community consensus on circulating remastered recordings?

[snagu]

A last point...
When a remaster is mostly a matter of equalizing a source (without basicly doing anything else or where equalization is the main reason why you're remastering), i.e. because you'd love to listen to it with more bass or more treble, why don't you simply use the equalizers inbuilt into your digital players (or the tone controls in your amplifier) just "on the fly" while listening to it?

Not disagreeing with any of your main points, and speaking as one who doesn't equalize anything, I can actually see a reason for not using built-in equalizers on the fly. I very much doubt that the equalizers built into digital players (at least most of the free software one) as good or as fine-tunable as the equalizers you get built in to a "prosumer" DAW like REAPER. So anyone already using a DAW will probably prefer to EQ in that and render.

[Skinny12]

Not disagreeing with any of your main points, and speaking as one who doesn't equalize anything, I can actually see a reason for not using built-in equalizers on the fly. I very much doubt that the equalizers built into digital players (at least most of the free software one) as good or as fine-tunable as the equalizers you get built in to a "prosumer" DAW like REAPER. So anyone already using a DAW will probably prefer to EQ in that and render.

Hi,

i play my music on many many different players and systems. An EQ on every single station - even if it may be technically possible, which is not the case- would be pure pain. Regardless the differences in quality and tonality.

All the best
Nils

[vince666]

Not disagreeing with any of your main points, and speaking as one who doesn't equalize anything, I can actually see a reason for not using built-in equalizers on the fly. I very much doubt that the equalizers built into digital players (at least most of the free software one) as good or as fine-tunable as the equalizers you get built in to a "prosumer" DAW like REAPER. So anyone already using a DAW will probably prefer to EQ in that and render.

that's also true.
and, after all, i also never use equalizers on my players or tone controls in my amplifier.
i just listen to the things as they are.

anyways, while working on sources, i don't use EQ but, sometimes, i use some EQ if there is a good reason to do so, and sometimes there is a good reason to equalize, but it doesn't happen so often.

just to say i am not a "taliban" about EQ, which is indeed useful when it's needed (i.e. i am noticeing a few of my PF live cassettes were recorded with an EQ between the two decks and also tuned with very heavy hand, then it would make sense to try to "undo" that crazy EQ applied on them by applying a sort of reverse EQ), but equalizers also have their own drawbacks, then i think about it a lot before deciding to EQ a source. (i.e. normal equalizers, both analog and digital graphical and parametric equalizers, introduce phase shift on some frequencies and linear phase equalizers, which do exist only digital, don't introduce phase shift but a very typical artifact).

as a side point...
Even when we don't apply EQ by ourselves, the sound was just subjected to more EQ processes, i.e. when you record on tape there are the REC EQ filters inbuilt into the recorder, then you also have PB EQ filters when you play it... and if the tape isn't a master but a first gen then it had got 4 EQ processes in a row... or 6 EQ processes for a 2nd gen, and so on.
Same happens on vinyl, with RIAA and inverse RIAA equalization while playing and cutting the vinyl..
So, we just have lots of equalizations which we might not take into consideration and which just cannot avoid because they are just inherent to the recording media and devices involved in our beloved recordings, but they are indeed there.


Cheers,

Vince.

[YASHA]

I gave up using the equalizer about five years ago.
Since then, for me, the main indicator of sound quality is the absence of the need to use this option

[vince666]

Since then, for me, the main indicator of sound quality is the absence of the need to use this option

quite accurate indicator, also from my point of view, regarding our beloved unofficial recordings which are never going to be "perfect" or, in absolute terms, they are to be considered "poor" recordings due to the way they are actually made (from the audience, with all the related problems)... so if you can hear all the instruments and voices and the timbre is also reasonably well balanced it's just a remarkable achievement.

but, as far as official/professionally-made recordings (where the correct timbre and the ability of hearing all the instruments and voices is just obvious) , it's a dozen years now that my main indicator isn't exactly the timbre balance of a recording (which is still very important, though, together with the dynamics) but, rather, it's the depth/witdth/height of the soundstage (which we could also sort of call "raw resolution"), and that also depends on the gear your are playing a recording, and which is an indicator of how the low level details are carefully preserved and delivered to the listener.
In fact, the actual "ambience" informations of any recording are just low level details, which are the most delicate ones and the most easy to get lost or ruined/masked by a long series of different possible reasons (no need to say that using NR/dehissers is the easiest and fastest way to ruin/remove such details from a recording).

More precisely, this is also exactly my main indicator while evaluating the quality of a cassette deck (and/or if it got improved with the modifies I happen to apply on it or not), of course while playing a known-good cassette recording... in fact, a bad sounding cassette deck will deliver a sort of "flat" 2D soundstage, compared to the natural and "lifelike" 3D soundstage of a good sounding deck.


Cheers,

Vince.

[Beechwoods]

anyways, while working on sources, i don't use EQ but, sometimes, i use some EQ if there is a good reason to do so, and sometimes there is a good reason to equalize, but it doesn't happen so often.

I never use EQ... but I do have 5 different pairs of speakers depending what mood I'm in!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... only joking (just!)

[vince666]

I never use EQ... but I do have 5 different pairs of speakers depending what mood I'm in!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... only joking (just!)

but that would be a nice way to deal with recording with different timbres.

but, not really...
I have my main speakers on my HiFi system and my ears are so well used to their sound that I would never change them with anything else.

[YASHA]

quite accurate indicator, also from my point of view, regarding our beloved unofficial recordings which are never going to be "perfect" or, in absolute terms, they are to be considered "poor" recordings due to the way they are actually made (from the audience, with all the related problems)... so if you can hear all the instruments and voices and the timbre is also reasonably well balanced it's just a remarkable achievement.

but, as far as official/professionally-made recordings (where the correct timbre and the ability of hearing all the instruments and voices is just obvious) , it's a dozen years now that my main indicator isn't exactly the timbre balance of a recording (which is still very important, though, together with the dynamics) but, rather, it's the depth/witdth/height of the soundstage (which we could also sort of call "raw resolution"), and that also depends on the gear your are playing a recording, and which is an indicator of how the low level details are carefully preserved and delivered to the listener.

Yes, of course it is. I meant it solely as respect for the audio recording being listened to and the work that is invested in it.
Although, as we know, studio recording can not always please...

[/QUOTE]In fact, the actual "ambience" informations of any recording are just low level details, which are the most delicate ones and the most easy to get lost or ruined/masked by a long series of different possible reasons (no need to say that using NR/dehissers is the easiest and fastest way to ruin/remove such details from a recording).[/QUOTE]

I remember these amplifiers where the hiss suppression button was next to the treble control

[vince666]

I remember these amplifiers where the hiss suppression button was next to the treble control

amplifiers with hiss suppression button?

thanks GOD, I totally missed them... in fact, I didn't even know they existed.

go figure... I also stay away from most amplifiers made from the 90's and on, especially those ones where you have wireless remote control to select the input to listen to...
point is that, unless they went the expensive way and used relays to add automatic input switch (quite unlikely!) , they used to add certain IC chips (the so-called 4066 series) which are some cheap analog switch IC chips, but most of them introduce serious issues to the sound, like some nasty harmonic distortion at very low levels which goes and spoils the ambience of the sound, making it flat/2D and also a bit harsh/fatiguing to the ears.
So, much better to use an oldschool mechanical switch to select the inputs, but you cannot control it with a wireless remote control... you just have to go there and put your hands on the selector.

there are also several cassette decks out there which use such nasty 4066 series IC switches into the signal path and, in fact, one of the modifies I usually apply on such decks to improve their sound quality is to just replace those nasty chips with something else but which doesn't ruin the sound as these nasty chips do.

Cheers,

Vince.

[cleantones]

Thanks for all of the conversation. I appreciate it. I haven't heard back from the folks I reached out to. I also don't think I got any feedback from the little samples I posted regarding this specific flawed recording I had done some work on. I agree with the recent general discussion about a simple/minor EQ change not likely being worthy of a new iteration. Though sometimes that's all it takes to master something depending on the source. I'm not sure if anyone would have noticed that after I started this thread I was asked to help with a K2 recording (4/18/88). That was not the recording I was thinking about when I created this thread for what that is worth. After reading everything though I lean a bit more toward keeping it to myself. Safer bet I guess. Always very impressed with the knowledge base here of course.