An Introduction to Syd Barrett Album | October 2010

[my breakfast.]

Maybe they could get Phil Lesh to overdub new bass lines?

[Hudini]

Remastering is the process of altering the EQ or the balance of the frequencies of the final stereo master tape mix (or mono or multichannel mix), no changes are done in the levels of individual tracks nor any addition of new ones, is just the whole signal that is processed.

Makes sense. But then again from your definition of 'remix' I don't see a clear difference between a 'remix' and a 'new mix' as much as I did from the explanation that producer gave me.

[Damn!t]

Remastering is the process of altering the EQ or the balance of the frequencies of the final stereo master tape mix (or mono or multichannel mix), no changes are done in the levels of individual tracks nor any addition of new ones, is just the whole signal that is processed.

Are you sure about that? That the individual tracks are not being eq-ed/balanced?
Sorry, but that seems highly unlikely to me. I'm not here talking about leveling or adding up a certain track, I'm talking about making the individual tracks look more gorgeous.
I mean, whats the point then of fancy studio operation?
You could then remaster every album with a nice equilizer at home...

[my breakfast.]

You cannot remaster if the original multitracks are not there. You cannot pick individual instrument tracks out of a mono mix just with crafty EQing. See Emily Play is so densely EQed you cannot seperate anything, its either top end or bottom end (more like low mids).

No doubt the multitracks are out there and Gilmour is being a lazy boy.

[danielcaux]

Damn it! Remastering doesn't involves manipulation of the multitracks, just equalization/filtering of the final stereo/mono/surround mix signal. Any manipulation of the multitracks is then a remix. Of course you can remaster each individual track (apply different EQ values to it) of the multitracks when doing a remix, but in a mere remastering job you can't do that because you don't have access to the multitracks (4 track, 8 track, 24 track etc), just to the master stereo mix (just two channels of sound, right and left), although must times is just a copy of a copy of that master mix.

For example, DSOTM 80s CD is the same mix of the 1992 remastered Shine On CD and of the 1994 EMI remaster (some people even believe they all are the same master and that no remastering was done at all!). Only with the 30th anniversary CD they did a remix (and therefore also a new remaster) of DSOTM, I think they did the 5.1 mix and also a new 2.0 mix? Not sure about the later. So in the various re-re-releases incarnations of DSOTM over 30 years there have been a lot of masters and remasters but only like 3 mixes: the original LP mix (used for the CD releases too but with different mastering), the unreleased 70s quadraphonic mix and the 2000s 5.1 mix.

Hudini, the only explanation I find for the "2010 Mix" term they are using in this release is that:

a) those are mixes done from instrumental takes that were never used/mixed before.

or

b) is a typo.

I'm hoping for the first option.

You could then remaster every album with a nice equilizer at home...

As a matter of fact you can, but with most record players now you only have like four options for "playback remastering": Pop, Rock, Jazz, Classic! The only problem is that you would need to remember you "mastering" setup whenever you wanted to play your album like that because, unlike new remastered pressings, the changes to the sound signal wouldn't be recorded on the media.

Of course there's also more to mastering than just applying EQ; there's the addition of copious FXs and filters to the signal. Sometimes they add echo, reverb, hi-pass or low-pass filters, dynamic compression, normalization, noise reduction, etc... It depends on how "creative" the engineers are feeling, and on how much they, and the suits, want to f*ck with the orignal sound of the album/song. Some decent engineers try to make the album sound as close to what the artist originally intended it to sound, others just want to make it sound "modern" and glossy and loud. But none of those proccess involve alterations to the original mix.

You cannot remaster if the original multitracks are not there.

Of course you can. You only need to have access to the final stereo master. Sometimes even lazy official remasters have been done from vinyl drops! But I guess you wanted to say "you cannot remix if the original multitracks are not there".

I do not see how a Digital Remix would be able to fix a muffled mono single. Unless you add things not present on the source tape somehow you cannot surely keep improving what is there?

Well, it depends. If they actually have access to the original multitracks that the band used for creating that mono mix (how many tracks did they used for the mono singles? Four?), then in that case Digital Remix means they even could come with See Emily Play in 5.1 surround. Of course that's not necessarily a good thing!

[Wolfpack]

No doubt the multitracks are out there and Gilmour is being a lazy boy.

According to David Parker's book 'Random Precision', most multitracks of the 'The Piper' period are gone. (29-01-1967 to 19-07-1967) In the section 'Tapes Still Remaining at EMI', only multitracks (4track) are listed for takes of 'Arnold Layne', 'Candy and a Currant Bun', 'Matilda Mother' and the "wild vocal track for beginning" of 'Astronomy Domine'.
The chapter also contains a list of tapes noted on recording sheets, but which are no longer on file at EMI. Most likely because they are erased for reuse. This was standard practice in the 1960s, after the mono/stereo mixes were completed. Parker writes that there is only a very remote possibility that they may have been taken away by Pink Floyd for storage in their own archive. (But then, why didn't they take all the tapes.)

Sad information: 'She Was a Millionaire' (18-04-1967, takes 1-3) is listed among those missing tapes. Also the early version of 'Lucifer Sam', titled 'Percy the Ratcatcher' (11-04-1967, takes 1-7) .

The book mentions stereo tapes for 'Rhamadan' (23-04-1969, RS1) and 'Motorbike Effects' (23-04-1969). The effects are compiled from the studio sounds effects library. (It's not Syd's amateur recording, which apparently is lost.) The intention was to overdub the tape onto 'Rhamadan', but it was never used.
If 'Rhamadan' really will become availabe as download, it might be a (2010) mix of these two tapes and maybe the multitrack (8track) for 'Rhamadan' (14-05-1968, take 1).

I would like to know if 'Living Alone' still exists. According to information on this forum, Gilmour has recently told that he only has a COPY of 'Bob Dylan's Blues', and that he was contacted because the original was missing. No mention of 'Living Alone'. So, if the original tape is really lost and not copied by Gilmour, then 'Living Alone' is really lost.
Can someone interview Gilmour about this?

[Hudini]

the only explanation I find for the "2010 Mix" term they are using in this release is that:

a) those are mixes done from instrumental takes that were never used/mixed before

...Which could mean that Gilmour would record some new parts in 2010, or include some tracks that have never been used before, which is exactly what I've been told already.

You cannot remaster if the original multitracks are not there.

Of course you can. You only need to have access to the final stereo master.

Can you please explain what do you exactly mean by 'final stereo master'. Because, technically, an original CD print should not be different from final mastered tracks in wave format, thus anyone with an original printed CD should be able to 'remaster'?

[Wolfpack]

Can you please explain what do you exactly mean by 'final stereo master'. Because, technically, an original CD print should not be different from final mastered tracks in wave format, thus anyone with an original printed CD should be able to 'remaster'?

When a final mix is made, it can still need some polishing. For example adding a fade in, or a fade out, and some equalization. Those actions are part of the mastering.
This is why the mix of 'Late Night' is slightly shorter on 'Crazy Diamond' than it is on other releases, missing the last few seconds heard on the first CD release of 'Madcap'. The masterer apparently thought that those last seconds of the mix were not intended for release.
In the case of 'Terrapin' on 'Crazy Diamond', the masterer ignored a note on the tape box, which asks to fade out the strumming in the last seconds of the mix. (I say this from memory, without checking.)

It is possible to remaster from a CD. But if the original mastering fades out too early, as with 'Late Night' on 'Crazy Diamond', this cannot be restored without using the original mix (or a mastered mix containing the correct, later fade out).

[Wolfpack]

In the case of 'Terrapin' on 'Crazy Diamond', the masterer ignored a note on the tape box, which asks to fade out the strumming in the last seconds of the mix.

I mean: to omit the strumming.

[Idisaffect]

Damn it! Remastering doesn't involves manipulation of the multitracks, just equalization/filtering of the final stereo/mono/surround mix signal. Any manipulation of the multitracks is then a remix. Of course you can remaster each individual track (apply different EQ values to it) of the multitracks when doing a remix, but in a mere remastering job you can't do that because you don't have access to the multitracks (4 track, 8 track, 24 track etc), just to the master stereo mix (just two channels of sound, right and left), although must times is just a copy of a copy of that master mix.

For example, DSOTM 80s CD is the same mix of the 1992 remastered Shine On CD and of the 1994 EMI remaster (some people even believe they all are the same master and that no remastering was done at all!). Only with the 30th anniversary CD they did a remix (and therefore also a new remaster) of DSOTM, I think they did the 5.1 mix and also a new 2.0 mix? Not sure about the later. So in the various re-re-releases incarnations of DSOTM over 30 years there have been a lot of masters and remasters but only like 3 mixes: the original LP mix (used for the CD releases too but with different mastering), the unreleased 70s quadraphonic mix and the 2000s 5.1 mix.

Hudini, the only explanation I find for the "2010 Mix" term they are using in this release is that:

a) those are mixes done from instrumental takes that were never used/mixed before.

or

b) is a typo.

I'm hoping for the first option.

You could then remaster every album with a nice equilizer at home...

As a matter of fact you can, but with most record players now you only have like four options for "playback remastering": Pop, Rock, Jazz, Classic! The only problem is that you would need to remember you "mastering" setup whenever you wanted to play your album like that because, unlike new remastered pressings, the changes to the sound signal wouldn't be recorded on the media.

Of course there's also more to mastering than just applying EQ; there's the addition of copious FXs and filters to the signal. Sometimes they add echo, reverb, hi-pass or low-pass filters, dynamic compression, normalization, noise reduction, etc... It depends on how "creative" the engineers are feeling, and on how much they, and the suits, want to f*ck with the orignal sound of the album/song. Some decent engineers try to make the album sound as close to what the artist originally intended it to sound, others just want to make it sound "modern" and glossy and loud. But none of those proccess involve alterations to the original mix.

You cannot remaster if the original multitracks are not there.

Of course you can. You only need to have access to the final stereo master. Sometimes even lazy official remasters have been done from vinyl drops! But I guess you wanted to say "you cannot remix if the original multitracks are not there".

I do not see how a Digital Remix would be able to fix a muffled mono single. Unless you add things not present on the source tape somehow you cannot surely keep improving what is there?

Well, it depends. If they actually have access to the original multitracks that the band used for creating that mono mix (how many tracks did they used for the mono singles? Four?), then in that case Digital Remix means they even could come with See Emily Play in 5.1 surround. Of course that's not necessarily a good thing!

Why are you making this so complicated? It's simple.
You can remaster anything. You can't remix everything.

There is no improving the sound of the original reel tape for See Emily Play. All you can do is make it sound more "modern". More digital. More crap.

[Hudini]

Can you please explain what do you exactly mean by 'final stereo master'. Because, technically, an original CD print should not be different from final mastered tracks in wave format, thus anyone with an original printed CD should be able to 'remaster'?

When a final mix is made, it can still need some polishing. For example adding a fade in, or a fade out, and some equalization. Those actions are part of the mastering.

Actually, I was asking if there was a difference between the wave file in a studio master computer (I'm speaking in terms of the digital era) and a print on an original CD that I'm too stupid to see (although I do have experience in studio recording), because for what I know there shouldn't be any, regardless of early fade-ins and fade-outs. Thus, a notion of 'final stereo master' should apply to both a final wave file and the print on a pressed CD. Or not?

[Wolfpack]

There is no improving the sound of the original reel tape for See Emily Play.

This is a bit too simple. A reel tape can be 1track, 2track or more. What you mean is the reel tape containing the final mix. (Which in case of 'See Emily Play' is the only one that seems to exist.)

[Idisaffect]

[my breakfast.]

Wow where can I find a rapidshare link for that??????

[Idisaffect]

My favorite track is What's Become Of The Baby Lemonade?.