smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Mark Eichelberger" <markeichelberger@verizon.net> |
| Subject | Re: Remix vs Remaster Was: Beatles Remasters |
| Date | Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:55:48 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain UTF-8 (3.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Excellent...This is the explanation I was looking for. Many thanks Marty
and to all that replied.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marty Rudnick" <mrudnick@marturo.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Remix vs Remaster Was: Beatles Remasters
> 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.