Conference cookie::notes$archive:cd_v1

    Instead of using the final analog mixing of the record, the artist
    or who ever is doing the remastering, uses the tapes that contain
    the material used to make the final analog mixing to make the
    digitalally (sp) remastered album.  
    
    If an artist finds that a particular instrument didn't record well,
    or the tape has been destroyed, (s)he can redo that instrument only
    for the remastering.  Case in point: Frank Zappa totally redid many
    of the drum tracks on his recently remastered albums.
    
    Steve Owen 

    Typically an album is produced in several steps.  One of these steps
    is to record (usually in analog) all (or most) of the mic'd "voices"
    onto multi-track audio tape.  The standard numbers of tracks, if
    memory serves me, are 4, 9, 16, 64.  This tape will have a separate
    track for, say, the vocalist, lead guitar, drums, backing vocals,
    etc.  This multi-track tape is then mixed down to 2 tracks (for
    the pressing of the stereo album or tape).
    
    As I understand it, "re-mastered from the original analog sources"
    means they went back to the multi-track tapes and re-mixed down
    to 2-track and taking the 2-track tape through an A/D to produce
    the disc's master (AAD).  If the SPARS code reads ADD this also
    implies that the re-mastering was done by feeding the multi-track
    tape into an A/D converter and producing a multi-track *digital*
    tape, which is then digitally mixed down to 2-track.
    
    I would agree with the comments in .1 otherwise, since it is quite
    possible to mix-in new tracks while mixing down from multi to 2-track.
    
    Yes?  Or am I just confused?
    
    David.

    <I know the sound of a recording is usually improved after it has
    been remastered>

    Could somebody specifically comment on that quote from .0
    My VERY incomplete understanding is that it is like what .2 says.
    In particular, the music is reproduced FROM the original master.
    Since Nat Cole has been dead for over 20 years, it is very unlikely
    that somebodyd decided some of the tracks were inferior and remade
    them. 
    So at best the output can only be as good as it originally was.
    e.g. 
    Just bought some digitally remastered Nat King Cole C.D.s. Now these
    REALLY DO sound better that they did when I was dancing to his music in the
    50s, but that is because my stereo system is better
    than the juke box i listened to in a bar in Bremerhaven Germany
    And also because, the Cole recordings got many ALL night plays which
    uindoubtedly contributed to media wear and therefore degraded performance

				herb

    
    
    re .3  What has occurred, is not something that makes the
    output sound "better" than the original input, but a technology
    that allows us for once to actually hear the original mastering
    sessions, without the 3rd, 4th & maybe even 5th analog transfers
    that those of us into older music have grown attuned to.
    
    Such care was taken by Capitol with Cole's recordings, they
    really aren't such good examples of what I mean. Best I've heard
    is probably the originally mastered version of "Every Beat of My
    Heart" by the Pips. For 15 years, I could never even hear the low
    beginning, as sung by Gladys Knight. When I finally got a digitally
    remastered copy, the usually buried in bass, "In every beat...."
    comes through cleanly.
    
    I'm sure, too that there're still people who've only heard music 
    on the radio, that hear the "new digital version" & it seems harsh 
    or tinny. That was a major complaint (even in this conference) about 
    4 years ago when CD's first hit the mainstream.
    
    The digital remastering process has become a not-so-precise science,
    with certain individuals being the best at re-mastering "warm" sounding
    original sessions from the original tapes. Steve Hoffman of ABC/DUNHILL
    (formerly of MCA) and Bill Inglot (of RHINO) are two of the best
    that deal in very old, not very well taken care of masters, yet
    consistently turn out good product, considering what they have to
    work with. They do this mostly by ear, and give us a remastered
    copy of something as maybe they first heard it, or wanted to hear
    it.
    
    Whatever it is the majority of remastering studios are doing, I
    like it. It beats the shabby crap that came from the Original Sound
    label (Art Laboe's Oldies But Goodies series, etc.) & from CBS &
    RCA's shabby attempts (crap like "electronically altered/rechanneled
    to simulate stereo") - remember those ??
    
    				The Cruiser
    
    

    
    
     There is a very good article on this subject in the October issue
    of _Digital_Audio_&_Compact_Disk_Review_.  October 88 I should mention.
    The article appears on page 20, titled "Tampering with Tone Quality.",
    under the section of Reissue Issues.
    
     By way of the article, reply number two was the closest from a
    technical view point.  The article goes further to talk about the
    sleaze bag approach of re-mastering by some of the larger labels.
    The term "sleaze bag" didn't appear in the article, er, um, it was
    my feeling towards them, the big labels.  
    
     The controversy is this.  They re-master the music and it in no
    way represents the intent of the artist.  To over-simplify to make
    the point; They take an old hit, re-master and change the feel of
    the music to appeal to todays market. Like bring up the bass drum
    to get that New York dance club, thump-thump-thump, that everybody
    in the entire free world wants on their disk.  AAAARRRHHHHG!!!
    
     Just wanted to add another slant to the story.  Hope it doesn't
    confuse things more.
    
     Rick.
    
    

    Are people confusing mixing with mastering?
    
    I thought that everything that ends up on CD has been 'digitally
    re-mastered'. Whether or not the material was re-mixed from the
    original 32 (or 16, or 8, or whatever) track studio tapes to create
    a digital (or analog) master is a seperate issue (and process).
    
    Ken....
    

    
    
      I dunno. I'm confused now myself.  I guess you're right.  The
    point I was making is that they are taking liberties during the
    mix/master process.  Here's some more info that may help every-
    one.
    ***Reprinted without permission from D.A., page 85.***
    
       The Spars Code - What Does It All Mean?
    
       Each Digital Audio compact disk review includes a
       three-letter  code (ADD, DDD, etc.) following the
       disc's label and number.
    
       The  code  represents  a standard proposed by the 
       Society of  Professional Audio  Recording Studios
       (SPARS),  which many  record labels have adopted.
    
       The first letter identifies the nature (anolog or
       digital)  of  the recorder originally used in the
       recording process.   The second and third letters
       pertian to recorders that the  music was mixed to 
       and mastered to, respectively. 
    
       For  example,   a disc with an  "ADD"  code would 
       indicate an original analog recording,  mixed and
       mastered to digital recorders.
    
    
    Rick.
    
    

    re: .6
    
    Yes.  That is why I said "re-mastered from the original analog
    sources (or recording)".  If you have a 2-track (stereo) tape and
    just run it through an A/D and press discs then you have a "digitally
    mastered analog recording" (or words to that effect).
    
    Or am I all wet?
    
    David.

Nobody has yet mentioned the real value of digital remastering, beyond 
that it's necessary for CDs.

It is possible, by some very clever application of a computer, to 
recognize "noise" in an old recording - hiss, for instance, is quite 
random in nature whereas music, even drumbeats and cymbal clashes, is 
more organized.  By recognizing the random components of a tape signal, 
the computer can reduce or eliminate them, leaving the music sounding 
better than it did before.

I have a classical CD recording that demonstrates this technique quite
graphically.  I also have a 25-year-old LP copy of it that had lots of 
hiss, even when it was brand new.  The CD doesn't hiss nearly so much.  
Reducing the hiss has made it possible to hear the whining hum of the 
original tape deck's motor...

- Dick

    
    Re; 6 & 8,
        
    Quick review says that you're not wet.
    
    Sorry, my redundant note is a bit redundant.
    
    Rick.
    

    Re/ .9:
    
    "Digital re-mastering" does not imply noise reduction.  Sometimes
    noise reduction is done during the re-mastering process, and some-
    times it's not.
    
    Also, there are a number of different noise reduction techniques
    around.  The one that's gettinga lot of press these days is the
    No-Noise process.  Even that requires the supervision of a good
    audio engineer to decide just how much or little modification of
    the signal to do.  Unfortunately, there's no completely reliable
    way to distinguish noise from signal.  The best algorithms are
    still making educated guesses, and require supervision.
    
    Also, some people claim that all the noise reduction techniques
    tend to diminish the music in some way.  I don't have a stand
    on this issue myself, but plenty of people do.

    
    
    Now that everyone's totally confused, here's the way I think the
    process goes. Just cause something ends up on a disc, does not
    necessarily mean it's been digitally remastered. Just cause something
    is digitally remastered, doesn't mean it's been necessarily digitally
    remixed.
    
    If you take the original source tapes (2 track or 4 and in some
    cases even more) and just put them through an a/d converter, this
    is the digital remastering process. If, during the process, an engineer
    oversees and uses noise-reduction or modifies board settings, then
    it's being digitally remixed & remastered. Either of these two ways
    will earn the spars code ADD (with the final D being redundant,
    since it HAS to be digital to be on a disc in the first place).
    
    DDD on the other hand is an original recording done digitally, then
    a remastering process (with or without mixing) to a "master" disc
    & from there the assembly line takes over (the final D).
    
    To confuse this issue even more, an ADD doesn't guarantee good sound,
    since the original analog source, no matter what, has inherent noise
    problems. An example of how good an analog source (and it's mixed
    analog master) can be is "The Broadway Album" by Barbra Streisand, which
    is probably one of the finest AAD discs ever made (technically,
    anyway).
    
    So the steps are, for each spars code:
    
    	AAD			ADD			DDD
    Session		     Session		     Session
       |			|			|
    Multiply tracked      Multiply tracked	Multiply tracked
    recording generally   recording generally   recording to DIGITAL
    to analog tape        to analog tape        tape
       |                        |                       |
    Mixdown/up session    Mixdown/up session    Mixdown/up session
    for production        to DIGITAL tape       again to DIGITAL tape
    master(s) (analog     for production        for production master
    tape)		  master
    ******************************************************************
    The above step may or may not include noise reduction and or
    board work by an engineer, but almost always does include at least
    the latter.
    ******************************************************************
       |                     |                      |
    Consumer CD		Consumer CD		Consumer Cd
    
    I could be off base, but I think not by much. This is a pretty
    simplified view of what goes on, broken down into the least possible
    amount of steps to get the point across. More & more companies are
    going through that digital mixing process, especially when remastering
    old analog source, both for posterity & to get the best possible
    sound reproduction on reissues for years to come.
    
    				The Cruiser
    
    
    

    re:-1
    
    	But if you go back to the original session tapes (the ones that
    	were used as input for the original mix), and make a digital
    	master from *them*, aren't you in effect re-MIXing also? Whether
    	or not you change anything from the original mix is beside the
    	point. I guess my bitch is that some companies use the term
    	'digitally re-mastered' to dupe the cd-buying public into
    	believing that the recording is an improvement over the original
    	when it ain't necessarily so. EVERYTHING that is on cd has been
    	digitally re-mastered. That term does not provide any real 
    	information to those who know better. 
    
    Ken....

    Digital remastering is a way of cleaning up old recordings, sure.
    Sometimes it results in a better sound, sometimes not, but we get
    it anyway.
    
    The reason we get it has little to do with quality per se. In the
    bad old days, to distribute a recording worldwide the companies
    had to produce multiple master tapes for the pressing plants. Due
    to the technology available at the time, each copy suffered "generation
    loss"; it's possible today to produce multiple analog master copies
    where the degradation is insignificant, and many smaller companies still
    do until the final stage, when it goes to either the LP or tape
    (analog) or CD (digital). The reason many companies adopt digital
    recording at the studio, and reconversion of old analog masters
    into digital format, is that distribution is easier, since multiple
    copies can be made with no generation loss at all; while this may
    or may not lead to better sound for us, that isn't the primary
    motivation of the average recording company, just a bonus - or not,
    depending on the outcome. Otherwise why would they bother doing
    it for LPs as well?
    
    In many cases, "digital remastering" is just a hi-tech tag to get
    you to buy; in others, eg Rhino, it's a genuine effort to get a
    better sound to our ears from old material. Caveat Emptor.
    
    Dave
    

Just what IS the "final" step of preparing a CD master?
For a vinyl record, an analog process drives a record cutting
lathe, generating a disk from which the pressing master is made.
I understand that CDs are manufactured by a similar mechanical pressing
process, that is, the dimples in a CD are pressed mechanically.
What is the process by which the master CD is made?
Conceivably, it (the CD master) could be generated in real time
(or even not-so-real-time) by playing the same master analog mix tape 
through the A/Ds and such.  
Would this be SPARS AAD?
If so, then what is the NEED to "digitally remaster" anything
closer to the source than the CD pressing master?
Some needs mentioned have been noise reduction and an excuse to generate
more modern mixes.

- tom powers]