View Full Version : Poor Mastering
Boz Scaggs 'Silk Degrees' has always been one of my favourite records.
When I moved from vinyl to CD I replaced my original vinyl release with a brand new CD.
This was careless of me since the version I bought sounds terrible. You have to play it at low volume or it's very shouty. Even at low volume it doesn't sound good to the extent that I no longer play it.
DR Database shows why:
https://i.ibb.co/HDKCbSpP/BZ1.png (https://ibb.co/4ZF2XqgS)
I just ordered a copy of the 1993 release from eBay (four quid posted):
https://i.ibb.co/DHkx2YxZ/boz2.png (https://ibb.co/tTc7rz79)
You could have the world's best and most expensive system and that 2007 release is still going to sound like crap.
Ali Tait
31-03-2025, 09:29
I get they had their reasons for doing what they did, but it ruined a hell of a lot of recordings.
I get they had their reasons for doing what they did, but it ruined a hell of a lot of recordings.
I'm still unsure as to the reasons. Okay, so it helps playback in a noisy environment like a car, but is it really necessary to kill all the dynamic range of the recording to do that?
I just don't think so. Also it really only needed if the car's sound system is a 'Taiwan radio' instead of a decent installation that has some headroom.
Ali Tait
31-03-2025, 10:55
As I understand it, they were told to do it so it would be louder on the radio and supposedly draw more attention. Since it only really bothers nutters like us I dare say they didn't give a shit how it sounded. :-)
Pigmy Pony
31-03-2025, 11:10
How do you know which version you have? I've looked at my CD, and the only year I can find anywhere on it is the release date, 1976.
As I understand it, they were told to do it so it would be louder on the radio and supposedly draw more attention. Since it only really bothers nutters like us I dare say they didn't give a shit how it sounded. :-)
Yes even some 1960s pop music is compressed for that reason. But this particular remaster is from 2007 so well after radio stations had abandoned playing vinyl or CD.
And the album itself is from 1976 so it's not like they remastered it super hot in 2007 with promotional radio play in mind, like they might do with a new release.
As far as I can tell it's just wilfully stupid.
How do you know which version you have? I've looked at my CD, and the only year I can find anywhere on it is the release date, 1976.
Mine has the 'bonus tracks' so has to be the 2007 version. Also on the back the copyright notice shows '1976, 2007'
Ali Tait
31-03-2025, 13:03
Yes even some 1960s pop music is compressed for that reason. But this particular remaster is from 2007 so well after radio stations had abandoned playing vinyl or CD.
And the album itself is from 1976 so it's not like they remastered it super hot in 2007 with promotional radio play in mind, like they might do with a new release.
As far as I can tell it's just wilfully stupid.
Maybe it just became the norm for some, even after the fact. I agree it's stupid.
The 2007 remaster was done at Gateway Studios by Doug Sax.
Sax, who died in 2015, was a highly respected mastering engineer who mastered (amongst many other albums)
1967 The Doors - The Doors
1967 Absolutely Free - Frank Zappa
1970 Morrison Hotel - The Doors
1971 Fillmore East: June 1971 Frank Zappa
1971 L.A. Woman - The Doors
1971 Sticky Fingers- The Rolling Stones
1971 Who's Next - The Who
1971 Nilsson Schmilsson - Harry Nilsson
1971 Songs for Beginners - Graham Nash
1972 Exile on Main St. - The Rolling Stones
1972 No Secrets - Carly Simon
1975 Toys in the Attic - Aerosmith
1975 The Who by Numbers - The Who
1976 Chicago X - Chicago
1976 Breezin' - George Benson
1976 Glow - Al Jarreau
1976 Silk Degrees - Boz Scaggs
Yes, that's right, he mastered the original release too!
We certainly can't put this down to incompetence so I have to assume he delivered the remaster that Sony BMG requested.
It's those idiot suits at the record label who are responsible.
rmcin626
31-03-2025, 13:42
I used to have an original UK pressing but disappeared at some point, I now have the Pure Pleasure version remastered in 2009
I used to have an original UK pressing but disappeared at some point, I now have the Pure Pleasure version remastered in 2009
Vinyl though - I never heard a recording on vinyl that was mastered too loud - because you physically can't do that with a mastering for vinyl. Strictly a digital problem.
The 2007 remaster was done at Gateway Studios by Doug Sax.
Sax, who died in 2015, was a highly respected mastering engineer who mastered (amongst many other albums)
1967 The Doors - The Doors
1967 Absolutely Free - Frank Zappa
1970 Morrison Hotel - The Doors
1971 Fillmore East: June 1971 Frank Zappa
1971 L.A. Woman - The Doors
1971 Sticky Fingers- The Rolling Stones
1971 Who's Next - The Who
1971 Nilsson Schmilsson - Harry Nilsson
1971 Songs for Beginners - Graham Nash
1972 Exile on Main St. - The Rolling Stones
1972 No Secrets - Carly Simon
1975 Toys in the Attic - Aerosmith
1975 The Who by Numbers - The Who
1976 Chicago X - Chicago
1976 Breezin' - George Benson
1976 Glow - Al Jarreau
1976 Silk Degrees - Boz Scaggs
Yes, that's right, he mastered the original release too!
We certainly can't put this down to incompetence so I have to assume he delivered the remaster that Sony BMG requested.
It's those idiot suits at the record label who are responsible.
I have all of those, up to and including the 1972 recording by Carley Simon, excepting the Graham Nash.
To be perfectly honest I have never understood the difference between a "remaster" and a "remix". I have a couple of versions of a Rolling Stones disc, on one of them and on one track there is different instrumentation. Likewise with Pink Floyd's DSOTM, the boxed version is distinctly superior in that the background voices are far more intelligible.
I have all of those, up to and including the 1972 recording by Carley Simon, excepting the Graham Nash.
To be perfectly honest I have never understood the difference between a "remaster" and a "remix". I have a couple of versions of a Rolling Stones disc, on one of them and on one track there is different instrumentation. Likewise with Pink Floyd's DSOTM, the boxed version is distinctly superior in that the background voices are far more intelligible.
Remix is when you take the individual tracks in the mix - vocal, guitar, drums etc and balance them differently or change the take used, or put in a different voice or instrument or add or subtract them.
Remaster you are taking the existing mixdown and doing various stuff including adding the overall limiting and compression but you're not changing anything in the mix.
That's more or less what I thought, but thanks for the confirmation. It's just that 'remastered' versions often have that emblazoned on the packaging, whereas I have never seen a recording marked as a remix.
That's more or less what I thought, but thanks for the confirmation. It's just that 'remastered' versions often have that emblazoned on the packaging, whereas I have never seen a recording marked as a remix.
Steve Wilson has remixed a lot of classic albums. Not sure why, personally I'd rather listen to the original.
List of them here:
https://rateyourmusic.com/list/Casey_White/albums-remixed-by-steven-wilson/
That's interesting. Of the remixes offered, I'm more than happy with the versions I have. A remix of 'Pheadra' sounds curious, but I not going to buy it to find out.
rmcin626
31-03-2025, 18:22
I don’t think I have any re-mixed albums, and I thought it was only Prog albums that Steve Wilson did.
i do have however have quite a few re-mastered albums.
I have the original of 'Let It Bleed' and the remaster they did for SACD
Never been sure which I prefer, the remaster is certainly better in hi-fi terms but the original is the one I'm used to.
"As the Artist intended" is lauded about a lot, be good if we didnt fall for the remix/remaster schenanigans and revisit the original release.
They did it that way, back in the day, for a reason.
Nowadays technology is a thing, and if you fiddle with the mastering, volume, or (god forbid) the mix, its a different album.
Even if the original artist plays with the sliders in the Studio its a different take on the original musical material.
Roger Waters, I'm looking at you, Amused to Death and now your "revisit" of Dark Side of the Moon are very different to the original albums.
Not the same!
Thats why I buy physical media, I want to hear the version I like.
This,
coming from someone who over the years bought the same album many times only to come back full circle and realise the original sounded better.
Probably a reason for that, but outwith the intent of this post.
If the artist makes it clear they have revised a particular composition, I have no problem. But to simply fiddle about with existing songs and tracks, and not give them a new title, a modified title is nothing short of fraudulent.
You cite Roger Waters, I would cite Frank Zappa. Zappa would be quite happy to splice in a preferred version of a guitar solo of his with complete disregard for the feel and respect for the other performers on the original track.
If the artist makes it clear they have revised a particular composition, I have no problem. But to simply fiddle about with existing songs and tracks, and not give them a new title, a modified title is nothing short of fraudulent.
You cite Roger Waters, I would cite Frank Zappa. Zappa would be quite happy to splice in a preferred version of a guitar solo of his with complete disregard for the feel and respect for the other performers on the original track.
Zappa liked to make new tunes by splicing together individual tracks from different recordings, and it worked because he was a genius.
Not the same as Floyd, Beatles et al selling essentially the same thing just warmed over a bit, over and over again. I suppose no-one has to buy them but it always surprises me that people do.
rmcin626
02-04-2025, 11:36
Zappa liked to make new tunes by splicing together individual tracks from different recordings, and it worked because he was a genius.
Not the same as Floyd, Beatles et al selling essentially the same thing just warmed over a bit, over and over again. I suppose no-one has to buy them but it always surprises me that people do.
Unfortunately Zappa was not for me, and would never term him a genius however each to their own as always.
Unfortunately Zappa was not for me, and would never term him a genius however each to their own as always.
A lot of it is not for me either but he did over 70 albums with a massive variety including classical.
Even his more accessible stuff is an acquired taste.
rmcin626
02-04-2025, 12:23
A lot of it is not for me either but he did over 70 albums with a massive variety including classical.
Even his more accessible stuff is an acquired taste.
A taste I never acquired Martin.
Me neither - what would you suggest as a good starting point, Martin? I can only recall playing Hot Rats before.
What did you think of Hot Rats? It was the first Zappa record I bought but I had heard of some of his earlier work.
IMO Hot Rats is probably the most 'accessible' of Zappa's output, so if it didn't work for you I doubt if you will like any other of his recordings.
Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side.
Unlike Frank's music, which was an absolute blast!
Did you ever see the clip of a very young Zappa playing the bicycle wheel on American black n white Tv?
Host tried to ridicule him (his Schtick) but Zappa just dealt with it... like he always did.
I'd posit "Joes Garage" or "Sheik Yerbouti" as a good starting point, but like any vice, if you need to work at it its probably not for you.
A lot of it is not for me either but he did over 70 albums with a massive variety including classical.
Even his more accessible stuff is an acquired taste.
What did you think of Hot Rats? It was the first Zappa record I bought but I had heard of some of his earlier work.
IMO Hot Rats is probably the most 'accessible' of Zappa's output, so if it didn't work for you I doubt if you will like any other of his recordings.
I shall give it another listen, Barry, it clearly didn't blow me away as I don't own a copy or recall listening to it more than once or possibly twice.
I'd posit "Joes Garage" or "Sheik Yerbouti" as a good starting point, but like any vice, if you need to work at it its probably not for you.
Cheers Gary, I will try those, too.
(I would add that I hated beer and red wine the first couple of times I tried it... now look at me! :lol: )
RockAddict
03-04-2025, 01:48
"As the artist intended" is a fundamentally flawed concept in the context of hi-fi equipment, whether it be components or cables. As soon as the material is heard through any equipment other than that used for the original mixing and mastering, it will sound different - unless the hi-fi equipment reproduces that identical sound by sheer coincidence.
Picture this... In a hi-fi store, you have brand new music fresh out of the studio, whether it be a CD or digital file (FLAC / ALAC / AAC / MP3 etc). You have it played through "system 1" which has components / speakers all claiming to convey the music "as the artist intended" and you think, great / fantastic and, indeed, it sounds really good.
Now change the speakers (all other components / cables being the same). The new speakers will almost certainly convey some differences in audio character compared to the first set of speakers; yet the claim was identical ("as the artist intended"). Obviously, at least one claim cannot be correct.
Spend anytime in/with a studio (conventional or home studio) and it will become clear, very quickly, that the audio heard through that set up will inevitably sound different in nearly all home hi-fi systems - even if only a little.
Happy listening all - even if it's not quite as the artist intended... :)
Pigmy Pony
03-04-2025, 05:43
What did you think of Hot Rats? It was the first Zappa record I bought but I had heard of some of his earlier work.
IMO Hot Rats is probably the most 'accessible' of Zappa's output, so if it didn't work for you I doubt if you will like any other of his recordings.
Another vote for Hot Rats, I've had this album on my shelves for more than fifty years, and I'm still not tired of it.
Also this:
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/91HVdWOaCEL._AC_SX679_.jpg
Very different to Hot Rats, but don't let that put you off. A personal favourite of mine, very accessible imo. Zappa's guitar work on "Zombie Woof" and "Montana" are wonderful, and I just wish they'd gone on for longer. "Montana" is where my username came from.
An interesting story relating to "Montana" and Zappa using the Ikettes for vocals. And a chance to hear it without going out of your way:
https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/articles/features/the-story-of-frank-zappa-and-tina-turners-weird-collab-spoiler-ike-turner-hated-it-175398
Me neither - what would you suggest as a good starting point, Martin? I can only recall playing Hot Rats before.
I would say 'Sheikh Yerbouti' and 'Them Or Us.'
"As the artist intended" is a fundamentally flawed concept in the context of hi-fi equipment, whether it be components or cables. As soon as the material is heard through any equipment other than that used for the original mixing and mastering, it will sound different - unless the hi-fi equipment reproduces that identical sound by sheer coincidence.
Picture this... In a hi-fi store, you have brand new music fresh out of the studio, whether it be a CD or digital file (FLAC / ALAC / AAC / MP3 etc). You have it played through "system 1" which has components / speakers all claiming to convey the music "as the artist intended" and you think, great / fantastic and, indeed, it sounds really good.
Now change the speakers (all other components / cables being the same). The new speakers will almost certainly convey some differences in audio character compared to the first set of speakers; yet the claim was identical ("as the artist intended"). Obviously, at least one claim cannot be correct.
Spend anytime in/with a studio (conventional or home studio) and it will become clear, very quickly, that the audio heard through that set up will inevitably sound different in nearly all home hi-fi systems - even if only a little.
Happy listening all - even if it's not quite as the artist intended... :)
I don't think anyone mentioned 'as the artist intended'. I agree it's a bit nebulous.
Modern mastering suites tend to have calibrated systems so assuming you have some reasonably accurate speakers in a treated acoustic I'd say you can get in the ballpark of what the mastering engineer heard. At worst you'll get the broad intentions.
For older (1960s and early 1970s) recordings maybe not so much as mastering systems differed more back then.
Another vote for Hot Rats, I've had this album on my shelves for more than fifty years, and I'm still not tired of it.
Also this:
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/91HVdWOaCEL._AC_SX679_.jpg
Very different to Hot Rats, but don't let that put you off. A personal favourite of mine, very accessible imo. Zappa's guitar work on "Zombie Woof" and "Montana" are wonderful, and I just wish they'd gone on for longer. "Montana" is where my username came from.
An interesting story relating to "Montana" and Zappa using the Ikettes for vocals. And a chance to hear it without going out of your way:
https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/articles/features/the-story-of-frank-zappa-and-tina-turners-weird-collab-spoiler-ike-turner-hated-it-175398 (https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/articles/features/the-story-of-frank-zappa-and-tina-turners-weird-collab-spo
iler-ike-turner-hated-it-175398)
I didn't know your Forum name was "Zircon Encrusted Tweezers". Must be a different forum.
Pigmy Pony
03-04-2025, 19:16
I didn't know your Forum name was "Zircon Encrusted Tweezers". Must be a different forum.
Every other wrangler would say I was mighty grand, but you had to bring up the tweezers ;)
Okay, I'm going in to Sheik Yerbouti... The tweezers reference has gone straight over my head... :scratch:
Pigmy Pony
03-04-2025, 19:26
I don't think anyone mentioned 'as the artist intended'. I agree it's a bit nebulous.
Modern mastering suites tend to have calibrated systems so assuming you have some reasonably accurate speakers in a treated acoustic I'd say you can get in the ballpark of what the mastering engineer heard. At worst you'll get the broad intentions.
For older (1960s and early 1970s) recordings maybe not so much as mastering systems differed more back then.
Tbh, I don't think I've ever thought about 'as the artist intended, and maybe I'm wrong (after all that would be the very definition of "Hifi"), but it has for me always been about a sound that I find agreeable, that helps with my enjoyment of the music.
And I can't honestly say that I enjoy music any more now than I did in the 70s with my crappy Fidelity record player (though I could never go back to that).
Daughter hears music I am playing: What's that Dad?
Me: Frank Zappa, it's a bit strange.
Daughter: Not as strange as you!
Thanks, Tamz... :lol:
Daughter hears music I am playing: What's that Dad?
Me: Frank Zappa, it's a bit strange.
Daughter: Not as strange as you!
Thanks, Tamz... :lol:
:lol:
And I can't honestly say that I enjoy music any more now than I did in the 70s with my crappy Fidelity record player (though I could never go back to that).
I think I do but in my case it was 80s and crappy Saisho music centre. The SQ always pissed me off a bit.
Maybe if I hadn't had rich mates with proper systems to compare with I wouldn't have known any better?
Okay, I'm going in to Sheik Yerbouti...
Listened on Tidal, which was "Hi-Res" and it actually sounded amazing. My senses are a bit overloaded, to be honest! It's definitely not an album for listening to in the background, and I was surprised only "Bobby Brown Goes Down" was marked as Explicit! Overall I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would (and much more enjoyable from what I remember from playing Hot Rats) but not yet sure I am a convert! I can certainly appreciate why musically and lyrically he is revered in some quarters.
Listened on Tidal, which was "Hi-Res" and it actually sounded amazing. My senses are a bit overloaded, to be honest! It's definitely not an album for listening to in the background, and I was surprised only "Bobby Brown Goes Down" was marked as Explicit! Overall I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would (and much more enjoyable from what I remember from playing Hot Rats) but not yet sure I am a convert! I can certainly appreciate why musically and lyrically he is revered in some quarters.
It's a bit of a grower. I would always stick it on when we had Saturday night poker at my place and at first it was 'What the hell is this?' but after a year or so people were getting a copy for themselves.
Stranraer
12-04-2025, 14:15
[QUOTE=Barry;1388799]I have all of those, up to and including the 1972 recording by Carley Simon, excepting the Graham Nash.
Hey Barry,
Not sure if this means you've not heard Songs For Beginners. If not I'd strongly recommend finding a copy.
It's brilliant start to finish. Hard to choose a favourite track.
Pete The Cat
20-04-2025, 08:21
I think we're seeing more abum remixes now because record companies have been through several waves of re-selling the same music and this is another way to keep milking it.
Since we had CD as the second coming we've had simple reissues, remasters, reissues with bonus tracks, deluxe editions including a concert that was on the radio at the time, and anniversary editions every 5 years or so... There's nothing left in the vaults for many of these artists hence the remix 'for today's listener'.
There have been a few albums over the years that fans felt were messed up in production eg Iggy and The Stooges Raw Power was infamously poor and Rush themselves disliked how Vapor Trails turned out. But they're a minority.
In recent times we've had Deep Purple's Machine Head remixed by Dweezil Zappa (!) even though Martin Birch's production has always been regarded as excellent, and a few months back Queen relesed a remixed version of their first album including (you'll need to be sitting down to read this) some form of auto-tuning on Freddie Mercury's voice.
Back to remastering, I find it's the main factor in whether I can enjoy a new album or not these days, more so than the equipment I'm playing on. Too many masters/remasters scream and spit. The funny thing is, it's quite deliberate, since the key market for music is folks listening on mobile devices in environments with background noise, so the dynamic compression (volume levelling) and loudness are for their benefit. Try playing at home on your beloved system and they sound crud. Even so-called Hi-Res files can be these same masterings.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.