RE: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

[mville]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

As you are obviously a bit of a Bowie fan, could you please offer some advice about, Station To Station, (whilst answering Paul's question!), and showing that different Remasters, sound different!

The vinyl sounds stunning, and you hear everything good about the medium.

On the other hand, my 1999 EMI, Remaster, is appalling! No-noised, no dynamics, and to me, simply sounds wrong.

Apart from striking gold, and finding a rare, original RCA, in a charity shop, is the 2010 box set, (analogue sourced), the best option, as the 2016, digital Remaster, seems a disappointment?

Hmm, I'm not going to be much use here I think.

In all my years of listening and recording music, I find comparing different mixes and formats secondary to the songs and so very difficult to advise on. I have friends that used to listen to music with the loudness button permanently in the on position, not my thing, so... it is very much a personal preference thing.

Regards comparison, I tend to think mixes/formats are just different, rather than better or worse (if we all had a go at mixing Station To Station, it would sound different, but who is to say which is the best?), although, as you suggest with the 1999 remaster, there are some obvious exceptions and, I do have my favourites, but they are my favourites and not others. If we had a couple of hours and a couple of bottles, I could happily go into far more artistical, philosophical detail, but alas... not here.

I agree with you about the vinyl versions, which I always tend to prefer, but obviously vinyl is not so practical/portable, hence my digital library. I have the 2010 box which I like a lot and the 2016 Who Can I Be Now¿ 1974-1976, where I find the new remasters interesting, rather than disappointing.

I would always be happy with any copy of Station To Station, because IMO, in the world of contemporary music, it is a masterpiece. I would be happy also, if I only had the Who Can I Be Now¿ 1974-1976 box, but if push came to shove, I'd go with the 2010 box.

Finally, my advice is always a bit like my advice on wine. Do YOU like it, yes or no? Don't listen to what others say, trust in what YOU like and go with that.

[Oggy]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

I did wonder if any Bowie gurus would pick up on just why I used this example, and you have. It didn't take long... about 16 hours



Absolutely correct. There is the 1990 (original mix) Re-Issue, first time on the CD format, then the 2005 (new Tony Visconti mix) Re-Issue and the two 2016 Who Can I Be Now? box set versions, both remastered versions of the 1990 and 2005 Re-Issues.

In fact, I lied earlier (just to illustrate the point). I don't have 2 versions of David Live, but 6 . So, if you are interested these are:

16-bit 44.1kHz CD rip:
David Live (2005 Re-Issue)
David Live (Who Can I Be Now¿ 1974-1976)
David Live (Who Can I Be Now¿ 1974-1976, 2005 Mix)

24-bit 48kHz DVD-Audio rip:
David Live (2005 DVD-A)
David Live (2005 DVD-A 5.1)

24-bit 192kHz download:
David Live (Who Can I Be Now¿ 1974-1976, HD DL)

... and I almost forgot... the original 1974 LP.

mville, very nice! And that really shows the importance of, logical album naming!

As you are obviously a bit of a Bowie fan, could you please offer some advice about, Station To Station, (whilst answering Paul's question!), and showing that different Remasters, sound different!

The vinyl sounds stunning, and you hear everything good about the medium.

On the other hand, my 1999 EMI, Remaster, is appalling! No-noised, no dynamics, and to me, simply sounds wrong.

Apart from striking gold, and finding a rare, original RCA, in a charity shop, is the 2010 box set, (analogue sourced), the best option, as the 2016, digital Remaster, seems a disappointment?

Thanks,

Oggy

[mville]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

David Live, is a great example (and album!), as it wasn't ever released on RCA, so the original CD, wasn't until 1990. Like a lot of David's catalogue, things have been confused further, with last year's box set, Who Can I Be Now?, which had two versions, of, David Live. One had the original,1974 running order, the other, a Remaster, of the 2005.

I did wonder if any Bowie gurus would pick up on just why I used this example, and you have. It didn't take long... about 16 hours

Like a lot of David's catalogue, things have been confused further, with last year's box set, Who Can I Be Now?, which had two versions, of, David Live. One had the original,1974 running order, the other, a Remaster, of the 2005.

Absolutely correct. There is the 1990 (original mix) Re-Issue, first time on the CD format, then the 2005 (new Tony Visconti mix) Re-Issue and the two 2016 Who Can I Be Now? box set versions, both remastered versions of the 1990 and 2005 Re-Issues.

In fact, I lied earlier (just to illustrate the point). I don't have 2 versions of David Live, but 6 . So, if you are interested these are:

16-bit 44.1kHz CD rip:
David Live (2005 Re-Issue)
David Live (Who Can I Be Now¿ 1974-1976)
David Live (Who Can I Be Now¿ 1974-1976, 2005 Mix)

24-bit 48kHz DVD-Audio rip:
David Live (2005 DVD-A)
David Live (2005 DVD-A 5.1)

24-bit 192kHz download:
David Live (Who Can I Be Now¿ 1974-1976, HD DL)

... and I almost forgot... the original 1974 LP.

[Oggy]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

Only if the 1940 master tapes were re-mastered, but how would anyone know? I doubt this info was published back then.

The way I look at these things is, if an album is re-released at a later date and I know it has been re-mastered, then I add remaster to the album otherwise, I assume it has not been re-mastered and add re-issue.

e.g. I have 2 versions of David Bowie - David Live, originally released in 1974:
David Live (2005 Re-Issue) and David Live (2016 Remaster)

David Live, is a great example (and album!), as it wasn't ever released on RCA, so the original CD, wasn't until 1990. Like a lot of David's catalogue, things have been confused further, with last year's box set, Who Can I Be Now?, which had two versions, of, David Live. One had the original,1974 running order, the other, a Remaster, of the 2005.

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

it doesn't matter if it is "reply" or "reference to" - it is unusal and not common to start thread titles with "RE: ", as you can see i.e. in this forum. The topic should speak for itself.

OK, cheers.

[garym]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

Hi, I always thought it meant: "with reference to"? Cheers.

Yes, in letters and memos, but NOT in emails or forum posts.

[Dat Ei]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

Hey Paul,

it doesn't matter if it is "reply" or "reference to" - it is unusal and not common to start thread titles with "RE: ", as you can see i.e. in this forum. The topic should speak for itself.


Dat Ei

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

BTW: it ain't necessary and is not usual to start every topic with a leading "RE: ". In fact it's irritating 'cause "RE" stands usually for "reply".

Hi, I always thought it meant: "with reference to"? Cheers.

[Dat Ei]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

Hey Paul,

BTW: it ain't necessary and is not usual to start every topic with a leading "RE: ". In fact it's irritating 'cause "RE" stands usually for "reply".


Dat Ei

[mville]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

So you really do make a clear distinction between a re-master and a re-issue; and this is reflected in your tagging.

Yes.

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

The way I look at these things is, if an album is re-released at a later date and I know it has been re-mastered, then I add remaster to the album otherwise, I assume it has not been re-mastered and add re-issue.

e.g. I have 2 versions of David Bowie - David Live, originally released in 1974:
David Live (2005 Re-Issue) and David Live (2016 Remaster)

OK, cheers mville.

So you really do make a clear distinction between a re-master and a re-issue; and this is reflected in your tagging.

Paul

[mville]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

But I was kinda thinking in terms of literally us being in the year 1960 (as opposed to now). So would the reissue of a 1940 LP in 1960 be classed as a (analog) remaster?

Only if the 1940 master tapes were re-mastered, but how would anyone know? I doubt this info was published back then.

The way I look at these things is, if an album is re-released at a later date and I know it has been re-mastered, then I add remaster to the album otherwise, I assume it has not been re-mastered and add re-issue.

e.g. I have 2 versions of David Bowie - David Live, originally released in 1974:
David Live (2005 Re-Issue) and David Live (2016 Remaster)

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

Often, the original analog master tapes are transferred to the digital domain. Then, these maybe re-mastered or even re-mixed and finally the vinyl is cut from the digital masters. Just take a look at the recent packages for the Giles Martin 2017 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band release.

Cheers mville,

But I was kinda thinking in terms of literally us being in the year 1960 (as opposed to now). So would the reissue of a 1940 LP in 1960 be classed as a (analog) remaster?

Paul

[mville]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

So 'remastered' is not exclusively a 'digital' (world) term?

Correct, but there a few studios today, that are totally analog.

I mean, if an LP was released in 1940 then could it be remastered 'analogly' in 1960 and released on LP again?

Yes, but nowadays this is extremely rare.

Often, the original analog master tapes are transferred to the digital domain. Then, these maybe re-mastered or even re-mixed and finally the vinyl is cut from the digital masters. Just take a look at the recent packages for the Giles Martin 2017 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band release.

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Defining 'Digitally Remastered' (help?)

Cheers JH. I will have a read tomorrow. Hopefully it won't be too difficult to understand! Thanks, Paul