Excellent...This is the explanation I was looking for. Many thanks Marty and to all that replied. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marty Rudnick" To: 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 > > > ---- 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" >> To: >> 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 >> wrote: >> >> From: Mark Eichelberger >> 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., >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >