Jump to content

"Remaster" vs. "Digital Remaster"


mjzee

Recommended Posts

I bought the 4 CD Joe Henderson cheapo box as seen below. Legit, but really bare-bones: thin cardboard sleeves, no liner notes, no personnel; just track names and writer credits. But they do make a distinction between "remaster" and "digital remaster." Here's an example: for the album Page One, the track Blue Bossa is labeled "Rudy Van Gelder Edition - 1999 Remaster." The other 5 tracks on the album are labeled "Rudy Van Gelder Edition - 1999 Digital Remaster." What's the difference? And why would one track be done differently than the others?

51faQpe4XAL.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda hard to believe the accuracy of this when they write "Rudy Van Gelder 24 Bit Mastering - 1987 Digital Remaster" when 1) RVG was not doing masters for Blue Note in 1987 and 2) there wasn't a 24 bit mastering station in 1987.

Exactly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they are just getting the name on the earlier ones wrong. Example: Phil Lancie might have remastered an album in 1987 then RVG did his remaster in 1999 or 2000. It's not only confusing but I'm willing to bet that some of the info is wrong but what do you expect with a cheap copy? They had to cut corners somewhere, actually in a lot of places and research is one of them or so it appears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Blue Note CD and SACD remasters were done in the digital domain.

I can't believe this thread is still active. I thought post #3 said it all. :shrug[1]:

Post #3 didn't answer anything for me. Maybe I just don't understand what was meant by it, and a lengthier explanation would be helpful. If "all BN remasters were done in the digital domain," then why the distinction between "remaster" and "digital remaster"? It took some effort on EMI's part to note that on the CD covers, esp. when they didn't note personnel. If anyone has a knowledge of this, that would be great. If it's just speculation, well, anyone can speculate, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Blue Note CD and SACD remasters were done in the digital domain.

I

can't believe this thread is still active. I thought post #3 said it all. :shrug[1]:

Post #3 didn't answer anything for me. Maybe I just don't understand what was meant by it, and a lengthier explanation would be helpful. If "all BN remasters were done in the digital domain," then why the distinction between "remaster" and "digital remaster"? It took some effort on EMI's part to note that on the CD covers, esp. when they didn't note personnel. If anyone has a knowledge of this, that would be great. If it's just speculation, well, anyone can speculate, right?

There is no distinction between "remasters" and "digital remasters" that were done for Blue Note CDs and SACDs, they were all digital remasters; it's just that the latter description is more explicit than the former. It looks like they didn't do any research for this reissue, just to keep the cost as low as possible. Early remasters were done using 16-bit resolution, later ones used 20-bit and 24-bit resolution, but that didn't become available until some time in the 1990s - see also post #9: like Kevin said there wasn't a 24-bit mastering station in 1987, so that shows how accurate the descriptions on this release are; some are plain nonsense. Edited by J.A.W.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found copies of the CD back covers for 3 of the 4 titles. For "In 'N Out," it appears they used the 1987 remaster and mistakenly added Rudy's name. As for the "remasters" vs. "digital remasters" distinction (which seems to be preoccupying only me), I see an interesting pattern: the "remasters" notation is on the title tracks only for "Our Thing" and "Mode For Joe," and for "Page One" (which doesn't have a title track) only on the first title. This leads me to think that this data came from EMI's database, and was probably originally used for some promotional purpose (maybe in a printed catalog). The other tracks were given a lengthier description, adding the word "digital." But the entire albums each came from the same remastering session. I guess that explanation satisfies me.

51lJe9fXz-L.jpg512a2vvf66L.jpg81AFsIx3raL._SL1500_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about it. If you're talking about a CD, it must be produced from a digital master because it's a digital medium. The SPARS code which appeared on earlier CDs is a three-letter code that tells you: 1) the type of audio recorder used in initial recording (analog or digital); 2) the type of audio recorder used in mixing (analog or digital); and 3) the kind of mastering used (always digital in the case of a CD). Remastered CDs can only be AAD, ADD, DDD, or DAD. Unless I'm missing something, the only instance in which you can have an analogue remaster is with a vinyl record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe this thread is still active. I thought post #3 said it all. :shrug[1]:

Actually, I thought my post #2 said it all, but it seems some people couldn't be bothered to find out what Hanlon's Razor is.

Hanlon's Razor states "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Paraphrasing it for this example - Don't attribute some kind of super intelligence to EMI for their notations on these CDs, it is much more likely to just be a cockup on their part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe this thread is still active. I thought post #3 said it all. :shrug[1]:

Actually, I thought my post #2 said it all, but it seems some people couldn't be bothered to find out what Hanlon's Razor is.

Hanlon's Razor states "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Paraphrasing it for this example - Don't attribute some kind of super intelligence to EMI for their notations on these CDs, it is much more likely to just be a cockup on their part.

Actually, I did look it up, and didn't find it to be a helpful answer to my question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mjzee,

Although Kevin and JAW are completely right, I feel some explanation of the mastering operation might help you to understand clearly the process . So here's my two pence worth.

Mastering practically exists since the beginning of the electric recording of music to manufacture discs. It simply means an engineer makes adjustments on the recorded material to make it sound as good as possible thru the playing media and the audio reproducing system. This was working a long time before the appearance of the digital technology. In short, the mastering engineer had to compensate thru his equalizers as much as he could for the deficiencies of the vinyl disks : limited audio frequencies range, dynamic range, compression introduced to manufacture the metal masters etc...Allt his could be done in the analog domain.

The appearance of the CD implied another step : transferring the analog recorded signal into a suite of digital bits that would become the well known CD containing approximately 700 Mb of music. This operation HAS to be done in the digital domain, using analog to digital converters (AD). The developments of this technology made possible to apply all the required sound corrections to the recorded material also in the digital domain, meaning no perverse side effects will affect the sound during the process (such as noise, phase rotations etc..).As a result, a new marketing gadget has spread over the re-issue segment of the market :"Digitally remastered" to help the sales of earlier recorded material.

Another frequent confusion exists between mixing and mastering : in the case of the Blue Note label (and Prestige and other labels from that time), the original music was recorded onto a 2 tracks analog tape machine. The mixing operation still existed, unless Rudy would use only a stereo pair, but this was perfomed live during the rehearsals or even during the actual final performances. And that was of course completely analog stuff.

In short, these confusions are introduced by marketing people believing the word 'digital' will help the sales : they usually have not the slightest idea of what is involved. I hope these few lines have more or less answered your question, but feel free to discuss it if you wish to .

Edited by michel devos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to what Michel Devos said I'd like to add that while recording at Rudy's was made onto two-track I've seen the claim that stereo separation was very pronounced, allowing for (and/or requiring) further downmixing to make it suitable for release.

There's probably a thread about that somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, michel and Daniel. I do think the distinctions made in this particular series are driven by something in EMI's data system, and not by anything actually affecting the music (in other words, there is no actual distinction in the music labeled as "remasters" vs "digital remasters"; they weren't remastered on different dates or in different ways). It is good to talk about the topic of mastering from time to time.

etherbored, yes, the package I have is copyright 2011 EMI Music France.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while recording at Rudy's was made onto two-track I've seen the claim that stereo separation was very pronounced, allowing for (and/or requiring) further downmixing to make it suitable for release.

This is a nice way to illustrate the difference between a remix and a remastering. In those early stereo times, the buyers of the brand new stereo ,Lp's were enjoying excessive stereo separation, also known as the ping-pong effect and there is no doubt it was not a van Gelder personal choice.

Since the mixing of all the channels was made before the recording onto a 2 tracks tape, there is no way one could go back to a multitrack master, trim the levels and pan the instruments in a more blended way.

But it is quite possible to process the original stereo master to reduce the stereo spread and, if necessary, adjust the equalization and add a tiny short decay reverb' to add some air between the instruments.

And that would most probably result in an RVG CD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...