HOW IT REALLY WORKS THIS MONTH: Remastering AC/DC’s Back In Black sounded pretty fucking sweet the first time around—so why do we need two different remastered editions? On the other hand, those old Misfits and Cryptic Slaughter LPs sound like they were recorded through a stack of wet mattresses and need all the help they can get. Remastering can be either a sonically worthless marketing tool for greedy labels or a much-needed clean-up for hastily rendered original recordings. But what is it, exactly—and why should you care? We called in the experts to break it down. FIRST THINGS FIRST: WHAT THE FUCK IS A MASTER? We have no idea. But Alan Douches of West West Side Music in Tenafly, NJ, has been mastering and remastering for a dozen years (his résumé includes a fair chunk of your favorite Victory, Equal Vision, Ferret, and Trustkill releases), and seems to know what he’s talking about. “I think I may be quoting [legendary mastering guru] Bob Ludwig on this, but mastering is the final step of the artistic production and the first step of the mechanical production. So we’re able to tweak treble, bass, vocal levels, guitar levels, ambience, compression, while creating the actual part—the masters—that will be sent to the record plant for replication.” Scott Hull, Relapse Records’ main mastering man (and guitarist for grind lords Pig Destroyer and Agoraphobic Nosebleed) at Visceral Sound in Bethesda, Maryland, puts it this way: “The idea is that the mastering guy is a fresh set of ears optimize the disc to sound as good as possible on as many sound systems as possible.” REMASTERING 101 Remastering is basically a do-over, Douches explains, that depends largely on money. “Maybe [the original mastering technicians] couldn’t take advantage of the technology we have now, or maybe the budget just wasn’t there. The first Ben Folds Five record, which we did, had a $300 mastering budget. We did the best we could with the budget we had, but nobody knew that record was gonna go gold. So now might be a good time to re-examine that album and give it some special care.” Douches was on the other end of the budgetary yardstick when it came to remastering a pile of old Misfits LPs. “When Caroline decided to do the Misfits box set, they knew there was a built-in market for it. They knew they could sell it, so they could easily spend $5000 on it.” WHY BOTHER? If there’s nothing wrong with the original, why dick around with it at all? Douches admits remasters can be a double-edged sword. “In many cases, technology has made it possible for the original to sound better. Great—if you’re a fan, you wanna hear it in its best possible form. But sometimes it’s just a repackaging issue for the labels to make more money, and the artists see none of it—and that sucks.” But can the average person even tell the difference between a remaster and the original? “It depends how closely you listen and how poor the original mastering job was,” Hull offers. “If you don’t have the context of the original, there’s no way to tell if the remaster is any different. Usually, though, the remaster feels a little more alive, even though you can’t necessarily put your finger on the difference.” THE BOTTOM LINE Of course, true audiophiles are few and far between—so should you buy the original version of Number Of The Beast, or the remaster? “Speaking as a consumer,” Hull says, “I would opt for the remastered version over an original, because it probably will sound a little bit better, but it’ll also probably have a bunch of bonus stuff—extra tracks, liner notes, or whatever—that wasn’t available on the original. And that’s what you pay for.” -J. Bennett Call us directly at 845-563-3094 or email us... wwsm@mac.com
