Could albums recorded digitally in the 80s and early 90s benefit with a modern stereo remix as much as ones recorded in analogue?

[KG10]

The only benefit I could see with them is that it would benefit the digital to analogue to digital conversion most of them originally went though, and also potentially hear them in their original frequency (provided the tape used for the recording was at a higher frequency than the stereo mix down eg 48k to 44.1k)

Otherwise unless the original mix was flawed then it wouldn't be nearly as beneficial since digital doesn't the generation loss that analogue naturally does.

 

[jimfisheye]

There are plenty of examples of digital generation loss. Some that eclipse the worst analog stereotypes. A lot of 80s and 90s mixes are probably just fine and would benefit from proper mastering presentation. Certainly the volume war casualties!

Is there a trend of some digital recordings from the era getting released at the wrong speed? I thought that was more of an analog era artifact too. I suppose there might be a few cases of 44.1k vs 48k running at the other speed. There are examples of analog master transferred running at the wrong speed... but digital was mentioned here. PAL vs NTSC with an incorrect header and running at the other speed is more widespread with video than audio releases at the wrong speed. Or is there a big list of these and I just don't get out enough?

Any mix that falls short of the artist's vision could benefit from a good remix!

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

I certainly think a few digitally recorded projects would benefit from a revisit using some analogue emulation to add character and style that was missing at those times!!

 

[Electric Moo]

It would be interesting to see ( hear? ) if modern converters make much of a difference. Especially with the early 80s tech source material.

Alternately it would be fun to run early digital stuff through top analog gear instead. Analog is probably appreciated more now than when digital was the new thing.

 

[steelydave]

There are lots of examples of this already, just off the top of my head:

Donald Fagen - The Nightfly - recorded on 3M's 16 bit/50kHz multitrack system and mixed to 16/44 digital, the 5.1 DVD-A is a sonic improvement on an already great recording
Donald Fagen - Kamakiriad - recorded and mixed entirely 16/44, the DVD-A is a better and warmer mix
Roxy Music - Avalon - the 5.1 SACD is mixed from 16/44 PCM backups of the original analog multitracks, and it's considered one of the best-sounding mixes of the SACD/DVD-A era

A while back when I was trying to figure out what Richard Chycki was doing with his Rush 5.1 mixes, I was comparing the 5.1 remix and original stereo mix of Signals, from 1982, which I guess was mixed to 16/44.1 digital because even the hirez stereo remasters have a hard dropoff at 22kHz. Even though Chycki is an absolute hack as a surround mixer, there was no denying that the 5.1 mix had an extra level of clarity, mostly because it was free from the "digital glare" that the original stereo mix had, presumably thanks to being mixed from new transfers of the analog multitracks and mixed to a higher resolution format.

The one thing that people who think that CD resolution is "enough" and that hirez digital is a waste seem to not want to acknowledge is that A/D and D/A conversion technology has improved markedly and audibly since the first digital audio recording and playback devices first appeared in the early '80s. Obviously there are a million hurdles in getting a new remix right (or wrong) but all else being equal, from a purely sonic standpoint I think most recordings finished to early digital technology could be improved, even if the new remix was at the same CD-quality resolution.

 

[KG10]

There are lots of examples of this already, just off the top of my head:

Donald Fagen - The Nightfly - recorded on 3M's 16 bit/50kHz multitrack system and mixed to 16/44 digital, the 5.1 DVD-A is a sonic improvement on an already great recording
Donald Fagen - Kamakiriad - recorded and mixed entirely 16/44, the DVD-A is a better and warmer mix
Roxy Music - Avalon - the 5.1 SACD is mixed from 16/44 PCM backups of the original analog multitracks, and it's considered one of the best-sounding mixes of the SACD/DVD-A era

A while back when I was trying to figure out what Richard Chycki was doing with his Rush 5.1 mixes, I was comparing the 5.1 remix and original stereo mix of Signals, from 1982, which I guess was mixed to 16/44.1 digital because even the hirez stereo remasters have a hard dropoff at 22kHz. Even though Chycki is an absolute hack as a surround mixer, there was no denying that the 5.1 mix had an extra level of clarity, mostly because it was free from the "digital glare" that the original stereo mix had, presumably thanks to being mixed from new transfers of the analog multitracks and mixed to a higher resolution format.

The one thing that people who think that CD resolution is "enough" and that hirez digital is a waste seem to not want to acknowledge is that A/D and D/A conversion technology has improved markedly and audibly since the first digital audio recording and playback devices first appeared in the early '80s. Obviously there are a million hurdles in getting a new remix right (or wrong) but all else being equal, from a purely sonic standpoint I think most recordings finished to early digital technology could be improved, even if the new remix was at the same CD-quality resolution.

Was reading up on what happened to the original Roxy Music Avalon analog multitracks and of course it was the infamous batch of Ampex tape. But I had no idea it was that bad to the point of those multitracks requiring baking in the mid 90s!

 

[KG10]

There are plenty of examples of digital generation loss. Some that eclipse the worst analog stereotypes. A lot of 80s and 90s mixes are probably just fine and would benefit from proper mastering presentation. Certainly the volume war casualties!

Is there a trend of some digital recordings from the era getting released at the wrong speed? I thought that was more of an analog era artifact too. I suppose there might be a few cases of 44.1k vs 48k running at the other speed. There are examples of analog master transferred running at the wrong speed... but digital was mentioned here. PAL vs NTSC with an incorrect header and running at the other speed is more widespread with video than audio releases at the wrong speed. Or is there a big list of these and I just don't get out enough?

Any mix that falls short of the artist's vision could benefit from a good remix!

Any examples of digital generation loss other than for example mp3 to atrac?

When I said 48khz to 44.1 I mean the multitrack is recorded at 48k but the stereo mix down is done at 44.1. I don't think this would create as many issues in the analogue domain compared to digital but please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[jimfisheye]

Maybe it's more accurate to say it's easy to corrupt digital audio? Strictly speaking, a clone is a clone is a clone.

Lots of slight things you can do that can be insidious because they might not jump out as being obviously corrupt. And maybe that means it genuinely isn't that bad! Just that things that aren't the same are different and damage stacks up.

Software sample rate conversion was difficult early on. People would often go: (old sample rate) DA -> AD (new sample rate) with their best converters. The modern software like r8brain or SOX is transparent. So yeah, there might be opportunity for improvement. A full program mix is the kind of thing you might hear converter quality with in a shootout vs tracks of a multitrack.

The thing is that even these early digital systems were cleaner and more accurate than almost any analog predecessor. The mix work being done is 99.999% responsible for what you hear.

I think there are two reasons some early CDs sound a bit thin. The crest factor of the analog source was on the high side. The sudden new and very strict requirement of normalizing for the peaks led to low levels. Actual program in the quieter parts was maybe getting only 8 bits resolution at the end. 2. The source was often a generational production copy sometimes eq'd for the vinyl lathe. The converter quality is the smallest variable in all that.

 

[fetchmybeer]

Not sure this has anything to do with digital quality, but there are a whole host of titles from the 80s I'd like to see remixed simply because of that cursed 80s drum sound. For example, I'd love to hear something like Pyromania with High N Dry's drums. Skid Row's debut album too. I could go on and on.

They did so many remasters in the 2010s that I'm not sure what is left at this point to redo. I mean, I'm sure everything could benefit from a remix, but that doesn't mean it should get one. Remastering takes care of a lot of those early issues, particularly with the "loudness wars" that cropped up starting in the mid 90s. Some stuff has 80s sheen on it that maybe could use something as simple as removal of that off the source mix without actually remixing (assuming that's possible, which it probably isn't). I think what Brendan O'Brien did with his remix of Pearl Jam's debut was great, and it's basically the removal of reverb that brings clarity to all the songs.

 

[Feasboss]

I've recently thought Queen's Live at Wembley could do with a remix. It sounded great in '92 when it was first released in the current mix, but played it recently on decent gear and it sounded thin and "toppy" to my ears. No guts or low end to the bass.

 

[DrKlahn]

Pink Floyd redid A Momentary Lapse of Reason for the Later Years set. I feel like they made some nice improvements in the new mix. I voted yes. I think today's tools can fix issues and I think todays systems reproduce a range those original mixes don't reflect.

 

[KG10]

Forgot to ask if anyone's compared the original mix of seeds of love to a downmix of steven wilson's 5.1?

 

[atrocity]

Maybe it's more accurate to say it's easy to corrupt digital audio? Strictly speaking, a clone is a clone is a clone.

I suppose it's not exactly what we're talking about here, but the live music CD trading pool has been polluted from day one by idiots who couldn't be bothered to make non-horrible copies.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

The answer is yes. The question is how much does the mixing engineer or artist want to improve it? Sometimes improvements don't happen because there is a wish to keep a certain vibe. Sometimes even better mastering makes a heck of a difference.

 

[KG10]

The answer is yes. The question is how much does the mixing engineer or artist want to improve it? Sometimes improvements don't happen because there is a wish to keep a certain vibe. Sometimes even better mastering makes a heck of a difference.

That's something in theory modern day remasters should easily fix with those early digital albums as I believe those were mastered in the analogue domain as well so it reduces another D to A to D conversion. Its shame that in reality most of those end up with worse dynamics than the original mastering due to of course the loudness war.

 

[mandrix]

I'm not an audio engineer, of course. But all those "remasters" of CD releases over the years were mostly pure crap. Oh look! There's a new Japan remaster of...whatever.
Analog tape 30 > years on. You get what you get. How much it can be improved depends if there is anything left to be eked out or if something was left on the table to begin with. Tape was often recorded over and over, after all. We all know tape diminishes after constant use or...just sitting around. Especially stored in crappy environmental conditions.
Is why the labels need to get off their collective asses and bring these things out and digitize while there exists an opportunity.

 

[key_wiz]

Not sure this has anything to do with digital quality, but there are a whole host of titles from the 80s I'd like to see remixed simply because of that cursed 80s drum sound. For example, I'd love to hear something like Pyromania with High N Dry's drums. Skid Row's debut album too. I could go on and on.

They did so many remasters in the 2010s that I'm not sure what is left at this point to redo. I mean, I'm sure everything could benefit from a remix, but that doesn't mean it should get one. Remastering takes care of a lot of those early issues, particularly with the "loudness wars" that cropped up starting in the mid 90s. Some stuff has 80s sheen on it that maybe could use something as simple as removal of that off the source mix without actually remixing (assuming that's possible, which it probably isn't). I think what Brendan O'Brien did with his remix of Pearl Jam's debut was great, and it's basically the removal of reverb that brings clarity to all the songs.

Switching out the drum sounds would take more than just a remix.

 

[jimfisheye]

I am an audio engineer. I question if some of the really trounced on remasters aren't intentionally novelty releases. This sounds like fully crazy 'Jim's lost it!' territory in regards to audio but some of those look like the marketing strategy where you hold back the 'upgrade' for next year and release a lesser thing now. The only way to make an audio master a 'lesser' version would be to degrade it.

In theory anyway, a final approved master would simply be cloned to reissue. The only thing crazier sounding than the above would be to accuse some of the biggest studio and mastering house engineers of being so incompetent they innocently screwed these up. That's just not reasonable in any way!

I say the first crazy thing to offer someone the benefit of the doubt. And we do see weird disconnected things like that in bureaucracies - which some of these big groups have become. If those are genuine screwups... well, wow! I think they're at best misguided requests from some tin eared marketing type to make it louder and they just don't care if that's damaging.

I don't know. It made sense in the analog days to collect for better pressings. Manufacturing analog audio product can be a challenge and some turned out to be a cleaner copy of the master than others. In the digital age there should be the final master and then it gets cloned. But things are more wild wild west for collecting than ever before! There are some egregious examples where a production copy eq'd for vinyl cutting put at low level on some of those early CDs are the best available copies.

 

[mandrix]

I think the remastered blu ray releases we've been getting are by and large well done.
But although I don't buy CD's for years now, I found a lot -not all by any means- of remasters not really pure crap, but not substantially better or worse.
The pure crap comes in when I spent my money on them only to be disappointed, I should have stated it that way.
Mea culpa.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

In the digital age there should be the final master and then it gets cloned. But things are more wild wild west for collecting than ever before!

Oh my God, tell me about it. If I had a nickel for every time I've had to go down a rabbit hole because the best version of an album is some esoteric release I would be rich!