|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
172.9.116.164
In Reply to: RE: Re-Issues are a total hit or miss due to idiotic remastering, poor master tapes... posted by Tre' on May 17, 2016 at 09:20:35
Many LPs were originally mastered to deliberately roll off bass and treble, then dynamically compressed due to the limitations of early home equipment. A mid 50's era jazz or classical LP pressed to be true to the tape would have unplayable on 90% of the equipment used by consumers. Most pop hits were mastered to sound good on an AM radio.
We have original pressings that we have listened to multiple times, and we have internalized their "sound" warts and all. Then we purchase a new high end reissue that was mastered to be "true to the master tape" and what we hear does not correspond to what we think it should sound like. In fact many reissues sound like completely different records. Classic Records was severely criticized when there first RCA LSC reissues did not sound like original pressings. The remastering engineer took out the EQ curve and restored e dynamic range that was present on the master tape. Listeners were not happy because the reality was not what their memories ld them to expect.
Now listeners have come to expect that careful reissues will sound different than first pressings, but it took about 15 years for buyers to recalibration their expectations.
Best, Ross
Follow Ups:
I am guessing that you are referring to some effort on the part of the original engineers to soften the extreme low bass and extreme treble so as to suit the playback equipment of the 50s, because surely you don't mean that the remastering engineer took out the RIAA equalization curve. If I do understand you correctly, is there concrete evidence that recording engineers of the 50s were thinking in such a way about home audio? I've never read such a thing. To the contrary, the covers of many vintage LPs describe in detail the recording chain, from microphones to cutting lathe, that was used to capture the performance; in the best cases, this was really state of the art for those days, and much of that gear is to this day still highly regarded and capable of a wide bandwidth. I don't perceive any deliberate attempt to compromise. I am not necessarily at odds with your hypothesis; I am just wondering about what information supports it.
Excellent points, Ross. Thanks.
For example. I still own a mint copy of Santana first LP. The MoFI reissue does not sound near as good.
The original of that first Santana LP is better in almost every way. I think this is due to the master tape MoFi used. either it was NOT the actual master, or it was done on 'cheap' tape, and had degraded over time.
On the other hand, the second Santana LP from MoFI WAS better than the original.
One problem here is we are talking past each other. Discussing different aspects using the same words, thus not really understanding each other.
I started to rehash what I wrote, but it just gets tired. Suffice to say IMO we are discussing different things.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: