IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
remastering, original master recordings, and DDD, Do i understand the distinctions and what does OMR mean when DDD init?
BearcatSandor
post May 15 2013, 22:57
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 18-May 10
From: Montana, USA
Member No.: 80732



Like most of us i've got a ton of CDs. When i buy one i look at various versions of a given disc. I've got a lot of Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, Sony Mastersound, DCC and Audio Fidelity label discs. I've also got a lot of discs that have been remastered. I just want to make sure i understand this.

Music is recorded, mixed and mastered.

A "remaster" is when the mixed source is taken and turned into a new master. This may be for good or for ill.

An "original master recording" means that the original master tape was used to create the CD you are listening to. It's a one-off process and done by hand. That's why they cost so much (aside from the gold layer)? I'm guessing that usually a master is made and copies of that master are sent to different manufacturers, so you might end up with a CD that's from a 1st, 2nd, 3rd+ generation master tape? Would that *really* make an audible difference?

So really a "remaster" is moving one step back in the process from an "original master recording", since you're creating a brand new master (which the word remaster would imply). I know that's a stupid question, but i don't trust that marketing terms mean what they should mean.

I've found that i'm pleased with the original master recordings, but that remasters can be "worse" than the initial CDs i bought. Sometimes the remastering was done just to boost the levels to insanity. Whereas the original master recordings are done as sane levels, sometimes overcompensating a little and are very low volumes. My impulse is to say that the differences i'm hearing (assuming i'm hearing them at all) are more due to the mastering styles of Ted Jenson vs Shawn R. Britton rather than that they are 1st generation masters. Is that fair?

I have an original master tape recording of a disc that i'm pretty sure was a AAD disc to start with. If digital copes are identical to their source, what difference could it make? Isn't a digitally mastered disc an exact copy of the master tape anyway?

What am i missing here?

(i do find it awesome that on the DCC version of the Beach Boys Endless Summer track "Wendy" you can hear someone cough and clear their throat at 1:18. I just discovered that today)

This post has been edited by BearcatSandor: May 15 2013, 23:03


--------------------
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
audiofilaid
post May 15 2013, 23:09
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 15-May 13
Member No.: 108151



I have thought about that also. Hopefully some good answers.

I've been collecting a lot of flat CD's from the early to mid 80's Made in Japan for US or EU, Targets, etc. to practice my hobby of mastering songs for good or bad.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BearcatSandor
post May 15 2013, 23:18
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 18-May 10
From: Montana, USA
Member No.: 80732



QUOTE (audiofilaid @ May 15 2013, 16:09) *
I have thought about that also. Hopefully some good answers.

I've been collecting a lot of flat CD's from the early to mid 80's Made in Japan for US or EU, Targets, etc. to practice my hobby of mastering songs for good or bad.

What's a flat CD?


--------------------
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
audiofilaid
post May 15 2013, 23:45
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 15-May 13
Member No.: 108151



In the early 80's when CD's were being made...they'd do a flat transfer to the CD. Take the tapes or copies of tapes and transfer to the CD. To most people they sounded horrible. Hence the name: flat. No pop or boom.

Some go for serious money on Ebay--the more rare titles and hard to get.

This guy, Keith Hirsch, has a great website for IDing a lot of CD's. You might even find your answer in there.

http://www.keithhirsch.com/target-cds

From his site:

Target CDs are collectibles since many of them are the original issues and are, therefore, remnants of the early days of the “Compact Digital Disc”. Aside from the historical significance, many music enthusiasts also feel that these early pressings offer superior fidelity to later remasters. The reason for this is that many Target CDs represent a “flat transfer” of the tapes used. By contrast, many recent remasters have been prepared through excessive processing, including the abuse of compression and noise reduction.



This post has been edited by audiofilaid: May 15 2013, 23:46
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DVDdoug
post May 16 2013, 00:56
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 2610
Joined: 24-August 07
From: Silicon Valley
Member No.: 46454



I would think that "original master" is the normal default with modern CDs (that were recorded digitally). Unless there were some obvious defects or the CD was poorly mastered in the 1st place, I can't see any good reason to remaster a good digital recording. (And I don't consider making it louder a good reason. wink.gif )

With recordings that were originally recorded & mastered on analog tape, I assume original master means the A/D conversion (or LP master cutting) was done from the original 1st generation master tape.

A "remaster" should be an improvement. Maybe some noise reduction to reduce or eliminate analog tape hiss. Maybe some frequency response adjustments (EQ) to correct dull-sounding highs, etc. Maybe the recording has other defects that can be corrected with modern digital tools.

But as you say, sometimes its compressed, boosted, and limited to make it "louder". The dynamics are destroyed and it sounds worse (to most critical listeners). I think this is especially true with remasters when the original recording was digital and very good to begin with... Just not as loud as the modern stuff.

With older recordings from the 50's or 60's that really need some remastering, the remastering might be an improvement.... But if you buy the remastered CD, it's hit-or-miss.

I've done some "home remastering" on older recordings (including vinyl to digital transfers) and IMO, I've made an improvement... Usually EQ, and sometimes noise reduction if I can do the noise reduction without getting audible artifacts. But, I've never used compression on that kind of project.

This post has been edited by DVDdoug: May 16 2013, 01:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post May 16 2013, 18:53
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 2286
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (audiofilaid @ May 15 2013, 18:45) *
In the early 80's when CD's were being made...they'd do a flat transfer to the CD. Take the tapes or copies of tapes and transfer to the CD. To most people they sounded horrible. Hence the name: flat. No pop or boom.

Some go for serious money on Ebay--the more rare titles and hard to get.

This guy, Keith Hirsch, has a great website for IDing a lot of CD's. You might even find your answer in there.

http://www.keithhirsch.com/target-cds

From his site:

Target CDs are collectibles since many of them are the original issues and are, therefore, remnants of the early days of the “Compact Digital Disc”. Aside from the historical significance, many music enthusiasts also feel that these early pressings offer superior fidelity to later remasters. The reason for this is that many Target CDs represent a “flat transfer” of the tapes used. By contrast, many recent remasters have been prepared through excessive processing, including the abuse of compression and noise reduction.




First off 'flat' didn't refer to the sound, it referred to how much the source audio was manipulated before it reached the delivery format (CD in this case). A 'flat transfer' is one where the mastering engineer simply let the source tape roll, and digitized the output, and then that was pressed to disc. No added EQ, compression, noise reduction etc.

However, that says nothing about the *source tape* used for the flat transfer. That *might* have been the original two-track mixdown master; it might have been a 'flat' tape copy of that (or a copy of a copy...unto the nth generation); it might have been a re-EQ'd copy.

The (supposed) problem with early CD sourcing was that the source was often tapes that had already been 'mastered for vinyl'....these tapes were so-called 'production masters', re-EQ'd copies of the original mixdown master tapes, to make them sound good on LP.

By the late 80s 'remastered from the original master tapes' (implying that the original mixdown masters were the starting point) came into vogue, sparking a massive round of CD reissues. In the relatively brief window before 'loudness war' mastering kicked in, this (late 80s/early 90s) was probably the golden age of CD mastering quality.

But note, even 'mastered from the original master tapes' doesn't mean you are necessarily getting a 'flat transfer'; typically a mastering engineer applies *some* EQ or processing to 'correct' whatever imbalances or flaws he/she perceives in the source, and/or make the tracks sounds 'coherent' as a whole album. Some original master tapes even come with instructions from the original engineer, suggesting EQ moves for production formats. In other words, 'flat transfer' is not always intended or desirable.

This post has been edited by krabapple: May 16 2013, 18:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BearcatSandor
post May 16 2013, 19:03
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 18-May 10
From: Montana, USA
Member No.: 80732



Excellent explanation Krapapple! Thank you!

I'm still confused as to why "original master recording" would make any difference if the source is digital? This would be why all of my 'original master tape recording' discs are pre-1990 for the most part?



--------------------
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
audiofilaid
post May 16 2013, 19:17
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 15-May 13
Member No.: 108151



Not sure what "nope" means in the context of all this? I don't see how there can be any flat No in regards to Flat? Tomato or Tomatoe?

I'll try and address each segment:


In the recording business, "flat transfer" is what you said, that goes without explanation unless the OP was concerned about the origin of the audio. But it is more commonly used as an adjective to describe the audio quality for any medium. Your average person does not care about how a tape is transferred/produced onto a CD. But the average person can describe any audio as "flat". Flat is a defined about 10 different ways in the audio world, and possibly more?

I don't think too many studio's ever send out the original master (1 degree from being live). Most original masters are usually 4-5 degrees removed from the first original master depening the age.

Yes, original CD's were made by masters that were mixed for vinyl. The final version mastered on tape was flat transferred to CD. If you do a need drop of an older first pressing you'd likely get the same results.

The rest you wrote is all common sense. I assumed I didn't need to go into an explanation for flat sounding CD's and the different ways "flat" can be construed. It means many things in the audio world.

I only like the early CD's as it's about the flattest and cleanest audio quality I can get to mix--as a hobby with my son who interns with a label. Luckily I was in the business from 89-2001 and have around 10K CD's.

Conclusion: Flat means more than one thing. I apologize if I used it too casual for you. I'm new to this site and do not know anyone's background. I was just told it was a very logical place to discuss digital music compared to SH Forums or Computer Audiophile.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post May 16 2013, 19:47
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 2286
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



I removed the 'nope' from the original post because it was directed mainly at the 'flat' part. But sorry, this post too is full of not-quite-rightness.

A 'flat transfer' can be from a tape that has plenty of 'pop' and 'boom' EQ'd in. Or from one where bass and treble were attenuated compared to the original mixdown master -- as was often the case of vinyl production tapes, due to the limitations of typical vinyl playback. That means the original masters -- and CDs made from them -- may well have more 'pop and boom' than the first CD versions...and that sound was only finally available on CD when the OMTs were used as a source. This is something that Target CD/'flat transfer' fetishists like the site you linked to, don't seem to grasp fully. 'Flat transfer' in fact says nothing about the 'audio quality'. And yes, this is a more fact-based place to discuss digital music than those other two sites.

As for what is 'sent out' to the mastering facility -- if we're talking about analog sources, neither you nor I knows for sure, but I suspect OMTs (or digitized flat transfers of them) are 'sent out' far, far more often than they were in the early days of CD.

This post has been edited by db1989: May 16 2013, 19:58
Reason for edit: deleting pointless full quote of previous post
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post May 16 2013, 21:53
Post #10





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10009
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (krabapple @ May 16 2013, 11:47) *
That means the original masters -- and CDs made from them -- may well have more 'pop and boom' than the first CD versions...and that sound was only finally available on CD when the OMTs were used as a source.

This causes me to revisit the issue we discussed a while back about the common assumption (myth?) that MFSL employs smiley-faced EQ.

@audiofilaid:
Hi and welcome. Must you abuse apostrophes so? It makes your post difficult to read or take seriously; but that's probably just me. I'm afraid the majority of people are completely clueless about punctuation and grammar these days.

EDIT: It appears the post following mine,
QUOTE (mjb2006 @ May 16 2013, 14:17) *
Re: apostrophe 'abuse', please see the Wikipedia article on quotation marks. "Double quotes are preferred in the United States, and also tend to be preferred in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Single quotes are more usual in the United Kingdom and South Africa, though double quotes are also common there." Whether you regard the ' as a multipurpose glyph or as strictly an apostrophe is a personal choice.
does not take into account the recipient of my comment about abusing apostrophe's (an apostrophe incorrectly used to pluralize was very much intended).

This post has been edited by greynol: May 16 2013, 22:56
Reason for edit: Addressing mjb2006 here hoping not to fuel a prolonged and unnecessary discussion. I can be PM'ed (PM'd?) in order to remove the missed shot. ;)


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mjb2006
post May 16 2013, 22:17
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 816
Joined: 12-May 06
From: Colorado, USA
Member No.: 30694



Re: apostrophe 'abuse', please see the Wikipedia article on quotation marks. "Double quotes are preferred in the United States, and also tend to be preferred in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Single quotes are more usual in the United Kingdom and South Africa, though double quotes are also common there." Whether you regard the ' as a multipurpose glyph or as strictly an apostrophe is a personal choice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post May 16 2013, 23:09
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 2286
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (greynol @ May 16 2013, 16:53) *
QUOTE (krabapple @ May 16 2013, 11:47) *
That means the original masters -- and CDs made from them -- may well have more 'pop and boom' than the first CD versions...and that sound was only finally available on CD when the OMTs were used as a source.

This causes me to revisit the issue we discussed a while back about the common assumption (myth?) that MFSL employs smiley-faced EQ.


Impossible to know for sure unless we have at hand a bona-fide 'flat transfer' of the tapes that MFSL used, for comparison.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
audiofilaid
post May 16 2013, 23:24
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 15-May 13
Member No.: 108151



QUOTE (krabapple @ May 16 2013, 19:47) *
I removed the 'nope' from the original post because it was directed mainly at the 'flat' part. But sorry, this post too is full of not-quite-rightness.

A 'flat transfer' can be from a tape that has plenty of 'pop' and 'boom' EQ'd in. Or from one where bass and treble were attenuated compared to the original mixdown master -- as was often the case of vinyl production tapes, due to the limitations of typical vinyl playback. That means the original masters -- and CDs made from them -- may well have more 'pop and boom' than the first CD versions...and that sound was only finally available on CD when the OMTs were used as a source. This is something that Target CD/'flat transfer' fetishists like the site you linked to, don't seem to grasp fully. 'Flat transfer' in fact says nothing about the 'audio quality'. And yes, this is a more fact-based place to discuss digital music than those other two sites.

As for what is 'sent out' to the mastering facility -- if we're talking about analog sources, neither you nor I knows for sure, but I suspect OMTs (or digitized flat transfers of them) are 'sent out' far, far more often than they were in the early days of CD.


Yes, correct, a flat transfer can contain pop and boom. Depending your components and speakers, it can provide all you need. No need to explain, but there's too many variables in audio listening or producing to make a solid end all statement. Funny enough, there is plenty of that attitude in other forums.

And I agree 100% on what is sent out to any studio. Have you ever spoken to a musician from a band on this topic? It would scare you if you haven't. With that, I'd love to see a timeline of the master tape for Pink Floyd's DOSTM: Master Tape Complete to Today. I'd find that fascinating. I asked Alan Parsons once about it and he looked at me like a complete fanboy or was paranoid I knew I figured he held a master.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post May 16 2013, 23:30
Post #14





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10009
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (krabapple @ May 16 2013, 15:09) *
Impossible to know for sure unless we have at hand a bona-fide 'flat transfer' of the tapes that MFSL used, for comparison.

I guess my point was that I don't recall having seen this very plausible explanation, so thanks for sharing it.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
audiofilaid
post May 16 2013, 23:32
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 15-May 13
Member No.: 108151



I like MFSL, even manage to collect a lot of CD's, Vinyl, and a few tapes over the years, but in my opinion, I don't think they're the pinnacle of quality popular recordings. I've found some Japanese CD's, German vinyl pressings, and even US pressing better than their release. Pink Floyd's The Wall or any a few Joe Jackson releases, to name a few.

This post has been edited by audiofilaid: May 16 2013, 23:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post May 19 2013, 15:10
Post #16


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5148
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



Sometimes "original master recording" or similar is just marketing spiel or a downright lie. There can be lots of "masters" for a given recording. The session multitracks are usually a unique source and from the era of 3+4 track recorders, going back to these is often better quality (unless you insist on hearing an authentic period mix, or the new digital mix is bad/wrong).

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BearcatSandor
post May 19 2013, 21:38
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 18-May 10
From: Montana, USA
Member No.: 80732



I'm still trying to figure a few things out, since i don't have a background in a studio. When sees "remastered" on a disc does that always mean that it's from the original mix tapes?


--------------------
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post May 20 2013, 09:55
Post #18


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5148
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ May 19 2013, 21:38) *
When sees "remastered" on a disc does that always mean that it's from the original mix tapes?
No, of course not. Remastered just means a new master has been created. It could have been copied from a cassette found on the parcel shelf of an old car, played on a 1980s ghetto blaster - it would still be a remaster.

Technically any CD which is not bit-for-bit identical to a previous issue has been "remastered". It has become a marketing word. It means nothing.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BearcatSandor
post May 20 2013, 10:04
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 18-May 10
From: Montana, USA
Member No.: 80732



Thanks David. That answers my question.


--------------------
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd October 2014 - 01:58