1982?Studio1 said:but when FM stereo arrived in 1982, they were still playing music off vinylGoran Tomas said:Unfortunately even the older songs form 80s and 90s that sound great, get to be "re-mastered", meaning squashed and unsophisticatedly clipped
It's sometimes very hard to find the original master. All you get are these overly processed versions that lost the impact and dynamics of the original.
Regards,
Goran Tomas
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Am I getting too old for this?
- Thread starter richard.vanderveen
- Start date
If done properly (which is rare) a remaster can fix things from the old masters. Remember a lot of those masters were created for LP's and the RIAA EQ curve that was going to be applied to them, and what you're hearing on the CD is the LP master. When a mastering engineer fixes the EQ to restore the original balance to the recording, the result is you'll hear what was intended to be heard.
Unfortunately, most also run it through their favorite smash box before it gets printed.
Unfortunately, most also run it through their favorite smash box before it gets printed.
The master tapes would not have the RIAA equalization curve. The RIAA curve would have been applied by the disc cutting-head electronics.
I have heard some horrible re-masters. I've also heard some really great ones.
I have heard some horrible re-masters. I've also heard some really great ones.
Right, the masters won't have the curve, but the mastering engineers were mastering to the medium the recordings would be placed on, which was mostly 33 1/3 discs. Too much bass and the needle jumps out of the groove, too much sibilance and you get the "shhhhhhh" sound on the S. Listen to Tom Petty's Wildflowers on LP, it sounds like he has a lisp. This was two different discs and 5 different tonearms and stylus.
As bad as it is, hypercompression has been around for some time. Before he went 100% bat-*#&$ crazy, Phil Spector was doing it in the early 60's. There just wasn't the severe degree of clipping there is now. And a lot of the mastering engineers would master the records with playback on AM radio in mind.
I had the pleasure to listen to the original 2" multi-track of Funkadelic's "Maggot Brain". It's amazing to hear what is on those original tracks in terms of dynamic range and wide frequency response compared to what wound up on the album.
As bad as it is, hypercompression has been around for some time. Before he went 100% bat-*#&$ crazy, Phil Spector was doing it in the early 60's. There just wasn't the severe degree of clipping there is now. And a lot of the mastering engineers would master the records with playback on AM radio in mind.
I had the pleasure to listen to the original 2" multi-track of Funkadelic's "Maggot Brain". It's amazing to hear what is on those original tracks in terms of dynamic range and wide frequency response compared to what wound up on the album.
WNTIRadio said:
I would really like to get my hands on an original Parlophone 45 of the Beatles "Day Tripper." I have read from a couple of different sources that, beginning with that song, the mastering was very different from what came before it, particularly regarding the relative level and processing of bass.
The story goes that Paul and John (they played with the Beatles, for those of you who arrived late) were very disappointed that the bass on their previous records was weak when compared to certain Motown recordings of the time (another story says a Wilson Pickett song). And EMI studio engineer Geoff Emerick and/or whoever was doing their in-house mastering tried a few new ideas with that song.
Some of the ideas (such as using a bass cabinet's speaker as a microphone directly in front of the bass amp's speaker, for example) were of course incorporated into the recording. But other (such as a new transient level limiter) applied only to disc mastering.
Since that mastering was only for the 45, any recording I've ever heard does not include that mastering effect, and I guess I'm just curious as to what all the fuss was about.
Kind Regards,
David
TomZ said:
Sorry... that was a "duh" moment. I meant "Paperback Writer." And yeah, Tom, I see the singles on ebay all the time but really don't know whether to trust a stranger's idea of how much a disk has been worn. I guess I should just bite the bullet and go for it, LOL!
Kind Regards,
David
From that era, there are also vinyl and tape EQ versions of the master done by the original mastering engineer (what used to be called pre-mastering) intended for reproduction.frankberry said:
Sometimes they even make it to CD. The original release of Thriller for instance, was Bernie's tape EQ version, plus the CD has pre-emphasis on it. The only actual original master versions came way later, with SACD hybrid and Bernie's remaster (which... isn't as good as his original tape eq, but is more detailed).
That processor actually exists, but isn't used much anymore these days.TomZ said:
It's called an audio-engineer ;D
TomZ said:
Actually, that isn't such a bad idea. We could flag the worst of the worst songs with an H and the normal ones with an N and then have the automation send out that character via a tcp or udp port to the processor for that station.
All of this conversation raises this question in my mind:
I have to assume that if it has not already been done, a piece of software could be written that would scan & analyze a file and determine what kind of processing would be appropriate for the file.
Station operators and programmers would then have a choice: Ask this software to create a database listing all the files scanned (could be music, commercials, station promos, talk show re-runs, whatever, and then a human could scan the database output and make a human decision.
Then files could be processed in-place on the hard drive, or if it is preferred to keep the original files in the automation, tag the file with a code that would cause the appropriate selection of processor to route each file through at time of broadcast.
Is this being done? Has it been rejected as too cumbersome or unreliable?
Curious minds want to know!
I have to assume that if it has not already been done, a piece of software could be written that would scan & analyze a file and determine what kind of processing would be appropriate for the file.
Station operators and programmers would then have a choice: Ask this software to create a database listing all the files scanned (could be music, commercials, station promos, talk show re-runs, whatever, and then a human could scan the database output and make a human decision.
Then files could be processed in-place on the hard drive, or if it is preferred to keep the original files in the automation, tag the file with a code that would cause the appropriate selection of processor to route each file through at time of broadcast.
Is this being done? Has it been rejected as too cumbersome or unreliable?
Curious minds want to know!
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Bob sent me a link to declipper he likes a little. I tried it out with mixed results. It will run in a batch, so you can do many songs, but human review is required to make sure the output sounds better than the input.
The sad thing is that we even have to discuss how to get around sloppy mastering.
David Reaves said:
Hmmm. I have the yellow/orange Capitol US 45 of Paperback Writer and it is the version I use on air, since it's way bigger, much more huge sounding than any I have on LP. I wonder if it is the version you are looking for?
I suppose it is the earliest US Capitol release, and would have been produced probably in advance of an LP release.
Now I'm really wondering what the differences are...
Maybe it's just the "hugeness" which is worth playing the 45 instead the 33.
Abbey Road studio engineer Geoff Emerick said " 'Paperback Writer' was the first time the bass sound had been heard in all its excitement," and provided details about the recording [Mark Lewisohn, "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions" (London: The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd, 1988). p. 74].David Reaves said:
Dale H. Cook, Contract Engineer, Roanoke/Lynchburg, VA
http://plymouthcolony.net/starcityeng/index.html
Tagging the songs might work ... but what will happen when the jock talks over the song? Which EQ will the processor use?
What will happen when you go from one song to another? A big change in the EQ curve?
I'm not sure that this would work smoothly.
What will happen when you go from one song to another? A big change in the EQ curve?
I'm not sure that this would work smoothly.
I have one of the Hofner basses just like Maca's (except right handed) and it is the thickest, deepest bass I've ever played. It must have been a huge problem to cut the vinyl and still get the richness of that instrument.
Hi:
I think the Omnia 11 has source density detection to help keep the audio consistent from time to time?
In television audio, Dolby came up with the idea of a dianorm value. Here a file is created/scanned by a program or commercial producer and the average target level is determined and applied as metadata to the clip. When played, the home receiver would automatically change the output gain according to clip. This should have provided a consistent experience to the viewer. Dolby assumed that content creators would set the proper dialnorm value for their clip, but it is my opinion that advertisers often would have the audio be louder than the dialnorm setting (I performed level measurements to confirm my findings). The use of a dynamic number per clip also has often not been applied through the broadcast chain, and with non-standard levels being set requires the use of real-time broadcast processors to correct for the outliers.
I always had the idea of a computer scanning each clip and adjusting the gain of the clip so that every clip were within a few db RMS with each other. Then the real time broadcast processor could be set more gently to grab the peaks. Of course a correction value could be sent to a processor.....
On a different note, I think that record producers are demanding hot masters, not the mastering engineers. Most mastering engineers seem to want to make the music actually sound good.
Dan
I think the Omnia 11 has source density detection to help keep the audio consistent from time to time?
In television audio, Dolby came up with the idea of a dianorm value. Here a file is created/scanned by a program or commercial producer and the average target level is determined and applied as metadata to the clip. When played, the home receiver would automatically change the output gain according to clip. This should have provided a consistent experience to the viewer. Dolby assumed that content creators would set the proper dialnorm value for their clip, but it is my opinion that advertisers often would have the audio be louder than the dialnorm setting (I performed level measurements to confirm my findings). The use of a dynamic number per clip also has often not been applied through the broadcast chain, and with non-standard levels being set requires the use of real-time broadcast processors to correct for the outliers.
I always had the idea of a computer scanning each clip and adjusting the gain of the clip so that every clip were within a few db RMS with each other. Then the real time broadcast processor could be set more gently to grab the peaks. Of course a correction value could be sent to a processor.....
On a different note, I think that record producers are demanding hot masters, not the mastering engineers. Most mastering engineers seem to want to make the music actually sound good.
Dan
- Status