advertisement


Mastering is key

Nic P

pfm Member
While in a charity shop I splashed out 50p on a compilation CD called "More than UNPLUGGED" produced by Dino Entertainment Ltd. I was delighted by the sound quality. In particular the track Suzanne by Leonard Cohen is vastly better than the same track (and I am sure it is the same version) on my CBS CD, and it is even better than LP. Just shows what can be done on CD.

Nic P
 
While in a charity shop I splashed out 50p on a compilation CD called "More than UNPLUGGED" produced by Dino Entertainment Ltd. I was delighted by the sound quality. In particular the track Suzanne by Leonard Cohen is vastly better than the same track (and I am sure it is the same version) on my CBS CD, and it is even better than LP. Just shows what can be done on CD.

Nic P

I have found the same with some 70's and 80's music compilation CDs that were issued in the late 80's early 90's - some of those sound excellent.

No hint of the futzing that afflicts so many later CDs. Played some remastered CD versions of tracks on these comps......no contest. It's enough to make you weep in some instances.

Worth pulling these old discs out of the bins in charity shops.
 
Mastering differences usually dwarf the small differences we spend days arguing about on forums.

Most examples seem to favour vinyl, though I've copies of old compilation albums where 20 plus tracks have been squeezed onto an album and the CD completely batters them.
 
My understanding of received wisdom is that the mastering on older classical LPs, in particular, with their larger dynamic range [in the mixing, not in the medium] is often superior to some of the more heavy handed later mastering.

But I've fantastically mastered albums, in all genres, some old and some new -- the last Radiohead album is very good to my ears -- so I expect it's not a general rule. I do find, to my ears, that a lot of small-ensemble classical music isn't as well produced or mastered as the equivalent small-ensemble jazz or improvised music, though.
 
Mastering we have no control over though ....

Yes we do, we can choose to do some research and buy the best possible copy of a given title be it a first press LP, a reissue, an audiophile cut, a CD, a remastered CD, an import etc etc. This is the area where it gets serious IMO - I'm far more interested in the source than the hi-fi. I think in matrix numbers!

Tony.
 
The issue is always going to be there. I am having a bruce springsteen period at the moment. Some of the rock stuff is overcomplicated and obviously compressed, while some of the folk/country quieter stuff is lovely with great dynamic range and sensitivity. many of these tracks seem to be mastered at different levels rather than the crappy way of raising the volume of quiet tracks so all maximum levels on each track are the same.
 
I spent an inordinate amount of time getting the mastering my first LP right. In the end the geniuses @ Dubplates and Mastering in Berlin did it.

Its a combination of keeping what you hear on the master tape, and ceding what's possible to be pressed, its a really subtle art. Good mastering won't make a shit record good, alas, but it will make the release sound close to the final mix in the studio and that's what matters.

What I did find interesting is mastering reveals sound in exactly the way I like: Monitors seem to be tonally flat and very even-handed. Most hifi systems I hear are so coloured as to be unrepresentative of the final form which is a shame considering how much effort people spend on it. The Genelec 1038Bs when mastering sounded pretty much like my SCM100As... also cutting lathes have profiles (like monitors have RGB profiles), as I knew I was going to a shop with a Neumann VMS 60 lathe and Sal 74B Cutting amps and cutting head (and DP&M knew the shop -- its a pretty small world now) they were able to dial in the precise levels and make cutting suggestions. Its hard work keeping it sounding right -- and worth the money.

Now pressing is where a world of pain starts...
 
Yes we do, we can choose to do some research and buy the best possible copy of a given title be it a first press LP, a reissue, an audiophile cut, a CD, a remastered CD, an import etc etc. This is the area where it gets serious IMO - I'm far more interested in the source than the hi-fi. I think in matrix numbers!

Tony.

Sounds like an interesting needle drop thread, who has one of each?
 
I recently played the 40th anniversary remix of the Doors LA Woman. One of the best CD's, soundwise, I have heard in recent years. Again shows what can be done and used to be done in production.
 
Yes we do, we can choose to do some research and buy the best possible copy of a given title be it a first press LP, a reissue, an audiophile cut, a CD, a remastered CD, an import etc etc. This is the area where it gets serious IMO - I'm far more interested in the source than the hi-fi. I think in matrix numbers!

Tony.

Good point, and an area where I really struggle. Do you have any recommendations for reasonably easily finding this out? I pretty much buy 'blind' and its always a bit of a lottery. Because I don't generally duplicate material it is not immediately clear whether the version I have is good, poor, indifferent. In some ways I don't want to become too snobby about which versions to get but it would help to avoid the bad ones.
 
Good point, and an area where I really struggle. Do you have any recommendations for reasonably easily finding this out?

The Steve Hoffman forum (a well known cutting engineer) is as good place as any to meet OCD pressing wonks and find out which ones are considered good. As a rule of thumb the pressing to beat is the first from the country of origin, e.g. the target pressing for Rubber Soul is a UK Parlophone 1st press, Kind Of Blue would be a US Columbia 6-eye. Stereo vs. mono is a whole other argument with no correct answer. There are also some titles that buck the trend where reissues are preferred, but this is rare unless they are high-ticket audiophile pressings where an extraordinary levels of care has been taken.

The first pressing from country of origin being the one to beat makes complete sense when you think about it: it is here that the real master, not a copy thereof will be used, and people close to the music will be present and approve all stages of the process, e.g. the musicians, the producer, the manager etc. Reissues away from country of origin are more likely to be overseen by some corporate blurt in a suit from the record label than anyone who was actually present at the original recording and who actually understands the artistic intent.

Tony.
 
Thanks Tony, seems like a logical process and I will start paying more attention. Not too many of my LPs have survived from my teenage years and when I come across a replacement from an old favourite I have been occasionally disappointed. For example Bad Company "Straight Shooter" is from my original collection at the time and is a great sounding album. I picked up a later copy of another Bad Co. album and it sounds as flat as can be. Grrr!
 


advertisement


Back
Top