Are there any GOOD Dylan SACD remasters?
Correct me if I'm wrong, the original master tape offers sonic's obscured by conventional CD technology. OK, you're wrong. The "problem" isn't CD technology; the "problem" is they're using a different master, and you don't like that master as much as the old one. Oher people like the new versions better. To each his own. |
OK, the Dylan remasters weren't remixed? Then explain this one: We first heard a recent run-of-the-mill LP pressing followed by the original CD. Then, I played for him the new stereo mix. It's at the bottom of this page. |
Ben: Beore you call people daft, you might want to check your facts. Source tapes are NOT masters. Masters are what you make out of source tapes. There's also nothing daft about the idea that there would be more than one source tape (or set of source tapes, if you're using multitrack recording). Those are called 'takes," and they're quite common. I've heard a few remasters where I'm pretty sure they were using at least parts of different takes than the original release. |
Your theory has merit anyone can easily see what some artists/producers might want to tweak things.However I believe this type of remastering is very rare. Rare? That's what remastering IS. It's going back to the original tapes (NOT the original master) and creating a new, different master. Why is that so hard to understand? |
I'm not "playing" with terminology. I'm trying to get you to use terminology correctly. When they RE-master a recording, they do not go back to the MASTER. They make a new master. That's what remastering means. To say that remastering uses the same master, as you did before, is nonsensical. As long as you keep calling the original studio tapes "masters," you will get this wrong. And there is no reason why remastering has to involve only the specific takes used in the original master (or any master, since by this time there are probably several). Probably isn't common, but it's certainly not unheard of. I'm not saying it was done in the case of the Dylan remasters, BTW. Also, virtually all remastering involves remixing. If you aren't going to do that, there's almost no point. |
Can we agree there was at the time of the recording there was a "master" tape? No. You simply don't understand modern recording technique. Also out of interest name me any 5 recent releases that have been remixed as part of the remastering process. How many Dylan SACDs are 5.1? Those, for starters. Then all the others. Again, remastering generally consists of taking the original tracks (multiple, and never called masters), and remixing them into a new master. |
Haven't read the Berkowitz interview yet, but I see a lot more mixing going on than you do. "Stretching the stereo"? That would necessitate remixing-- something like changing the weight of instruments in each channel. That 8-track "master" of Miles Davis? Takes some mixing to get it down to two. You've conceded that any multichannel release has to be remixed. Do you really think they just used the old master for the stereo layer? |
I use the term "master" you prefer source-let's agree there is an original tape of the recording and leave it at that. No. There isn't A tape. There are multiple tapes, multiple tracks, and multiple takes. Remember, for the vast majority of records made in the last 40 years, there was no original performance. Records are made in pieces, with a rhythm track here, and a lead vocal track there. Nobody in the business calls these "masters." (I'll agree that many uninformed consumers do, but that reflects their misconceptions about recording generally.) The job of mastering largely involves taking all these parts and deciding which channel or channels they should go in and how loud they should be in each channel. That's called mixing. Every master is mixed (at least in the pop music world). Remastering involves going back to those original tapes and remixing them in a different way. That's why EVERY remaster is remixed--practically by definition. Remastering is not just about "cleaning up the tapes and preserving everything else." It's about making a different master. Sometimes that master sounds very close to the original release, and sometimes not. |
A point to you on the use of of the term master, at least in material meant for consumers' eyes. That said, please note the problem here: The term "master" is now being used for two very different things: 1) the final--fully mixed, EQd, and otherwise processed--tape used to make the disk. 2) Some earlier generation of tapes, either the original studio tapes or some processed and/or partially mixed descendent of them. That creates all kinds of confusion, as our discussion here demonstrates. Remastering certainly does not involve #1 above, and I suspect that it usually involves some generation before the final mixdown--which means, of necessity, that it involves remixing. There are loads of obvious examples of this: the CD version of Layla, Let It Be Naked, etc. Perhaps the most common (positive) comment about a remastering is that it brings out or highlights or isolates a particular instrument or voice. That's most likely been accomplished by remixing. Final thought: The information on remastering that's included on most CDs is very sketchy. You really can't assume anything about what they don't say. |
Well, all the Dylans were remixed in the course of being remastered. The Miles Davis Jack Johnson you mentioned was remixed. Sounds like that Peter Gabriel was remixed, too. I dunno, Ben, I keep seeing remasters that were remixed, and I'm gonna stick with the view that remixing is a very common part of remastering. |
