Mo Facta wrote
Not true, IMO, and I disagree. There are VERY sophisticated noise reduction algorithms made by Algorithmix, Sonic Solutions, Cedar, etc, that cost hundreds of thousands of Rands for this purpose. There are also processors like K-Stereo to adjust reverb AFTER the fact. It blows my mind that this is even possible. Read Bob Katz's book, "Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science". There's plenty of info on this in there.
I'm still of the opinion that what you're talking about is re-mixing. The word "re-mastering" - specifically digital re-mastering - intrinsically implies working with stereo (or mono) mix in the digital domain. After all, mastering to tape would add one more stage of noise which working in digital already eliminates to some degree. And in many cases the original master tapes are just not available.
The Sisters of Mercy example you gave is no doubt a special case where the band was intimately involved with the process. This is not always the case. I interned under a guy named Cliff Maag who used to digitally re-master material for the majors and it was almost always delivered on 1 inch tape or something similar, as the original stereo mix. I do not recall him ever getting a multi-track tape to remix and then master. I don't think the label would take the chance because it could turn out to be something completely different and therefore would not be what it was. Remember that effects, etc, were not always printed.
Anyway, my point is that re-mastering is mastering, not re-mixing.
Cheers ?
I guess a lot has changed since i did my little itty bitty night course at 'Downtown Studios' in '97 with Philip Nell.
Semantics then.
