Remasters, Remixes and importance of the Original

I've always deplored when "remasters" are just remixes in disguise. Give me the tape hiss, the warbles, the tech limitations; these were all a HUGE part of the original recordings and releases. Miles Davis "Bitches Brew" suffered from a "reissue" that was more or less a b*****dization of the original issuing. That stuff drives me nuts!

Gerinski wrote: PrognosticMind wrote: I've always deplored when "remasters" are just remixes in disguise.  Can we have an academical distinction between what should be called "remaster" and what should be called "remix"? (I'm pretty sure Dean will provide it).

Edited by PrognosticMind - August 06 2014 at 06:20

JD wrote: A fairly accurate description. Being a soundman i can tell you this in it's most simple terms. REMASTER Most often taken from the original 'Master' tapes which are usually 1/4" reel to reel stereo tapes of the already 'Mixed' project. This allows for EQ'ing, compressing, dehissing and performing other post production work on an entire song that remains in it's original mixed state. REMIXED By definition mixing is the process of working with the original multi-track tapes (or in the current world digital tracks) usually in the form of 16, 24, 48 or more individual tracks for each song. This allows for EQ'ing, compressing and post production work on each individual track or instrument withn the song thereby allowing for a much more detailed alteration (or correction if you prefer) of each component that makes up the song. Once the 'REMIX' is completed the entire song then gets a 'Mastering' treatment. In short, Remastered does not always mean Remixed, but Remixed must always be Remastered. Hope that helps a bit. I've have the Remixed early Genesis discs and it makes a HUGE difference to the sound quality of the recordings. But I would say that not all recordings benefit from this process as much as these ones have. It's the point that science and magic intersect.

I think everyone seems to get the difference between  Remix vs. Remastered. Without a remix, the sound  generally suffers as a result as the original stereo or mono album masters are often degraded due to over use in order to make second generation copy tapes for masters and often the original mixed masters are not EQed for digital sound, so a remix of older tape sourses are always desireable and do indeed often sound better than the original album masters.

Edited by SteveG - August 06 2014 at 10:38

^ Good point....maybe saying the downstream processing can ruin a good recording by one or many individuals.

The big issue is really what you're used to hearing and how important that original sound was to you.  A song recorded in the 1960s was meant to played on vinyl with mono/stereo systems that were available. A song in the late 1980s was meant to be heard on a CD player.... When my project records now, we have to have 2 completely separate versions of everything -- 1 for mp3 formats and one for CD formats.  So, the "mastering" is slightly different for that fact alone.

Remastering is typically done so you don't get pissed when your 1980 CD plays a gazillion decibels less than your 2014 CD.

Remixing is entirely different thing artistically typically.  You remix something because you didn't like the way something turned out the first time.....or maybe you can't stand your bass player anymore  :-)

180g vinyl "sounds" as good as those gold colored CD's of the 90's

Well I must say that this is a terrific thread and a great area of discussion where by a lot can be said.
Being a bit of a johnny come lately here, after reading through the wonderful comments people have had to say I think I don't need to rehash the whole 'remix' and 'remaster' subject or difference. I think the definitions given are perfect and we may not need 'THE DEAN' for that one.
I do, however, feel it is important for us proggers to site some examples where the remix and remaster are incredibly beneficial. Now I know there are a lot of people out there who are traditionalist and feel that original pressings from say, analog master tapes are king and anything else beyond that is 'tainting' the albums sound. This is NOT true. Also, before I get into examples I will just answer one of Garinski's questions which was 'should the original album be always included in remastered or remixed pressings?' I say YES, but only If the original pressing has been greatly changed or restructured. As a fan and a huge lover of music I feel it's best to the whole scope of how an album sounds. This will also encourage listeners to maybe check out or read some of the liner notes and see the 'who's who' behind that massive sound board. Sound engineering is an art. Producing an album is an art and I feel a great sound engineer should be recognized as a member of the band in some cases. Being a lover of audio in general and having the right/quality sound gear a sound engineer and producer are things I very much look out for. That being said, the remix and remastering process can be a godsend or it can be a bloody ear drum of a catastrophe if the right people aren't involved or someone who isn't could at his craft.

I think a fine and reasonable example when the right people are involved in remixing/remastering is The Passion Pay Boxset by Jethro Tull. Steven Wilson, who is a godsend in my opinion for restoring classic albums without tainting its originality, did an amazing job with this most recent release.
So here is what is offered, and its an audiophile wet dream as well. You have 5 different sound formats to choose from.
24/96k AC3 (lossy codec) 5.1 Dolby surround mix
24/96k DTS (enhanced LFE) 5.1 surround mix
24/48k Stereo PCM (my favourite cause my DAC recognizes this format the best.)
24/96 Flat EQ transfer of the ORIGINAL ALBUM!! (This is a real bonus cause this is your reference point to hear weather or not you feel Wilson's remix is adequate or not.)

May I say that the 'remix' Wilson did is bloody fantastic. He worked along side painstakingly with Ian Anderson and just changed a few things from the original pressing. Instead of a lot of the saxophone found throughout the piece some parts were omitted and overdubbed with more Flute passages. That is it! Wilson kept the integrity of the original pressing and made it sound far more fluent and clear by bringing forth the soundstage to ones ears with an alarming degree of accuracy. This is where I feel 'a remix' can be very very kind to ones ears. Like I said though it always matters who is involved. The FLAT transfer is wonderful as well. The resolution is 24/96 of the original album true to its very first pressing. You even get that authentic analog tape hiss to boot. May I say, even though I enjoyed this very much, it doesn't hold a candle to the 24/48k stereo PCM remix by Wilson. The album is beautifully articulated and all the warmth and tonality of the instruments are very alive and real, so this is where a 'remaster' can be a blessing as well.

I will site another example. Lets take IQ. Albums such as TFTLA and THE WAKE are marred with disaster in their recording process. An audiophile's nightmare if you will.
Listen to the original 1983 pressing of TFTLA and compare it to the 2013 Remix/Remaster (yes. It's both) you will be amazed at the difference of what you hear even if you have modest audio equipment.
Listen to the intro of 'THE LAST HUMAN GATEWAY' and you will be carried away by the living warmth of how clear and warm the Mellotron sounds compared to disaster 1983. :)
THE WAKE had a 25th anniversary boxset and included a remaster in 2010 for the 1985 masterpiece. That has received some improvement, but not nearly as dramatic as TFTLA.

However, let me sight some negative examples as well. As my good friend here on PA has said (Catcher 10) the 90's yielded some terrible, overblown remasters that are so unpleasing to the ear. It's as he (Jośe) said that every part of the mix was far too bright and separation or recreation of a live soundstage is nonexistent.
EMI in 1998 released all the Iron Maiden albums remastered and some were done very poorly. It's shocking cause EMI did an amazing job with the Marillion classics, but Unfortunately not with the maiden releases. Specifically 'Fear of the Dark' and 'somewhere in Time.' I have a great DAC that can clean up some of the messy recordings, which make the music almost pleasant, but its far from perfect and with out a DAC those maiden albums are a nightmare to listen to, so the original pressings are best...if you get your hands on them. :)

Anyway. Above all I do not cringe when a remaster or remix is released. I simply look to see who is involved.

I'm just gonna say this because we wouldn't be having any of these discussions if analog vs digital wasn't present.
The great thing about vinyl is consistency. A lot of the pressings you get today on 180gram are fabulous and you know you are getting the warmth and true character of that of the original recording. I love that. However, CDs are wonderful as well but less consistent. Some cd recordings are absolute junk. Some are so bad that even the best amplifiers or DACS can't spring these things to life. Lucky for me though, a lot of my favourite artists/albums have had amazing engineers in their team.
I guess after all my babbling I say I am mostly for remasters and remixes. It allows me to appreciate the sound engineers, mix/masterers and producers. These guys are like members of the band to me.

Happy listening and Prog on.

Catcher10 wrote: 180g vinyl "sounds" as good as those gold colored CD's of the 90's

Some of the main benefits of the 180g Vinyl releases are that with the thicker vinyl you get less possibility of warpage and therefore less possibility of wow on the playback. Even a slight fluctuation from a flat playing album affects the playback. Next, with more vinyl the grooves can be cut deeper allowing for a fuller low end (the warmth people speak of). With a thicker platter you also have less unwanted resonance at the stylus to colour the sound (like a solid foundation if you will). I suppose there is another benefit as well. The thicker vinyl doesn't wear as quickly as the thinner platters, so you get that great sound throughout many more plays. I have some vinyls in my collection that are so thin they sag in the middle when you hold them by the outside edges. Most likely a cost saving measure back in the day to try and use less plastic during pressing.

Thanks Steve, I'm certainly no Alan Parsons or Eddie Offord, but I've had my fingers in it on and off for many years (decades actually, egad!) Always happy to share knowledge that I have and to gain it from those more in the know than I.