# Regarding remastering of classical recordings



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

Classical recordings are frequently remastered and the refurbished product is sold to the customer as an improved version. This is especially common for older, analogue recordings, but even digital recordings are being remastered. For a time, 24 bit/96 kHz remasterings or variants thereof were all the rage, and marketed as such even when released on 16 bit/44.1 kHz CD.

But are these remasterings really an improvement? The case of Günter Wand's Beethoven symphony cycle allows us to easily make comparisons as both the original 1980s releases and the 2001 24/96 remasterings are available on YouTube and Spotify. I also have the CD releases so I'm confident about my conclusions.

Here are playlists for both versions on YouTube, first the original, then the remastering:



https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_m4x1ZGwqnL3dZq-BzJ3uM6_Zd8xmz1wKQ




https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_kEFbHpz_VKK42kqJLcNvqMmbUvwJi0FiU



I have used my audio software to make direct comparisons, and here is what I hear:

The remastered version is about 4 dB louder.
Smile EQ has been applied to the remastered version, meaning that the bass and treble have been boosted.
Yes, that's all I hear in this remastering. A volume boost on top of a volume boost. Unfortunately the combination of these changes has introduced distortion in some of the loudest parts of the symphonies. As an example of this, consider the final seconds of the third movement of the fifth symphony, at the end of the transition to the final movement. The original is first, then the remastering:










A telling example is the last 20 seconds of the Finale of the first symphony starting from 5:30 in the links below. Here, the trumpet line sounds less brilliant and somewhat distorted in the remastered version. At 5:34, there is a slibilance artifact in the violins that gets amplified in the remastered version because the treble has been boosted. At 5:39 in the remastered version, there is an unpleasant rumble as the timpanist switches from the C to the G timpani. The timpani sound more even in the original version.










So what are your thoughts? Do you hear the same things that I do in these examples? Do you think that remastering actually improves the sound of old recordings, or is it mostly a marketing gimmick?


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

To be honest, I would never evaluate sonics based on YouTube audio.

That said, I don't think that one can generalize about remastering. There are times when it does actually improve sonics, and there are other occasions when it results in deterioration of some aspect of the sound. Newer isn't always better. A recent example was BMG's treatment of Bruno Walter's Maher 2 in their cheap "Bruno Walter conducts Mahler" set. The remastered version in that set was inferior to every previous issue of that recording, with a flat, one-dimensional soundstage. OTOH, EMI/Warner's most recent issue of the complete Callas really _did_ represent an improvement.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

It's a dark art for sure, it's also very subjective for the mastering engineer. @wkasimer, mastering does not normally involve reverb as that is added (or not) at a mix stage normally, so the one dimensional soundstage you talk of will have already been present in the recordings most likely. A mastering engineer takes a fully mixed track normally and proceeds to polish the sound, maybe EQ, level up the sound and generally prepare the audio for a consistent and optimised playback over different systems and formats.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

wkasimer said:


> To be honest, I would never evaluate sonics based on YouTube audio.


As I mentioned above, I have the CDs, and I used them to make comparisons. I think the differences between the versions can be heard clearly on YouTube.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

No one artist’s legacy have been treated worse than that of Maria Callas. Please read “Callas at EMI - Re-mastering and Perception”by Robert E. Seletsky which details the use and abuse of that legacy by the EMI team of recording engineers.






Callas at EMI – Divina Records







divinarecords.com


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Classical is mixed and mastered quite differently from rock, jazz, etc. Most notably, classical isn't nearly so low-end focused. Far fewer early digital recordings, or CD transfers of classical sounded bad. Thus didn't/don't require remaster after remaster after remaster.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

MAS said:


> No one artist’s legacy have been treated worse than that of Maria Callas. Please read “Callas at EMI - Re-mastering and Perception”by Robert E. Seletsky which details the use and abuse of that legacy by the EMI team of recording engineers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


During the digital era, EMI hasn't demonstrated much competence in their handling of their recorded legacy, and not just with respect to Callas. I note, thought, that Seletsky's article predates the last issue of Callas' complete recordings, aka "Callas Remastered".


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

AndorFoldes said:


> As I mentioned above, I have the CDs, and I used them to make comparisons. I think the differences between the versions can be heard clearly on YouTube.


I'm sure that they would be if I listened to them through a decent setup. Unfortunately, I usually listen to YT clips on my laptop or tablet, and not necessarily with good headphones. CD's get the benefit of a real audio system.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

(Re) mastering is very complicated issue. Full of politics, financial gain, etc. Pop/rock genre is MUCH more susceptible to politics, financial gain, than CM. 
About vinyl vs. CD (digital, files, streaming) of original ANALOG recordings... the mastering engineer has a lot of control. Many of the diffs. between vinyl and CD are down to the ART of the CUTTING (mastering) engineer.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

wkasimer said:


> During the digital era, EMI hasn't demonstrated much competence in their handling of their recorded legacy, and not just with respect to Callas. I note, thought, that Seletsky's article predates the last issue of Callas' complete recordings, aka "Callas Remastered".


Yes, but TalkClassical had extensive discussions at the time - see link below 









Maria Callas' Recorded Legacy


Remastered and repackaged. :) Original jacket.




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

AndorFoldes said:


> Classical recordings are frequently remastered and the refurbished product is sold to the customer as an improved version. This is especially common for older, analogue recordings, but even digital Do you think that remastering actually improves the sound of old recordings, or is it mostly a marketing gimmick?


Not "mostly." In most cases it's _ENTIRELY_.

As we've discussed elsewhere, unless the remastering engineer has access to original multi-track master tapes -- which is doubtful in 50-year-old classical productions, *if they even* *used* more than 2 tracks -- the best a remasterer can do is filter out some tape hiss, apply some compression (the "smile curve" you mention) and boost the overall level.

It's all about reviving dormant catalog.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

progmatist said:


> Classical is mixed and mastered quite differently from rock, jazz, etc. Most notably, classical isn't nearly so low-end focused. Far fewer early digital recordings, or CD transfers of classical sounded bad. Thus didn't/don't require remaster after remaster after remaster.


Another notable difference: classical quite often rides the lower limit of recorded volume (down where the Noise Monster lives) rather than shooting toward 0dB like pop & rock. Therefore, remastering by removing hiss and compressing the quiet parts and raising the overall volume sometimes improves the experience.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

wkasimer said:


> To be honest, I would never evaluate sonics based on YouTube audio.


A lot of YT videos are 320 Kbps MP3s and they're pretty freaking good.


----------



## 89Koechel (Nov 25, 2017)

NoCoPilot said:


> A lot of YT videos are 320 Kbps MP3s and they're pretty freaking good.


NoCoPilot - Nice points about marketing, remastering, etc.Also, it's probably true that classical music, by necessity, can ride the LOWER limit of recorded volume ... and no wonder. The entire, GREAT RANGE of the many instruments, in certain recordings, need to be kept within a non-distortional limit. We've seen, on the db meters, that certain recordings can sometimes JUMP into a distortional range, depending on the classical work, itself. Not to sound like a recidivist, but I still like the simple fact that some of the best-engineered recordings of the past, were dubbed at 15 iinch/per/second, on the old medium - open-reel tape, as the master, or "mother". ... Also, nice (it was) that the recording/producing "bright lights" of old RCA, and Mercury ... could produce LP reissues that genuinely-reflected the excellent engineering, musical felicities, etc., of a former age.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

The first multi-track recorders were produced in the mid-1950s, and it is indisputable that some mid-century engineers were wizards at pulling out fabulous recordings. I have a 1954 Karl Richter recording that rivals anything produced today (except for the tape hiss).

But technology has advanced in the intervening 80 years, including non-distorting limiters and digital recording with 100x the headroom. There's no reason to use outdated technology anymore.

By the way, "recidivist"?


> a convicted criminal who reoffends, especially repeatedly.


 I think maybe you meant "revisionist" or "luddite"?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

progmatist said:


> Classical is mixed and mastered quite differently from rock, jazz, etc. Most notably, classical isn't nearly so low-end focused. Far fewer early digital recordings, or CD transfers of classical sounded bad. Thus didn't/don't require remaster after remaster after remaster.


I pretty much gave up on getting new remasterings. While I think that there were a bunch of 1980s CDs that were improved by later remasterings, the results are usually subtle. I distinctly remember two famous recordings where I found a newer remastering clearly superior to a late 1980s CD issue, the Callas/De Sabata Tosca and Klemp's Brahms Requiem. I also think that some CBS CDs of their 60s recordings (before it was taken by Sony) in the late 1980s sounded quite bad, e.g. some of Casadesus/Szell Mozart. The Gould recordings sounded different as well between CBS and Sony but I am not sure which ones sounded better.
I eventually also got more recent issues of some Mahler and Beethoven's Fidelio with Klemperer. I pretty much gave up, however, when I was completely unable to decide in case of some other recordings which one I preferred, one was, I think Furtwängler's Haydn #88 and Schumann #4, another might have been some Fricsay or again Klemperer/EMI because in A-B-comparison I could perceive slight differences but was totally unable to decide which one were sounding better to me.

If a recording from the stereo or digital age was pretty good in the first place and well transferred to CD there are almost no improvements to be had by further remastering, I think.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

NoCoPilot said:


> I have *a 1954 Karl Richter recording* that rivals anything produced today (except for the tape hiss).


May I ask, which one precisely?


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

NoCoPilot said:


> As we've discussed elsewhere, unless the remastering engineer has access to original multi-track master tapes -- which is doubtful in 50-year-old classical productions, *if they even* *used* more than 2 tracks -- the best a remasterer can do is filter out some tape hiss, apply some compression (the "smile curve" you mention) and boost the overall level.


And this assumes that those master tapes were stored in a way that preserved them - which is often not the case. IIRC, the latest remaster of the Solti RING wasn't done from the master tapes because they had deteriorated beyond repair.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

premont said:


> May I ask, which one precisely?


I am going to place a bet of € (or $) 0,00 on an organ recording.
(That's how sure I am.)


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

premont said:


> May I ask, which one precisely?














Marc said:


> I am going to place a bet of € (or $) 0,00 on an organ recording.


Did Karl Richter ever play any other instrument?


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

NoCoPilot said:


> Did Karl Richter ever play any other instrument?


He was also a conductor.
Made many choir recordings, a few of his Bach and Händel recordings became quite legendary.
I got to know the Brandenburg Concertos with a Richter recording.

But he earned his first fame as organist indeed.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

He also recorded the Goldberg Variations on harpsichord ca. 1970.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

wkasimer said:


> And this assumes that those master tapes were stored in a way that preserved them - which is often not the case. IIRC, the latest remaster of the Solti RING wasn't done from the master tapes because they had deteriorated beyond repair.


Maybe the most detailed article about the remastering of a recording ever written:

Solti Ring Remastering.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Monsalvat said:


> He also recorded the Goldberg Variations on harpsichord ca. 1970.


He actually made multiple harpsichord recordings (including another Goldberg Variation from the 50s) and was the harpsichordist on both his recordings of the Brandenburg concertos.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

I, for one can't answer that question. As much as I want the very best rendition of a particular work, who knows? 
At the end of the day, you owe it to yourselves to own the very best sound reproduction of a particular work. 
Keep on buying until you get to a mastering that sounds right - to you. Yet this is when we become slaves to our masters. Do we keep going? Who knows. Only you.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

NoCoPilot said:


>


Thanks. I had an idea that it was about this recording. I own it too and don't agree that the sound matches anything produced today. Already the organ recordings Richter made for DG (Jägersborg) and Archiv (Freiberg) in the late 1960es are in better sound.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

BachIsBest said:


> He actually made multiple harpsichord recordings (including another Goldberg Variation from the 50s) and was the harpsichordist on both his recordings of the Brandenburg concertos.


I'm so used to the combi organ/harpsichord that I sometimes tend to forget to mention either one of them.

(I bet he played a little piano, too... but I don't recall any recordings. )


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

NoCoPilot said:


> A lot of YT videos are 320 Kbps MP3s and they're pretty freaking good.


Most use AAC+, which is light years ahead of MP3. YT videos are most commonly encoded in Mpeg 4, the default audio layer of which is AAC+. If one even attempted to encode an Mpeg 4 video with MP3 audio, it would render as unplayable by most users. That's assuming the encoder successfully encodes at all without errors.


----------



## MusicInTheAir (Apr 21, 2007)

AndorFoldes said:


> Classical recordings are frequently remastered and the refurbished product is sold to the customer as an improved version. This is especially common for older, analogue recordings, but even digital recordings are being remastered. For a time, 24 bit/96 kHz remasterings or variants thereof were all the rage, and marketed as such even when released on 16 bit/44.1 kHz CD.
> 
> But are these remasterings really an improvement? The case of Günter Wand's Beethoven symphony cycle allows us to easily make comparisons as both the original 1980s releases and the 2001 24/96 remasterings are available on YouTube and Spotify. I also have the CD releases so I'm confident about my conclusions.
> 
> ...


To respond to this particular example. I've bought three CD sets from the Sony/BMG Masters Series. I first bought the Leinsdorf Prokofiev box, then the Bernstein London Symphonies box and finally the Isaac Stern Beethoven box. For whatever remastering that was done with these sets, I've found the sound to be subpar. In the Prokofiev in particular, I also found the distortion you described in the Wand recording.

Having said that, I do hear improvement from previous masterings in the big Szell box. I think the sound I've heard in some of the more recent EMI/Warner Klemperer boxes is a little fuller to my ears than the earliest CD masterings (and certainly the Angel recordings!).

All in all, I'd have to say that sometimes the remasterings are improvements, and other times they are not. Because of my bad experiences with the Masters series, I will not buy another CD from it. I think if the buyer starts to have similar experiences with a certain label or a particular series from a label, that should guide them in deciding to buying a remastered version of a recording.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Are these the cheap "white" cardboard boxes from Sony? Or some "original cover art" boxes?
Of the cheapo "white boxes" I have Levine/Mahler, Walter/Mahler, Szell/Haydn, Leinsdorf/Prokofiev and Serkin/Beethoven and didn't notice any particularly problematic sound, i.e. nothing that would be surprising or very substandard for ca. 1960s recordings (never known for especially good sound, unlike some Mercury or Decca). 
However, I could only have made comparison in one or two cases (Walter/Mahler and Serkin) and I didn't really before giving away the older single issues. I am not that particular about sound, though


----------



## inthemusiczone (Feb 15, 2019)

The best examples of remastering done really well are the series of Emil Berliner Studios' remasterings for SACD (and occasionally CD as well) of the vintage DG catalogue. The results are revelatory, causing me to completely revise my opinions of the DG house sound. For example, DGs analogue recordings of solo piano often sounded tinny on both LP and CD, but these remasterings restore a rich, full sound - eg. Gilels' solo Beethoven, Martha Argerich's Ravel recital. All of the orchestral sets I have bought, like Karajan's Schumann and Beethoven symphony cycles, his Second Viennese School set, Bohm's Beethoven, Kubelik's Beethoven and Dvorak cycles - all sound incredible. The secret is that they remixed from the original multitrack masters. I also have to say that the few Esoteric remasters I have bought are incredible, even when the source is digital.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

inthemusiczone said:


> The best examples of remastering done really well are the series of Emil Berliner Studios' remasterings for SACD (and occasionally CD as well) of the vintage DG catalogue. The results are revelatory, causing me to completely revise my opinions of the DG house sound. For example, DGs analogue recordings of solo piano often sounded tinny on both LP and CD, but these remasterings restore a rich, full sound - eg. Gilels' solo Beethoven, Martha Argerich's Ravel recital. All of the orchestral sets I have bought, like Karajan's Schumann and Beethoven symphony cycles, his Second Viennese School set, Bohm's Beethoven, Kubelik's Beethoven and Dvorak cycles - all sound incredible. The secret is that they remixed from the original multitrack masters. I also have to say that the few Esoteric remasters I have bought are incredible, even when the source is digital.


Thank you for bringing these releases to my attention. Some of those sets are on my remastering wishlist.

However, there are some issues. Looking at the Emil Berliner website, the formats seem to be all over the place, CD, SACD, Blu Ray and Vinyl. And where can I buy the products? Apart from the most high-profile sets like some of the Karajan, I'm not able to find them at the usual sellers. Some of them appear to have been released physically only in Japan.

Furthermore, are they available on any streaming services? It's not that obvious. It makes me wonder if these companies actually want to sell their products. I would hope that DG would come to their senses and just replace the outdated boxed sets with these new ones on CD. One can always dream.


----------

