The Myth of Remastering
Published September 23, 2003
It Starts With Bowie
I've always dug David Bowie. When I was a little kid, maybe 7 or 8 years old, I loved his then-new single, "Young Americans." I kept seeing a commercial on TV for his new album, and I really wanted it (yes, my record collecting impulses started early). I thought I could get it easily, because Bowie was on RCA records, and my dad worked for RCA. The only problem was that he didn't work for RCA Records! He was a manager at the Harrison, NJ plant that made tubes for TVs, radios, amps, etc. He didn't really have any contact with the music wing of RCA.
One day the commercial came on the TV, and my dad was in the room. I asked him if he would buy me the record, but I don't think he took it seriously. He was a very practical man that worked 9 to 5 in order to support his family. He never understood where his kids' artistic talent came from (my sister an artist, my two brothers musicians). I suppose he didn't see it as practical. Toys, sure. But records? I'd scratch them up in a matter of days. He was probably right.
The Problems with Reissues
Fast forward 28 years later. Bowie has licensed his catalog to EMI, after a stint in the 90s with Ryko. The records have been remastered, and supposedly sound great. But I don't agree.
One thing I noticed when listening to my EMI copy of "Scary Monsters" was that the music had been compressed a lot. Compression is the process of "taming" the volume, so that it plays at a more consistent volume. It tames the peaks, or louder segments, and boosts the quieter passages. When done tastefully, the listener might not notice the difference. If comparing an uncompressed signal to a compressed version, some might say that the compressed version sounded louder. This is an oversimplification, but you get the idea.
When listening to the Ryko versions of these albums, I often notice treble boost, which usually just sounds too bright. The EMI versions have an EQ boost in the high end as well. Combine that with the compression, and the results sound harsh and annoying. Especially when played on a half-way decent stereo system.
- The Myth of Remastering
- Published: September 23, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Music
- Filed Under: Music: News, Music: Rock
- Writer: Keith Hanlon
- Keith Hanlon's BC Writer page
- Keith Hanlon's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I'll have to differ with you on "Who's Next." The original CD, mastered by Steve Hoffman during his tenure at MCA, still sounds incredible and MUCH better than the new version. It's a straight dump from the original master (not an LP master... and not a copy, as the marketing for the new version implies). This version is still available in Canada, and I challenge anybody to tell me that the new version, complete with noise reduction and compression, is better. A/B these on a good system and you'll hear the difference as soon as Keith Moon kicks off Baba O'Riley.
I've always seen the remastering more as a commercial gig than a quality thing. Republish the library as mentioned in the article above.
I realize one selling point is quality, but I think in general many musicians are trying to go back in time with things like more emphasis on tube amps and the like which, despite how fantastic computers are, cannot completely reproduce the non-random, undeterministic nature of a tube's sound decay.
I love the sound of a Marshall stack but give me a computer sample Marshall stack and it's just not ... the same. Perhaps from a sampling and technical standpoint it is extremely close, but there is something amiss there. Probably it can't even be measured by the human ear and is something to be picked up by a meter, but something is amiss there.
Most would agree that no recording compares to a live performance on any medium, but there was something special about vinyl that is definitely missing on some CDs. I never felt cassettes were as high quality, and certainly after the degradation of a few plays they weren't. CDs, some of them anyway, have more of a canned sound. Perhaps it is that crackling sound from a diamond needle moving around the vinyl.
Am I making any sense? Perhaps those who listened to a lot of records will know the sounds I'm describing.
Good article!
I've found that the best way to transfer LP recordings to a more portable format without losing sound quality is on tape. Hook your record player up to the stereo and record directly to tape. You get the original sound (with all the liveliness and ambience) and you can still play it in your car- given you have a tape deck...
I've got Who Live at Leeds and some New Bomb Turks rarities on tape that came straight from LP's and they sound fantastic.
P-man, that's funny, your comment could have been written 30 years ago.
How dare you call Kerry an idiot. Apparently you only want to sell to Republicans. Good luck.
Kerry and Bush both suck. I wish there were more than just two people to vote for.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/8610)
I will almost always gladly take the latest remasters over any previous ones. I have always found the sound of newer remasters to be much truer to the sounds of the actual instruments than older masters (drums being the instrument of focus for me when comparing - old recordings sound like the drums are made of Tupperware.) Most of the time, those old CDs really were made using the old LP master which is a complete waste of the CD format. Take for instance the Who remasters - these sound nothing like the originals, but they are so far superior that they make the old versions unlistenable. The mastering on them actually makes them sound as fresh and vital as music released today. Now the long-time Who fans are upset because they've actually been remixed to sound newer and fresher, but I don't have a single complaint. I've heard the old remasters that were on the Maximum R&B boxset and they were horrible - flat and lifeless, and sounded every bit as old as the recording dates suggest. But play either the single disc or deluxe Who's Next and tell me that doesn't sound fantastic. As for destroying the ambience of a recording, I've never heard an example of that. Every remaster I've bought has been at least as good as if not better than the previous release (the "as good as" remasters are a ripoff, of course.) And I have a very picky ear.
I will agree, however, that there are a lot of unnecessary re-remasterings going on - each time a catalog shifts company, they have to find a way to get fans to buy those releases to recoup the cost. So another remaster is in order. I cast a suspicious eye upon remasters of 5 year old albums - you can't honestly tell me these sound out of date.