05/06/2025
A Word on 'Remastering'
When labels push for a remaster, it can often be a commercial move to revive sales from an older artist’s back catalogue. But despite the often negative connotations that the word 'Remastered' inspires in people, it can bring some notable improvements depending on the situation. As we know not all masters/remasters are created equal. Take the 2011 Beatles 1 remaster, for example. In that case, they went to great lengths to faithfully recapture the original mixes from tape. They used advanced de-noising tools, the latest and greatest A/D converters and other techniques to clean up unwanted artifacts and pull a more accurate, musical signal from the original tape sources. The result genuinely brought the mixes to life imo, especially in the low end which was noticeably improved over the original older releases.
Whether that’s seen as "improving a masterpiece" or "tampering with sacred ground" really comes down to individual perception. It’s similar to when a band gets used to a rough mix or the engineer’s reference master. By the time they hear the final polished version, they’ve developed a classic case of demo-itis. Fans can get the same premise for that too if they’ve listened to a classic album the same way for decades, where even a technically better version might not feel “right” simply because it’s different.
I saw this firsthand about six years ago when I was commissioned to work on the Dirty 30 compilation for 'The Screaming Jets' which was a 30-track/30 year retrospective pulling from a wide span of their back catalogue. Each track varied wildly in tone, loudness and overall balance. Unfortunately, we didn’t have access to the original master tapes as those were still with the major label they’d long since parted ways with.
Instead, Paul Woseen (RIP) brought in his own CD collection. I ripped them and from there we worked with what we had, essentially rebalancing already mastered material. I listened through the entire tracklist and adjusted levels selectively, especially on the older material so they’d better match the louder modern mixes. We also took the opportunity to clean up issues that had slipped through the cracks the first time around i.e. clicks, pops, excessive sibilance etc. things Paul mentioned had bugged him for years.
One notable moment was working on Better. Steve James, the original producer (who was with us at the session), specifically asked us not to compress or limit it too much. He said he still cringes at how much reverb is on the snare—classic ‘80s sound—and didn’t want to exaggerate it further. So that one was handled with extra care.
Here's some other great reasons to remaster older releases.
1. Improving Sound Quality
Technology has advanced: Modern audio tools (like high-resolution A/D converters, digital EQs, and noise reduction algorithms) can extract more detail from old analog tapes.
Correct past limitations: Early mastering may have been done under technical constraints (e.g. limited frequency response, narrow dynamic range).
Fix imbalances: Remastering can correct EQ or level inconsistencies (e.g. muddy bass, harsh highs, weak vocals).
2. New Formats and Releases and Adapting to New Playback Systems
Original masters were optimised for vinyl, cassette, or early CDs. These formats have specific sonic characteristics and limitations.
Modern playback: People now listen on smartphones, Bluetooth speakers, streaming platforms, high-end headphones, etc. Remasters can ensure the mix translates better across all these formats.
Loudness normalization: Streaming platforms (Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube) have loudness standards, so remasters often target optimal LUFS levels without excessive compression.
Hi-Res Audio formats: Formats like 24-bit/96kHz FLAC or Immersive Audio.
3. Preserving the Music
Some older analogue formats are getting increasingly more difficult to preserve and transfer well so they can risk being lost.
4. Bringing Old Music to a New Generation
Sometimes there's good reasons to remaster!
