From: ttak@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Digital Remastering -  Re: Why switch to CD?
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:01:19 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <9210061530.AA05928@software.pulse.com> lampson@software.pulse.com (Dave Lampson) writes:
>In a recent article, Tim Takahashi writes:
>>   "Digital Remastering" does not necessarily mean better. Usually it
>>   turns a muddy analog recording into an equalized muddy digital remastering.

>"Digital Remastering" does not necessarily mean anything.
>
>*All* CDs that contain original analog recordings are *by definition* 
>remastered into the digital domain before transference onto the CD.
>It can't be any other way.  What Tim is talking about, I think, is 
>re-editting/mixing the original analog recording from the multitrack
>masters.  This happens *very* infrequently.  It's too expensive.

Sorry, Dave. This is the commonplace scenario. The number of un-remastered
"AAD" CDs is insignificant compared to the number of "digitally-remastered"
"ADD" CDs (or later "ADA" LPs, for that matter). A re-mix of the session
tapes to digital is standard operating procedure - this usually includes
more than a judicious amount of equalization to bring the "sound" of
early tapes into line with modern aesthetics.

>>   digital "remastering" is processing, just as "electronically
>>   enhanced for stereo".

>Digital remastering is *not* processing in the same sense as "electronically
>enhanced for stereo".  It is simply the digital encoding of the original 
>analog master.

Wrong, Digital remastering is *not* the same as a digital transfer.
Digital remastering is processing.

>  While the mastering equipment may make a difference
>(Sterophile and Chesky certainly think it does, to name a few), the point
>of mastering is not to perform enhancement on the audio signal. 

In the case of Chesky, the original session tapes are used to drive the
cutting lathe (basically eliminating the "mastering" stage in LP production)
and also used to directly generate the digital tape. Chesky CD's are "AAD"
with the "remastering" being the transfer engineers idea of how to balance
the three-channel original tapes down to two track stereo.

 Digital "remastering" of analog session tapes began in the early 1980's.
Large record labels, such as RCA issued many digitally remastered LPs before
the demise of the analog disk. i.e. an original recording from the 1950's
first appeared on an LSC series stereo record, then on a budget priced
VICS series stereo record, and finally on a digitally remastered AGL (gold
label) series record.

Glenn Gould on Columbia was issued in analog stereo, Dolby-A remasteres
(Masterworks Portrait series) and finally in digitally remastered "CD" form.

>If the original analog master was bad, the digital master will contain the
>same flaws, unless processing (noise reduction, equalization, etc.) 
>is used before the mastering process.

And considerable amounts of equalization usually excacerbate those "awful"
analog recording flaws. Imagine, an LP and CD of the same master tape sound
very close. This is not the typical case!

tim
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical