peace_sells
Well-Known Member
A friend of mine (who lives in the UK) got an opportunity to speak with Steven Wilson last week. He's mainly known for being the founding member of the band Porcupine Tree (and a lot of other projects). One of the other things that he's been doing recently is creating 5.1 re-mixes of albums of classic progressive rock bands (Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Camel, etc.). One of the questions my friend asked him was : "So you've been re-mastering a lot of classic albums of late...". Wilson replied : "By the way, it's re-mixing, not re-mastering...".
This is not the first time I've heard people correct others with respect to re-masters/re-mixes. Lot of people seem to have this confusion. Even I din't know about the difference before i did some research on this after hearing my friends' experience with Wilson. So i thought of summarising whatever I learnt from various sources. Maybe it might help some of you guys.
This comparison is for re-master/re-mixes in music only.
Unless clearly specified, re-mastering by default means : digital remaster, i.e. creating digital masters from original analog masters.
Re-mastering involves : altering dynamic range, tonal balance, loudness of tracks (not to be confused with volume of track which can be controlled by the listener during playback), changing EQ (if needed).
Re-mastering doesn't change the content of music.
Re-mastering can also be done to suit the vinyl format.
When the CD/DVD era was in its infancy, the transfer into digital domain was done using inferior processing techniques. Hence, in market today, there are lot of re-masters of CDs that were issued in the 80s. These re-masters are done in order to enhance the quality of the original CD releases (however, lot of re-masters that took place during the 90s were a part of the loudness war. To know more about the loudness war : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war#Criticism).
Re-Mixing alters the original music.
This can be done for the following reasons : to make the music more suited for radio play (or DJ play), or to change stereophonic sound to surround sound (for e.g. 5.1).
This can be done by changing the pitch/speed, tempo, EQ, etc.
If I've missed out any other important information, please share.
Cheers.
This is not the first time I've heard people correct others with respect to re-masters/re-mixes. Lot of people seem to have this confusion. Even I din't know about the difference before i did some research on this after hearing my friends' experience with Wilson. So i thought of summarising whatever I learnt from various sources. Maybe it might help some of you guys.
This comparison is for re-master/re-mixes in music only.
Unless clearly specified, re-mastering by default means : digital remaster, i.e. creating digital masters from original analog masters.
Re-mastering involves : altering dynamic range, tonal balance, loudness of tracks (not to be confused with volume of track which can be controlled by the listener during playback), changing EQ (if needed).
Re-mastering doesn't change the content of music.
Re-mastering can also be done to suit the vinyl format.
When the CD/DVD era was in its infancy, the transfer into digital domain was done using inferior processing techniques. Hence, in market today, there are lot of re-masters of CDs that were issued in the 80s. These re-masters are done in order to enhance the quality of the original CD releases (however, lot of re-masters that took place during the 90s were a part of the loudness war. To know more about the loudness war : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war#Criticism).
Re-Mixing alters the original music.
This can be done for the following reasons : to make the music more suited for radio play (or DJ play), or to change stereophonic sound to surround sound (for e.g. 5.1).
This can be done by changing the pitch/speed, tempo, EQ, etc.
If I've missed out any other important information, please share.
Cheers.