Remasters....

[gilwe]

Lets start with the fact that I'm an analog type of listener / creator.

I listen mostly to vinyls, using a Shure M44E pickup which gives a nice fat sound.

The main "problem" with CDs is that they really sound like crap.

I mean, I CAN get a work of mine on a CD sound very close to vinyl, warm and full. I do that with my analog mixer and tape, using my home audio speakers to mix though....

However, when I compare the results of my home analog recordings to the ones I do in professional studios (protools), after being mastered, I can notice a really great difference in the resultsing sound !! My home works SOUND better.

Now you're gonna say "of course, they are DONE on the system you listen with". Right. But after all THEY are the CDs that sound much more like the vinlys on my system than the commercial CDs I buy.

How can you explain amazing sounding albums like Direstraits "Communique" being that great on vinyls but totally crap on CDs ?

For sure the mastering process has much to do with it.

Maybe the digital stuff used TO master them is responsable ??

I'm a bit confused on this....

Two of Direstraits CDs are lying on my desk side by side.

The first is "Communique" which as I said sounds amazing on vinyl but crap on the CD I have of the same album.

The second is a "Sultans of Swing" Re-Master which as opposed DOES sound really good on the CD !! Maybe the best sounding CD media I have in my collection.

I put Neil Young's "Harvest moon" and Mark Knopfler's "Golden heart" and what can I say ?... they sound crap ! Much similiar mastering results as the works I do in the studio.

How different CD master results can sound ?

Vinlys always sound good while CDs differentiate MUCH from each other in sound.

And than they come up with remasters that improve the sound by much ....

what DO they do on the Remaster that is different from the standard masters on my desk, that retains much more of the vinyl vibe and sound ??

I want my current work in the protools studio to sound as "vinyl-like" as the "Sultans of Swing" Re-Master and not like the other non remasterd works like that "Communique" CD if you know what I mean

;-)

Is it that hard to get good sounding masters on CDs or do I miss something ?

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I have Dire Straits first on CD and LP -- both sound good (the CD was relatively recent)....

I also have Led Zep IV on CD and vinyl - the CD is from the very late 80's -- it sounds like crap compared to the vinyl....

This has nothing to do with any "vinyl vibe" or analog vs. digital as much as it has to do with poor mastering using early digital technology back then......

 

[gilwe]

Are you sure this is due to poor 80s digital technology ?

SOmehow I got the feeling this is more at the technical side ... like right CD mastering work ...

 

[sjoko2]

First of all, CD is a low resolution, crap medium.
Second, technology is developing very fast, and whereass a CD manufactured / mastered in the late 80's will have used converters with max. 92dB headroom and grossly inaccurate clock (the latter accounting for harsh midrange), today we do have accurate clock and very good converter technology, with up to 157dB headroom possible.
(which does not mean that everyone uses it)

 

[pipelineaudio]

I thought a lot of early CD's sounded QUITE good...they had to compete with the analog mediums of their time, now however people boost the SHIT out of hi's and midrange making really nasty distorted clipped shit, kinda like a LOT of vinyl records...I cant agree about vinyl ALWAYS sounding better...I can remember a FEW that were amazing, but most were squashed and limited to DEATH trying to get a dB or so louder without it skpping from the grooves, very much like the volume crap war we have today

a lot of overeneralizations around here

 

[gilwe]

I don't think so pipe... I listen mostly to vinyls and most of the time they sound great, of course only if use high quality equipment such as cartridge.

Listen,

I just checked out more of my CDs,
Nirvana "In Utero" is probably the best sounding CD among them,
then comes Maniac Street Preachers "Tell my your thruth" which sounds great, but hey, you put that Neil Young or "Golden Heart" CD and you feel sorry that they could sound dozens times better,

I still have the feeling that this has to do with mastering approach (how you use the tools and what you want to get),
conversion between bit rates or the recording equipment (Analog vs Digital)

In Utero sounds amazing in my system !
Very much like my own home works I use Foctex reels and Yamaha analog mixer for, with almost NO any additional effects or processors.

(Mission 702 speakers, Old '70s Kenwood amp)


This what make me confused .... as it seems that the low budget, simple mixing and "mastering" I have in my home studio sounds much much better than the one I get in the pro studio.

Think results like that "In Utero" CD vs "Golden Heart" CD...

What should I stick to then ?

Maybe on of the MEs here will put some light on this issue ...

 

[donkeystyle]

first.......they probably used gear that was similar to yours in recording inutero......steve albini is a big indie guy that hates everything new, so he was probably also going for the same type of sound u were.

kurt cobain was very hands-on in getting his music to sound the way he wanted it to, so........

maybe you should make sure you go in to the mastering house and push the guy mastering it around a little bit everytime he trys to make it loud and harsh and "un-vinyl."

from what i've been told by friends and read on this site, it's a good idea to go in and make sure it's getting mastered the way you want anyway.....

also, most guys ask if there are any albums that you own that u want it to sound like and for you to bring them to the session.

it sounds to me like ur just not being hands on enough.