Reissued CDs
- Thread starter specgrade
- Start date
Chris Whitten
Platinum Member
Any time something is mastered or re-mastered there is an experienced audio engineer doing the task and listening to what they are doing.
If a past master is thin, the engineer can beef it up. (This isn't a remix, it's just adding eq and limiting to a stereo file).
These days the record industry has fallen foul of bad storage, disastrous fires, and general laziness when regarding released music. So a remastered record could be from any number of sources, whatever they can lay their hands on. Many original multi-tracks and stereo master tapes have been destroyed, lost or deteriorated beyond being able to be used.
So while no one just masters a record to any standard, thin or bad sounding, often the mastering engineer is working with unideal source material.
Some of the records I ;played on in the 80's sound thin and hard now. I think this is down to changing taste and better modern technology and techniques. I worked at the transition from tape to digital and early digital wasn't as good sounding as the 2023 equivalent;ent.
pinstripe
Active Member
Right, a mastering engineer uses his ears to make the material sound its best but what we're talking about here is the RIAA curve. The RIAA curve isn't applied according to aesthetic taste...it's just part of the technical process of manufacturing an LP. It's a precisely defined EQ curve that gets applied during the lathing operation when the lacquer master gets cut. The lacquer master is then coated with a metal compound that hardens into a reverse image of the grooves. The metal image is then used to stamp the hot vinyl at the record factory.
I guess there could be a case where the 2-track master tape was lost or destroyed and all you had is the lacquer master to work from. But if you were a music industry person, especially a technical person like a mastering engineer, you would know the lacquer master has the RIAA curve applied and you would correct for it. It just seems far fetched that they'd let a batch of CDs go out the door with RIAA curve still applied. That would be such a bonehead move that it's hard to imagine it happening.
Chris Whitten
Platinum Member
Yeah, what I was saying is that even if a lacquer had all the low end removed for vinyl, the mastering engineer is still making a judgment with their ears and would boost the low end back in for CD or streaming. It doesn't matter if there is an RIAA curve or not, you judge based on what you are hearing. If it's thin, lacking low end, you add low end EQ to correct the sound.
It would sound terrible, and would be better to go back to a less eq'ed original master for sure.
I have a friend who has restored audio where all they had were original pre-war 78's. There are a lot of digital tools that can correct bad audio.
pinstripe
Active Member
I think it actually does matter if there's an RIAA curve. The RIAA curve isn't just a simple cut. It's a complex curve that would be difficult if not impossible to correct with regular EQ. I guess it's conceivable that the engineer would get in there and start EQ'ing right off the bat, but more likely he'd start by applying the RIAA playback curve, which is the mirror image of the RIAA recording curve. This would totally cancel the RIAA artifacts and get him back to square one -- i.e. to the sound of the original 2-track tape. Then he'd start EQ'ing as needed from there using his ears. I doubt he'd skip the step of correcting the RIAA curve.
You should ask your friend what he'd do with a recording that he knew had been encoded with the RIAA curve. Would he jump right in or would he correct it first before making his tweaks? I'll bet he'd do the latter but it would be interesting to hear his take on it.
type85
Active Member
I've heard the Riaa curve on "normal audio", I plugged my cassette deck into the phono input, the difference was MASSIVE!
There is NO WAY any CD mastering transfers used the RIAA curve, it's unlistenable, massive amounts of bass, no high end whatsoever.
Looking at the diagram you can see there's a 40 db difference from the low frequencies to the high frequencies....
Chris Whitten
Platinum Member
Yeah, you missed my point. At the end of the day the mastering engineer stakes their reputation on the final master. They use their ears, they don't blindly follow their usual routine and send something out 'job done'.
Are there many if any remasters made from old vinyl? I doubt it. The vast majority of remasters are done from the original two track tapes, which the multi-tracks were mixed to.
This IS getting harder as master tapes are lost, damaged or deteriorate.
Absolutely.
I bought a 2CD version of Fleetwood Mac's rumours. CD 2 was iirc an out take/demo type CD which I've barely listened to, CD1 though was the remastered album....with a song that was never on the original inserted in the running order
.If I'm a massive fan of a band I've bought reissues that included bonus tracks (or as they can be viewed, tracks not good enough to make the final cut) but to me as a fan and perhaps a completist I find them interesting and historically relevant. But someone who isn't such a big fan as a result doesn't get the full experience of the correct running order from start to finish. That's why when I bought albums by bands I wasn't a super fan of I'd opt for the original "2 sides of vinyl/40 minute" version to recreate what the artist made.
Slightly related is the Powerage album by AC/DC and how that's messed with my head. The running order and tracks on the UK version, and also some of the mixed, are my reference point and very different to what got released throughout the rest of the world. The CD version messes with my head as it's not "my" Powerage
. I've done my best to recreate it as a Spotify playlist (something I've also done for Let There Be Rock) but it's still not quite right, close enough though.
pinstripe
Active Member
Yes, you would never apply the RIAA playback curve to normal audio because it would sound radically boomy and dull like you heard.
Likewise you would never put out a CD with the RIAA recording curve applied because it would sound radically thin and bright. This would be like Seabuggy's scenario where a CD somehow gets published using the raw uncorrected audio from the lacquer master.
What WOULD happen is that a mastering engineer would apply the RIAA playback curve to source material that he knew had the RIAA recording curve applied. This would instantly get him back to flat response and IMO would be the first thing he would do. Then he'd apply EQ and limiting to taste and as necessary.
pinstripe
Active Member
No I get your point. We're talking past each other because we're talking about two different scenarios. I'm talking about what a mastering engineer would do if he were given audio that still had the RIAA recording curve applied. You're talking what he'd do with audio taken from an LP after it had been through the RIAA playback curve. In my scenario the audio wouldn't just sound bad, it would sound radically bad, so bad that you'd want to correct it by applying the RIAA playback curve before trying to work with it. In your scenario the audio might sound bad but it wouldn't be so bad that you couldn't work with it as-is.
Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX
Local Boob
Absolutely.
I bought a 2CD version of Fleetwood Mac's rumours. CD 2 was iirc an out take/demo type CD which I've barely listened to, CD1 though was the remastered album....with a song that was never on the original inserted in the running order
If I'm a massive fan of a band I've bought reissues that included bonus tracks (or as they can be viewed, tracks not good enough to make the final cut) but to me as a fan and perhaps a completist I find them interesting and historically relevant. But someone who isn't such a big fan as a result doesn't get the full experience of the correct running order from start to finish. That's why when I bought albums by bands I wasn't a super fan of I'd opt for the original "2 sides of vinyl/40 minute" version to recreate what the artist made.
Slightly related is the Powerage album by AC/DC and how that's messed with my head. The running order and tracks on the UK version, and also some of the mixed, are my reference point and very different to what got released throughout the rest of the world. The CD version messes with my head as it's not "my" Powerage
yeah....i am a completist for sure - I am a set collector in sports cards - but I am also a "first impression" kind of guy...I like things to be the way they were when I first encounter them.
when a lot of my old albums/cassettes were put on to CD, I remember the order being changed....and it drove me nuts, but I then found out that many times, album order was determined by song length, and sometimes was not the intended order the artists wanted. Rush's "Caress of Steel" was one of those albums that was in "real" order on CD, but not on my cassette. It took a long time to get used to that
felonious69
Silver Member
I searched for Led Zeppelin, The Song Remains the Same album on YT today at work...hit play...and hated it...(Maybe a little strong but)
It was "Remastered".
Originally, I had the album. Then eventually I got the CD. The CD I have in my car is not remastered and I really love THAT version far more!
To me, in that case, it's "If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT!".
It was "Remastered".
Originally, I had the album. Then eventually I got the CD. The CD I have in my car is not remastered and I really love THAT version far more!
To me, in that case, it's "If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT!".
equipmentdork
Junior Member
Mastering for either CD or LP is going to vary title to title, or even from issue to issue of that title, usually because either better masters are located OR--and this is very important--a different mastering engineer was in charge of the reissue. This can create the conundrum where the old CD is anemic sounding but the 1st generation tape ends up being slammed to death by a hack engineer on the remaster. Every engineer has his/her own style and sound, and for better for worse, that's what you get, ultimately. Still, I say that everyone is their own expert and you like what you like.
If tracking and overdubbing is like assembling a car, then mixing is like painting it and mastering is a great wax job.
Best thing you can do is probably head over to the Steve Hoffman forum where they debate which issue of a title is best on a regular basis. You may not get consensus, but you might get a better idea.
Dan
If tracking and overdubbing is like assembling a car, then mixing is like painting it and mastering is a great wax job.
Best thing you can do is probably head over to the Steve Hoffman forum where they debate which issue of a title is best on a regular basis. You may not get consensus, but you might get a better idea.
Dan
pinstripe
Active Member
The RIAA curve issue is more basic than stylistic differences between mastering engineers.
The best analogy I can think of is an auto body shop that gets a car in that's been in a wreck and has a bent frame. No competent shop is going to start working on the sheetmetal before they've straightened the frame. It wouldn't make sense.
Likewise, if you're a mastering house and you get a recording in that's unlistenable because it still has the RIAA curve applied, you're not going to jump in and start fiddling with EQ and compression and stuff. The first thing you're going to do is to cancel the RIAA recording curve by applying the RIAA playback curve. This will get you back to flat response aka normal audio, so you can start working on it.
Only once you're back to dealing with normal audio -- that is, the sound of the 2-track master tape with no RIAA curve shenanigans -- would you start making adjustments according to taste and style. To do otherwise wouldn't make sense.
We like to think of the music industry as being primarily creative and artistic but a lot of it is really just technician level work that proceeds according to established formula, much like any other industry.
Last edited:
Chris Whitten
Platinum Member
I don't understand why you keep dragging the thread back to this left field theory that has probably never happened, or at best rarely happened.
Masters are made from a stereo mix supplied by the album makers (a producer or album mixer). Either on tape or digital (Pro Tools).
A remaster goes back to the original stereo mix (or digital copy) and reapplies eq and limiting, different or better than the original mastering engineer chose.
No one goes back to a stereo master and masters again on top of the original master, adding to what was done before. You have to go back to the stereo mix tape.
YES it is primarily creative. Mastering is a series of creative choices with an end goal in mind.
Older CDs that sound worse than new masters are a matter of personal taste, or changes in fashion, or better technology. That's the simple fact of it.
pinstripe
Active Member
Because that's the theory that was proposed earlier in the thread to explain why CDs sounded thin. That's the theory I was responding to when you waded in and muddied the waters. The theory was that CDs were made from the lacquer master which had the RIAA recording curve applied. I was trying to point out that that theory doesn't make sense.
My point was that it's a bogus scenario because it would sound so radically bad that it would never happen. To let a CD go out the door with the RIAA curve applied would be a total bonehead move. As in, so boneheaded that it would probably end your career as a technical person in the music industry.
You then jumped in, apparently without having read the thread or understanding what was being discussed, to defend the notion that correcting the RIAA curve wouldn't be the obvious thing to do. You said that a mastering engineer would proceed according to his aesthetic sensibilities in that scenario rather than applying the obvious technical fix of correcting the RIAA curve.
I've spent the last few posts arguing that you are mistaken in this notion.
That said, I agree with you that it's an unlikely scenario, which was precisely my original point.
Chris Whitten
Platinum Member
Yeah, it hasn't happened, or maybe a tiny number of times. So why keep going on about it.
The explanations I've given are more to the point.
Changes in taste and improvements in technology.
equipmentdork
Junior Member
I think you're making more of this issue than is warranted. I've only heard one CD mastered WITHOUT decoding Dolby A. That tells me an untrained ear worked on it. Similarly, the top end boost and cut in the bass of the RIAA curve would also be detectable to a trained ear(if it were not marked on the tape box as "RIAA" or "EQ'd dub" or some such and hopefully rejected outright). I've never heard an RIAA-EQ'd tape. I'm sure it sounds gnarly.
I've spent a lot of time talking to mastering engineers about the early days of CDs and I've never heard them mention RIAA or even CCIR as any kind of pervasive issue, not as opposed to, say. fighting with Dolby A decoding or dbx or sticky tapes that have to be baked or finding the first generation tapes. If this issue really bothers you that much, I'll ring up the guy I know(he just mastered an album I played on), as he's forgotten more than we'll ever know about the subject--he was Polygram's go-to guy in the mid-80s.
To your point, no, I don't think of the industry, as primarily creative or anything but business, at least not since I was 14 or 15.
Dan