Hello, first post. Right off the bat, this website is a real resource of information...truly a great find.
I'm always trying to learn how to listen better to music and was wondering if you find some things, which most people may not consciously pick up on, very obvious that would be of help.
The only example I can give is that I listen to an extensive amount of classical music and after awhile it becomes very audible when edits were done, or if part of the take was done on a different day when the piano was tuned a little sharper etc. These are things that I may not have consciously noticed but would definitely affected my appreciation of the music.
With that in mind. What's your criteria for a great master? bad master? Are albums that are famously remastered really all they are cracked up to be? What are some good examples of good album masters? and bad album masters?
Just curious since I'm willing to bet the people here have listened to ALOT of music with these kinds of things in mind.
Steve
Comments
Steve, I can't give you clasical music examples, but in the
Steve,
I can't give you clasical music examples, but in the Rock & Roll world, the recent remasterings of the Grateful Dead in the "Golden Road" box set & the Who catalog are really well done compared to the originals. In Jazz cudos go out to the multi disc Miles Davis sets covering his career. The Smithsonian has done a fine job on the bluegrass archives of Bill Monroe & Doc Watson.
The common thread with all these (and no doubt others) is that there was a great deal of sensitivity shown by the mastering engineer to the feel of the music & a knowledge of how the music was "supposed" to sound. This was probably based on lots of time doing the homework on a artist's sound & bringing common sense to equipment choice & use.