But to address your points about 'remastering', especially from non-original sources, you may be aware that if you have, say, an LP or tape of a particular recording that you would like to 'improve', the means are there today to do it very simply and cheaply. I transfer my own sources with a CD-quality analogue to digital converter which costs about the same as a large pizza and provides impeccable results, i.e. the decoded results are audibly indistinguishable from the original source. And then if I want to process the digital files, I can do so with freeware such as Audacity which provides extensive tonal shaping, noise reduction, click removal, reverberation, etc etc. In other words, all those miracles the commercial restorers claim, but entirely to your own taste - and without the cost, particularly, of the ridiculously and unnecessary high sampling rates and bit depths they tout as their 'premium' product.
As you say, the ultimate response is subjective, and may I suggest rather than the restorers sometimes getting "better results" than the original, it's more the case that you simply like them better. Getting back to the Ring, all I really want to hear is what Culshaw, Parry, et al heard in the control room at the Sofiensaal when the true original masters met their final approval.
An informative post, Des. The two questions raised in your final sentence are very pertinent, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for a response from the record company concerned.
I have no expertise in this subject but would like to offer some observations about 'remasters' in general. Most of the CDs I have purchased in the last couple of decades have been reissues rather than new recordings, with particular emphasis on the output of the analogue LP era (mostly stereos but some monos, as well). That's because most of my favourite artists recorded then and I unapologetically find their performances to be authoritative and superior to many more recent offerings.
When reissues of earlier recordings are accompanied by claims of "remastering", the main point of interest for me (and I suspect, many others) is whether they offer improved sound quality compared to earlier issues - after all, most of us already know the performances!
If 'remastering' means that the original source material has been used, my response to some of them seems to pose a conundrum. My - admittedly subjective - reactions are that (i) some reissues fail to sound better than or, indeed, don't sound as well as, earlier issues and (ii) 'restoration' labels such as Naxos Historical and Pristine - presumably working with commercial pressings only - sometimes get better results than the company which made the original recording.
Message Thread
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb