"Remastered from the original master tapes!" If you like music from pre-1995, a plethora of CDs you're shopping for have this emblazoned somewhere on the artwork. In the used market, an original pressing of a title might go for $2 while the remastered version is $7 because, after all, it's remastered so it's better, right?

Not really.

None other than Jimmy Page made the case for remastering as he was pushing the 1990 Led Zeppelin Remasters box set. When he was referring to the original issues that came out circa 1987 he said, "It was my understanding they didn't do any sort of re-EQ'ing at all, they basically just ran the tapes. I was determined to get a better sound for the CDs." Due to this sort of talk many believe a remaster has to be better: a master or higher-generation source tape (allegedly), more use of the dynamic range a CD is capable of whereas original issues sometimes used LP EQ's, better analog-to-digital conversion and, most noticeably, more volume. What could be wrong with all of this?

The two tools primarily used to create today's remasters are compression/master limiting and equalization. Compression takes a sonic wav form that might have widely varying volume peaks and valleys and shaves off the peaks, bringing quiet and loud closer together. A wav that might have looked sort of "skinny" before will suddenly look fatter on a scope because it is now one fat, square shape instead of a series of scribbles. The result is a much fuller sound that, depending on the level of compression/limiting, will rage out of your speakers like a steam train, sounding very full and as though the band is in the room with you. Great!

Or is it? The problem is that your ear doesn't necessarily recognize differences in volumes, but it does recognize consistent volumes. Believe it or not if you're listening to a recording that's average volume is 10 decibels, you will not flinch if a kick drum suddenly spikes at 30 db because it is so quick. But now trim that kick drum spike and re-normalize the wav so that everything is now 30 db, and your ear will notice it. Or you could even have a recording that was consistently 15 dB and put it next to one that spikes at 30 dB but is otherwise 10-15 dB, and the consistently 15 dB recording will seem louder, because it is consistent!

How is this consistency bad? Ear fatigue. The best description I've read is that overdone compression/limiting is LIKE IF SOMEONE TYPED IN ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME. WITHOUT LOWERCASE LETTERS GIVING YOUR EYES A REST, YOUR EYES GIVE UP AND YOU TUNE OUT THE MESSAGE. When your ear is hit with the consistent volume of today's compressed remasters (as well as new discs), after two or three songs you might notice your ear begins to feel worn out.

The other tool, as I said, is equalization, or EQ. Today's EQ units can put out more treble than what was available in 1969, or 1979. The presence of more treble in the high ranges is sometimes called "air" by audio engineers because it makes the music sound a little more like it's floating around the room with you, adding space. On first listen, this may sound like greater clarity and detail. What's wrong with clarity?

Because it's not really clarity, it's compressed treble that's going to drive your ear nuts long before something that on first listen sounds comparatively "muddy." Also, it's going to affect instruments like cymbals and hi-hats the most. When an album from the `60's or `70's was mixed, it was mixed to the level of treble available at that time. Now if you take that master tape and apply modern treble levels to it, what happens? You're potentially bringing the hi-hat out to the point it sounds like a pair of scissors snipping through the song. And it's snipping at your ears! OW!

Why would audio engineers do this and why would the public buy it if it's not good? Because at first the square wav, high-treble sound is impressive. Suddenly you have a "lively," "airy" sound that fills the room. Three songs later, however, you grow fatigued with the CD and you don't know if it's the quality of the songs, your mood or what, and you turn it off. Unbeknown to you, its not the songs, its the trebly square wavs that have been pounding your ear at one consistent volume since the first note.

A forum I've found that has confirmed the suspicions I've long held about many remastered CDs is SteveHoffman.tv. I wish I had some before/after screen caps of the compression/limiting and EQ phenomenon to show you, but these pics stolen off that forum show it as well as anything. First, here's a 1990 pressing of Nirvana's Nevermind.



This wav already looks somewhat compressed because it's so fat in the middle. However that's nothing compared to the next screen cap from the contemporary band Muse.



OH, MY FUCKING EARS! See how there's almost no space or headroom to that wav at all? Just a big concrete block coming at your ears. Most amazing, the poster says this wav maintains a consistent volume of +6 dB. In digital audio everything is supposed to be at 0.00 dB, because "0" is really "100." Anything above zero is actually producing clipping, which is digital distortion. Remastering of an old CD actually means their bringing it up to spec so that it will still sound contemporary next to the Muse CD in your changer. Gross!

Some remasters really are superior, for example in my opinion The Police remasters (although I do hear a bit of that "scissor hi-hat" effect) make the originals useless. In other cases, like the Rush catalogue, the original sounds so good I think remastering is more of a sales gimmick.

So yeah...if you see an original 1980's or early 1990's pressing of a CD, known by SteveHoffman.tv posters as "pre-loudness wars," make sure you don't buy it. You don't want those old, inferior masterings, no way.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home