smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
From | Marty Rudnick <mrudnick@marturo.com> |
Subject | Re: Remix vs Remaster Was: Beatles Remasters |
Date | Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:33:19 -0700 (PDT) |
[Part 1 text/plain utf-8 (3.2 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
As much as people think Wikipedia is not terribly authoritative, I say "p-shaw"....this is a very good explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering
---- <audities@smoe.org> wrote:
>
> Mike,
> Well, I still have a basic question. Just what occurs during mastering?
> (And I am assuming this mastering process happens after mixing.) If the
> producer/artist mixes the master tapes to get the sound they want, what else
> is there to do? Why does is now have to be mastered? Confused....
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Myers" <mmyers1446@yahoo.com>
> To: <audities@smoe.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Remix vs Remaster Was: Beatles Remasters
>
>
> Mark;
>
> Here's one easy way to think of it... but there are a couple fine points in
> here too :)
>
> Any tape or original sound source can be remastered to some degree...
> whether it is the original "un-mixed" master tape for instance, or, as in
> the case of the Beatles, they took the MIXED tapes that were the ones used
> to create the singles and LPs long ago and did a lot of digital wizardry to
> clean the sound up.... and this is what you are hearing on the CDs we're all
> raving about... so in other words, the engineers did not feel empowered nor
> were they allowed to go back to the UNMIXED original tapes and make changes
> back at that point in the process...
>
> REMIXING, however, is a whole other can of worms, and that is what I think
> you're wanting info on as well... if those engineers were to go back to the
> original 4 or 8 track tapes and start REMIXING things, it would have set off
> a whole new controversy... when things are remixed, that means they could
> actually pan sounds differently in the stereo channels, make the guitar lead
> a lot louder, change the dynamics in the harmony parts etc... remember,
> George Martin, some Abbey Road engineers and the BEATLES themselves made
> those music/dynamics/sonic choices as to how the songs would be MIXED and
> this is sacred ground in the opinion of many... those mixes were artistic
> statements and they resulted in the master copy tapes that were used in
> these recent releases...
>
> You probably have other CDs in your collection that say they were REMIXED
> and REMASTERED.... which means someone like Jimmy Page or Pete Townshend or
> Robbie Robertson went back and took all of the unmixed contributions to a
> song and sat and made new versions of the sons with a remxing project that
> probably inlcuded remastering as well...
>
> Did that help?
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 9/16/09, Mark Eichelberger <markeichelberger@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> From: Mark Eichelberger <markeichelberger@verizon.net>
> Subject: Remix vs Remaster Was: Beatles Remasters
> To: audities@smoe.org
> Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 7:47 AM
>
> Folks,
> All this talk of mixing, remixing, mastering and remastering is confusing my
> non-musician brain. Could one of you musician/recording studio types define
> these terms or describe the process. I've always been confused on the
> differences of a mix vs. a master.
>
> TIA,
> Mark E.,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.