnake tunes. Every year. Over and over, again. Some of the early “remasters” of 1987 seemed to me to limit John Sykes’ guitar. But that could be me expecting sour grapes from Coverdale as part of the fallout of a nasty breakup. I feel like Coverdale still only grudgingly acknowledges the contributions of Neil Murray, John Sykes, and Aynsley Dunbar - the musicians who wrote and recorded the music for 1987, but who were unceremoniously terminated and replaced with the pretty boys who toured the album: Vivian Campbell, Adrian Vandenberg, Rudy Sarzo, and Tommy Aldridge.
Just wondering why Coverdale feels the need to “noodle” with Slide It In and Whitesnake (‘87) all the time? These are without any question whatsoever the two best albums Whitesnake ever recorded (though Slip of the Tongue ranks a pretty close third). Nothing Coverdale did after Sykes/Vandenberg/Vai was worth paying attention to in my grossly undereducated opinion. No offense to the stand-ins that include some ridiculously talented guys (like Reb Beach), they were put in the impossible position of aping the originals for decades and really didn’t get much of a chance to create their own sound.
What do you think of Coverdale and his endlessly remastered, reissued and anniversary releases?
Rush's 2002 album Vapor Trails was probably the worst victim of the "loudness war" I've ever heard. They came out with a remix but it sounds flat now
+Jack Bauer it's funny, I thought I liked the sound of that album until I heard it on a good system....
@@adamsteelproducer RHCP's Californication is also another casualty. Rick Rubin completely fucked up the sound quality and dynamic range. The guy gets way too much praise.
@@Eisenbison Metallica - Death Magnetic..
Is that a MagLite?
The torch? Yeah
I really need to listen to some Steven Wilson. With me being into guitars, gear and Guthrie Govan, I keep hearing his name mentioned.
+ForViewingOnly I'd recommend it, perhaps the "raven that refused to sing", which has some very fine work from Guthrie
Between the late 1980s & today, people always remastering music to CDs & later digital downloads.
I've heard some remixes or remastering which I'm not quite sure what this band did with their music but the band was Stryper and what they did was pretty much ruined the original successful Songsfor being a Christian rock heavy metal group just breaking out into LA ,but they paved the road for a lot of others to come over 30 years and more!
I’m still confused but thank you anyway
I do some home remastering.
Hey I do fan remastering and editing. W remastering I say keep it simple. To much will kill it.
Good original doesn't need remastering. In 90% of cases of remastering, it is a question of money. And the results are horrific.
I’m still confused!
I'd be interested in hearing a remixed 'And Justice For All' by Metallica, maybe with re-recorded drum parts, just to know how it could have sounded.
I think with some low-budget classic albums with very poor mixes, the songs do deserve better and might justify a remix. This is a pretty obscure example, but the album Bizarro by The Wedding Present has some of the most amazing songs but very basic recording/mixing (search for Brassneck by The Wedding Present to hear what I mean).
+ForViewingOnly there's a version called 'and justice for Jason' that's pretty much this!
Hop Pole Studios - Thanks. Was that done just by remastering the track from the CD? If so, that's impressive that the almost non-existent bass can be extracted and enhanced that much without remixing.
+ForViewingOnly no I think they got the stems from rockband or something like that
I usually cant tell the difference…
I have remasters of metallica vinyl records and I have 1 og press on vertigo and to tell you the truth the remasters sound flat. Was dispointed and don't want to listen to the remasters.
About what I think should be a remastered I don't know if you play games But The tales of symphonia Remastered They give us For video game systems that are out now Things are not happy because they want to go in a corner and cry Cause it's a remastered tales of symphonia from steam The PC version Fans are not happy because Namco bandai Did not remaster the original Game Cube version Which was released in 2004 on nintendo gamecube That's the tales of symphonia fans come and know and love and have a lot of the Nostalgic Memories Which also is a game cube version ran at 60 frames per 2nd Of tales of symphonia Ran at 60 friends for 2nd on king cube But the remastered version they gave us of symphonia remastered only runs at 30 frames per 2nd which is causing fans to want to cry because it's not running at the original framerate the game Cube Frame rate ran at which was 60 Frames And a lot of fans are complaining the game is running really slow when not running as fast as it should it's having a lot of lag Causing tales of Symphonia remastered The feel like a disappointment to fans cause it's not a remastered version of the original game cube version Making fans not happy
Ah yes.. Joshua Weissman
Remastering is evil! You take a hot record and remaster it to make that original magic disappear! You also sell multiple versions of the same song so that’s gotta help profits! What if I loved the original mix? I have on many an occasion felt that the remastered version looses its original appeal! Glad I bought all those cd’s with the original versions! I am listening to Led Zeppelin over the hills and far away and OMG is that a butchered Remaster!
1.25x for this one...
To me most "remasters" are just overcompressed garbage with far less dynamics than the originals.
Remixing is a SIN and it should be punished! A profanity, a desecration! I recently listened to the youthanasia remixed album 'cause I lost my original cd and I got so angry. Nobody should change a work of art. It's like playing God or trying to erase the past.
You, my friend, are going NUTS over Remastering
"Changing" art, as you say, might fit more into the "remixing" section, where Reverbs, tempos, instrumentals, lyrics & vocal takes are "changed" & you can say they "changed" art
I understand your concerns of remastering but unfortunately you're wrong, imagine taking food recipies with the ingredeants & the same cook, but just cooking in a much more precise atmosphere & gear
You see remastering takes & removes the flaws such as the amount of volume & audio clarity, i believe your criticism is absurd because the original copy has some type of nostalgic grain & bad quality to it but no thank you, i want the remaster, it's what the artists heard in their studio
@@amirmohammad4261 I'm ok with remastering, I have no problem with that. I'm against remixing which is a completely different process. When u take the master tapes and remix an album, you can make it sound completely different and that IMO is wrong and sinful 😁. Remastering doesnt change things.
This is true some of the time.. Taking out background nice and or hiss, etc is fine. But completely changing the dynamics or compressing the audio quality to a point of changing the entire sound of an album is inexcusable. There are tons and tons of examples that support this.. This is not to say all remastering is terrible, quite the contrary but many classic albums were changed to a point where you can't even hear certain parts (drums, guitars, vocals too loud, other stuff drowning out other parts).
You have 666 likes, I can't ruin it. But great video XD
In my opinion : Remastering an album destroys it