Zappa.com

Mastering is when you take a dry mix and you enhance the sound for whatever reason, it's already been established that the 2008 masters sound different from the original mix. Therefore, when they say it's a re-master from 2008, I mean yes, they have changed the sound from the original mix somewhat.

What you call mastering, preparing the audio, I call encoding. You encode tracks at 24 bit/96khz or 16 bit/44khz. When you transfer analog to digital, you do often have to change the mix somewhat but I won't argue that it is always necessary, but very often it is thanks to the huge differences between analog and digital recording.

If the 2008 remaster was simply a case of an analog to digital transfer with no tweaking of the frequencies, then why would Gail have said that it "mostly resembles" the original mix? This statement alone informs you that the original mix has been changed somewhat.

A dry mix is a mix that has no effects on it and has not been mastered (as to my understanding of the term mastering)

I know historically, that mastering simply meant transferring the audio to tape, vinyl etc. However, you will also appreciate that mastering for cassette tape and mastering for vinyl are two different processes, vinyl cannot be mastered to the same volume as tape or CD can. The format doesn't allow for it, something mastered to 0db on vinyl does not sound good. Therefore, the original audio has to be manipulated in some way to compensate for this and ultimately changing the sound from the original mix by re-balancing the frequencies to accommodate the changes in the overall volume. Therefore, even back in the days when mastering meant a simple transfer to various formats, some manipulation of the sound was inevitable for it to be available across various formats.

Regarding your opinion on my opinion regarding ipods etc. That's very grand, well done. I did not say that it would be my preference, only that I would understand it as the audio has to be made suitable for the format...you disagree, again, that's very grand and well done once again. However, it is only opinion and regardless of this, the fact still stands that the original mix has been mastered to my understanding of what mastering means, rather than what yours mean. Others have already commented on how the 2008 re-master does use the original mix, but the bass is much deeper and so on....this is the result of the mastering process where audio is enhanced and not simply encoded for various playback options.

So while you are correct and facetiously so, in the fact that mastering can mean as simple a process as encoding the audio for various playback options, this is really only the thin edge of the wedge and the bulk of the mastering process today at least, involves enhancing the existing audio signals from the mix and balancing it out via EQ.

If they had simply done a transfer of analog to digital with nothing else done, then Gail would have said yes, this is the original mix, not that it "mostly resembles" it.

Finally, yes I do still think this has been done to make the original recordings more compatible with modern mediums and regardless of you or I's opinion on the rights and wrongs of that, it is justified if the intention is to make it sound as good as possible on modern mediums.

That's my understanding of the mastering process and also of what a dry mix is.

If you'd care to attempt to correct/illuminate/inform/denigrate what I've said, please have a go Hopefully the world is now satisfied with my response

_________________
Solipsism
Herb Recordings
Blog
Shitface
Weird Fields

I have to say, basing my opinion on the literal definition of remaster, I am with TheCentralScutinizer:

re·mas·ter (r-mstr)
tr.v. re·mas·tered, re·mas·ter·ing, re·mas·ters
To master again, especially to produce a new master recording of (an old recording) in order to improve the sound quality.

If the goal of a remaster is to improve sound quality, then obviously it is not EXACTLY the same as the original. "Especially" seems to mean that MOST OFTEN it is done to improve sound quality, so something is done to change it in some way, even if it is minor, from the original.

_________________
“The power of pop music to corrupt and putrify the minds of world youth are virtually limitless."

Any analog recording has to be remastered before it can be reissued in a digital format such as CD or I-Tunes.

Sorry, if you mean one can taste music works with his/her tongue, then I will have to disagree.
By "flavour", I hope you mean alternate measurements of a value due to different resolution, sampling rate, monotonicity, THD and dynamic range.
Otherwise if you mean something else, in my weak understanding of the Universe, it has to come from a very bad DAC.

Correct i think the word transferred not Remaster though

_________________
Arf you out of your fucking mind.

TheCentralScrutinizer,

"Dry" is referring to the lack of FZ-added digi-verb present on most of the Ryko CDs.

Remastering is the act of creating a new master from which the commercial CDs or LPs will be sourced.

For "Hot Rats", the Ryko CD was remixed from the original multi-track (i.e. the 8-track or 16-track or whatever it was) tapes to make a new mix, different from the original vinyl mix. This mix featured a lot more digital reverb (that spacey, echoey sound) than the original "dry" mix.

When Classic records remastered the original mix (i.e. the vinyl mix, from the 1969 stereo master tape) they did a transfer to digital as well, which is what will be used on the new Hot Rats CD.

When Wen D Carlos said that the samples on Amazon UK matched the original mix, that's what he meant. Because it's the same mix, just remastered (which will not change the relative levels of the instruments in the mix, just the EQ or the overall level of the mix)

You're hanging this all on Gail saying "it most resembles the original mix". Have you considered that she doesn't actually understand the terms that she used?

WTF is your point? The new CD's are going to sound like the original vinyl, because they are made from the same tapes, doofus. Joe has said this. Gail has said this. The amazon samples (which everyone except you seems to hear fine) prove this. Your insistance that they are going to be the same as the Ryko's was totally incorrect, and your assertions and thoughts on mastering are completely irrelevant to the subject. Just admit that you made a fool of yourself, and you don't know what you're talking about, and we can move on.

Lol, you've just proved my point that you do not actually read anything properly. Here is my earlier response to your ill-informed rant to show that you're talking shit.

Jesus man, answer me this, how can a 2008 remaster be the same as the original mix...it may have the tracks from the original mix, but as soon as you remaster it, it is different. GZ clarifies this when she says that it "mostly resembles" the original mix. Quite simply, it's not the same as, but resembles it.

Then answer me this, why would you remaster something if the reason was for it to sound exactly the same as the original mix?? It makes no fucking sense, your argument is bordering on lunacy.

Furthermore, my initial point on the other thread clearly stated that the Ryko version was on spotify, I then went on to say after I had listened on Amazon that there was a problem as Amazon did not have the same version that Spotify had on their system. I asked you to go and check for yourself and you told me no, albeit in more colourful language than that. I then went and listened on Amazon (I rarely listen there because of the low quality and the fact it's 30 second samples), once I listened on Amazon, I came back to the thread and said I had obviously made a mistake about Spotify and wondered what the problem would be....if you recall, I also found evidence of their being a problem with the version on other sites also.

However, you then decided to conflate my point about spotify not having the original "dry" mix as you termed it, into me meaning that they hadn't used original mixes. My point was simply that they hadn't on spotify, I still stand by this and after discovering Amazon had different versions, I agreed there was a problem with spotify because Amazon would not have had all the clips otherwise.

Incidentally, it cannot be the original "dry" mixes as you term it, as that would suggest they've not been mastered after the mix. We've already established it was remastered in 2008, so my point stands, you were wrong, as these are NOT "dry" mixes....they've been remastered and therefore CANNOT be exactly the same as the original record and CANNOT be "dry" mixes either.

Hopefully this registers somewhere in your brain.

and here is the following response that backs up what I say for the benefit of yourself and the thinman.

Mastering is when you take a dry mix and you enhance the sound for whatever reason, it's already been established that the 2008 masters sound different from the original mix. Therefore, when they say it's a re-master from 2008, I mean yes, they have changed the sound from the original mix somewhat.

What you call mastering, preparing the audio, I call encoding. You encode tracks at 24 bit/96khz or 16 bit/44khz. When you transfer analog to digital, you do often have to change the mix somewhat but I won't argue that it is always necessary, but very often it is thanks to the huge differences between analog and digital recording.

If the 2008 remaster was simply a case of an analog to digital transfer with no tweaking of the frequencies, then why would Gail have said that it "mostly resembles" the original mix? This statement alone informs you that the original mix has been changed somewhat.

A dry mix is a mix that has no effects on it and has not been mastered (as to my understanding of the term mastering)

I know historically, that mastering simply meant transferring the audio to tape, vinyl etc. However, you will also appreciate that mastering for cassette tape and mastering for vinyl are two different processes, vinyl cannot be mastered to the same volume as tape or CD can. The format doesn't allow for it, something mastered to 0db on vinyl does not sound good. Therefore, the original audio has to be manipulated in some way to compensate for this and ultimately changing the sound from the original mix by re-balancing the frequencies to accommodate the changes in the overall volume. Therefore, even back in the days when mastering meant a simple transfer to various formats, some manipulation of the sound was inevitable for it to be available across various formats.

Regarding your opinion on my opinion regarding ipods etc. That's very grand, well done. I did not say that it would be my preference, only that I would understand it as the audio has to be made suitable for the format...you disagree, again, that's very grand and well done once again. However, it is only opinion and regardless of this, the fact still stands that the original mix has been mastered to my understanding of what mastering means, rather than what yours mean. Others have already commented on how the 2008 re-master does use the original mix, but the bass is much deeper and so on....this is the result of the mastering process where audio is enhanced and not simply encoded for various playback options.

So while you are correct and facetiously so, in the fact that mastering can mean as simple a process as encoding the audio for various playback options, this is really only the thin edge of the wedge and the bulk of the mastering process today at least, involves enhancing the existing audio signals from the mix and balancing it out via EQ.

If they had simply done a transfer of analog to digital with nothing else done, then Gail would have said yes, this is the original mix, not that it "mostly resembles" it.

Finally, yes I do still think this has been done to make the original recordings more compatible with modern mediums and regardless of you or I's opinion on the rights and wrongs of that, it is justified if the intention is to make it sound as good as possible on modern mediums.

That's my understanding of the mastering process and also of what a dry mix is.

If you'd care to attempt to correct/illuminate/inform/denigrate what I've said, please have a go Hopefully the world is now satisfied with my response

_________________

Finally, you don't have a clue what you're speaking about. If you do, please accurately describe everywhere I'm going wrong in the above statements and then explain why without just rambling gibberish.

_________________
Solipsism
Herb Recordings
Blog
Shitface
Weird Fields

A REMASTERED VERSION OF THE ORIGINAL MIX

THE VINYL WAS A 2008 REMASTER

REMASTERED VERSIONS ARE BEING USED FOR THE CDS

THEREFORE THE CDS WILL MOSTLY RESEMBLE THE ORIGINAL MIXES, BUT NOT BE THE SAME AS THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. THE ONLY WAY THEY COULD BE THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL MIXES IS IF THEY WERE UNMASTERED.

HOW FUCKING HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND.

_________________
Solipsism
Herb Recordings
Blog
Shitface
Weird Fields

Again, please try and answer my points instead of trying to act like John Wayne, shouting at me won't make me believe your fairy stories.

_________________
Solipsism
Herb Recordings
Blog
Shitface
Weird Fields

I need to go to my bed now for my beauty sleep, please do return though to answer my points. Though if you do, please try and stick to the points and refrain from completely missing the point.

Good night

_________________
Solipsism
Herb Recordings
Blog
Shitface
Weird Fields

Hey doofus - please explain to me how remastering something changes the way it's mixed. No remaster is ever going to resemble an old mastering exactly. It's fucking impossible. There is no such thing as "unmastered". The original vinyl was "mastered". The new CD is going to be "mastered". They both use the same master tape, therefore they are going to have the same audio charachteristics. Nobody is saying that they're gonna sound exactly identical. Jeez. Get a clue.

Exactly. Try explaining to these dolts how to wipe their own ass, and see how far you get. I feel like I'm at the Special Olympics.

Not trying to throw fuel on this fire but I have an honest question asking out of truthful ignorance. If a remaster does not mean any significant changes happened, then why advertise that a particular album is the 2008 remaster? Why even bring it up? I don't mean only in this specific case, but in any case. People often refer to the "such and such" remaster. Why do people make this distinction if there is no real difference?

_________________
“The power of pop music to corrupt and putrify the minds of world youth are virtually limitless."

By my estimates, U$ 1,000,00 would be enough to rebuy all the catalogue...

_________________
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true Art and Science. - Albert Einstein

At the Special Olympics and not winning any prizes.

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.

She was just pointing out that it was mastered at the same time as the (excellent) LP reissue, and will thus sound similar. Nothing more to it than that.

Thanks Joe and I appreciate your comment. It seems we are in a endless circle of debate over both the meaning of some recording terminology and whether the samples on some of the online commerce sites are the latest versions. Although your statement implies a specific meaning for remaster and mix. Other than your comment above and gz's reply to some questions, it doesn't look like we'll know definitively until we read the packaging.

Is there any chance we'll see liner notes for each record without holding the product in our hands? Some of us never get to a brick and mortar storefront and so reading recording source information on a package can be a bit of a problem.

Are most of these releases placebos?

Some of you seem to be waiting for the "experts" (haha) to speak so you can go along with the general consensus.



Ask yourself these questions:

Is this the final definitive release of these albums?

How will they "improve" the sound 10 years from now?

What are they going to unleash after 3D HD Virtual Reality TV?

Am I lame because I prefer to listen to Zappa on low bias cassette on a $15 1980s boom box?

As long as there is a demand, they can repackage the catalog for your great grandchildren's children. Even if they could be sonically improved, or perhaps updated is a better word for it, then they will repackage these over and over again.

On the other hand, if they still plan on releasing more MOFO/Lumpy Money/Greasy Love Songs type projects, they could even repackage the repackaged recordings.

Look on the bright side. Collector types will have a field day rebuying the catalog for the 14th time. If I like what I hear in this first batch, I'll eventually get them all again, over time.

The industry uses the term "remastered" to sell their repertoire multiple times to clueless consumers. They try to make people believe that a remaster is always an improvement to previous versions because otherwise people won't buy it. Well sometimes it is an improvement but in many cases - not. Sometimes it seems to be an improvement on first listen, but it is just made louder in many cases.

A remaster can be an opportunity to improve something and correct mistakes from previous issues (like with the Zappa catalogue) and/or correct problems with the source format when it has suffered from aging processes. And it can be an opportunity to get over the disadvantages of older formats (the restrictions of vinyl for instance). But sometimes it is just a marketing trick. In my sense a remaster should try to preserve a historic recording as original as possible without changing the original content. A remaster should not try to convert something historic into a "modern listening habits" product. IMHO. I won't buy that.

Th.

_________________
Active forum member since 2005 - R E T I R E D from this forum in 2013

There is no "endless circle of debate". Read the first three posts in this thread - ignore the rest - it's nonsense.

I'd say ignore the hotheads Scrutie and Wendy and you'll be fine.

On topic: I think it's been established that the old vinyl catalog will be much better represented in these digital reissues than before. How about the later works, though? Some people say that they want'em all, but I don't think I'll bother to upgrade 1984-1993, unless all the 60 albums are offered in one box at a reasonable price.

_________________
We make a special art in an environment hostile to dreamers. Frank Zappa, 1971

Absolutely Free, Hot Rats, Burnt Weeny Sandwich, Weasels Ripped My Flesh, Chunga's Revenge, Fillmore East, and JABFLA are all worth buying because of improved sound quality and, in some cases, restorations to the original vinyl programs.

Freak Out! and Ruben And The Jets are not worth buying because they sound too close the the Rykos.

Jury is still out on:

We're Only In It For The Money - If a better master tape has not been located, this will likely not be worth it.

Lumpy Gravy - This will only be worth getting if the "Oh No" section has been restored to stereo.

Uncle Meat - This will be worth it if the digital reverb is absent and/or "Mr. Green Genes" has been restored to the original vinyl mix.