From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Professional sound production (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Somebody should probably redo this. The style doesn't really work.

It's also really, really NPOV. I don't know nearly enough about the subject to rewrite the article, but the tone of the article is pervasively negative towards those selling remastered editions of things. Hold on, let me find where that "neutrality disputed" boilerplate it... Adam Conover 07:26, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this is written by someone who knows A LOT about recording techniques. It is FACT that "remastering" is often just a buzzword! The "loudness war" is WELL DOCUMENTED on the internet, en many famous and respected mastering engineers, like Bob Katz, have commented on this. The author really goes into detail about why remasters CAN be better than previous digital releases (e.g. the use of first or second generation original analogue masters). In the early days, often the signal to noise ratio of the CD wasn't used to the full (that is, not loud enough) Nowadays, CD's are TOO loud, and suffer from exaggerated dynamic compression, this is called the "loudness war", and is a known topic of concern for record producers, sound engineers and mastering engineers.
the "tone" of the article can be disputed, but in fact is a balanced, generally well-informed and neutral article on remastering, showing both the enormous possibilities of improvement, and the on the other hand the "buzzword" aspect, and the fact that some remasters are not an improvement at all, becasue of the loss of dynamic range. User:
Please don't delete others' words on the Talk page. Debate their points but retain their writing. Binksternet (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

+1 for redoing some parts.

I read applied some changes:

I removed "Although to understand compressors and limiters work, you need to first understand dynamic range and how it works.[1] " You can understand a compressor from a lot of different points of view. No need for this sentence.

I removed "While remastering the track, engineers tweak the faders so that the audio has fatter bass sounds and more treble details. This will keep the track balanced." After .. eq.. apply eq with more bass and treble will likely not keep any track "balanced". I seldomely make changes to wikipedia and It feels a little strange to remove stuff from articles that others have written. However, better less to read than strange/redundand or even false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orby1 (talkcontribs) 12:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

confusing jargon sections[edit]

which also aided unimpressive digital transfers marked by dropouts, underutilization of SNR, et cetera. . This could benefit from some wikilinks.

and Reediting, resequencing, restoring, Jon Dowland 16:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I certainly feel that there is some POV in this article. The last section explains how the contributor feels about digital remastering, and why they think that it is bad. However, that is just giving us the impression that it is bad, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. I suggest that somebody rewrite this to explain the arguments against and in favor of digital remastering or just delete the section altogether. Oklonia 00:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know this page will have to change eventually to be encyclopedia appropriate but for now it is the most informative and readable article on wikipedia despite (beacause of?) the pov-- (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm not a native speaker, but I think that the following sentence doesn't make sense: "For example, a vinyl LP originally pressed from a worn-out pressing master many tape generations removed from the "original" master recording could be remastered and re-pressed from a better-condition tape." If I was knowledgeable in the field of (re-)mastering, it would certainly be easy to correct that sentence, but sadly, I'm not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Disregard, I get it now. I mistook removed for a verb.


If it's going to be kept, the criticism section needs to have more citations. As it stands right now, a large portion of it reads like original research. (And a possible violation of NPOV as well) Anyone care to work on this? (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference How_Stuff_Works_CD.2FDVD_remaster was invoked but never defined (see the help page).