Wilco, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, and Bob Ludwig: Analyzing the Remaster of 'Kamera'
In 2022, for the 20th anniversary of Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, Wilco released a super deluxe edition. It included alternate versions of the songs on one CD. But most interesting for me was that the originals were remastered by one of my favourite mastering engineers, Bob Ludwig!
Now, I have to admit...my first thought when this was announced was: gawdamn, I'm old! One of my favourite records, from my formative years, is already getting reissued! Time is a sneaky, cruel bitch!
After I'd recovered from this horrific revelation, I realized what an opportunity this was. We have two versions of this record, mastered by two great mastering engineers. For this analysis, I'm focusing on "Kamera," one of the album's standout tracks. The original was mastered by Steve Rooke at Abbey Road. A guy whose discography includes significant work with a little-known band called The Beatles.
And then you have the remaster by one of the all-time great mastering engineers, Bob Ludwig.
While we don't have access to the original mixes to find out exactly what each mastering engineer did, we can evaluate them against each other and find the delta between the two masters. By analyzing the differences, we can get insight into how each of these engineers interpreted the music. It's also a great way to demonstrate the effect different mastering styles can have on how we perceive the record.
Process
The way I approached this was by taking the quieter master and setting it up as the "mix". In this case, that was the original. Then, using the Metric AB plugin, I synced up the louder master (the remaster) and EQ'd the original until it matched the remaster. The EQ settings I used illustrate the tonal differences between the two versions.
EQ Overview
Let's start with the overall differences between the masters. The main difference is the EQ approach. While there do seem to be some dynamic changes, they don't seem significant. I think it's likely that neither engineer applied much, if any, compression.
Here's the main stereo EQ I applied to match Rooke's master to Ludwig's. This represents the difference between the two masters, not what Ludwig did on his master:
What you can see is that Ludwig's master has a more prominent lower-mid range, where the area from roughly 200Hz to 1.5kHz is about 1dB louder than Rooke's. Combine that with less sub-bass and less top end, and you have a remaster that is on the warmer, rounder side of things, whereas the original feels brighter and a bit more "in your face".
Now, let's look at the mid-side EQ:
To match Ludwig's master, I had to cut quite a bit of bottom and top end from the side channel: a -2dB shelf at 35Hz, and a -6.5dB shelf at 12.7kHz.
Is it possible that Ludwig was doing those cuts? Maybe. But when mastering engineers use M-S EQ, it's most often for boosting. I'd say it's far more likely that Rooke was boosting those frequencies in the sides to give the tracks more width.
The sensation of width is the upside to boosting the sides. The downside is it can distract from the musical components in the centre, like the vocals, kick, and snare. If I were to guess, I think Ludwig wanted more focus on those elements and opted not to boost those side frequencies like in the original.
Overall, I think what you can see here is that the original master had a more "scooped" presentation, where the sub-bass and top end were emphasized. Ludwig's remaster took a warmer approach.
De-essing
Other than the EQ, in order to match Ludwig's master, I needed to add a bit of de-essing to Rooke's. This tracks with what I've noticed analyzing other Bob Ludwig masters. He relies on de-essing more than any other mastering engineer I've studied. This old Gearspace thread has an anecdote from someone who said Bob Ludwig mentioned that his Weiss DS-1 (which he used as a de-esser) was the most important piece of gear in his mastering chain.
In conjunction with the EQ, the de-essing that Ludwig applied contributes to the warmer presentation of this track.
Loudness
Before getting into the audio comparisons, let's briefly discuss loudness. In many cases with remasters, loudness becomes a contentious issue as many people feel like the remasters push the loudness too far to match modern levels. Luckily that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Ludwig's version is louder. But by only about 1dB. And to be honest, because of how Ludwig has filled out the upper bass and low-mid range, it feels more dynamic to me, despite what might show up on the meters. The range that Ludwig has emphasized, compared to the original, contains much of the fundamental and lower harmonics—they live in the range from 100Hz to 1kHz. With this range accentuated, the dynamics felt perceptually greater to me than the original, despite the level being higher.
Here's a comparison of the two masters, without any loudness adjustments. (After this example, the remaining audio examples will have Ludwig's master reduced by 1dB so we can concentrate on the tonal differences rather than the loudness):
Original master vs remaster (no loudness compensation)
Audio Examples
Okay, let's get into some specific examples. I'll start with a couple of instrumental sections, because I think it'll be easier to hear the differences without the vocals.
Take a listen to the instrumental break. Pay particular attention to the relationship between the hi-hats and the electric guitars (the ones panned left and right):
Instrumental break - Loudness matched (remaster reduced by 1dB)
On the original, the hi-hat dominates. It has a really aggressive, energetic feel to it. The guitars, on the other hand, take a back seat. They're more of a background element.
On Ludwig's remaster, the guitars jump forward. They're meatier and thicker sounding. The balance changes so that they're now more prominent than the hats.
I'm not suggesting one version is right and the other is wrong. But this is a good example of how simple static EQ at the mastering stage can affect the musical balance.
Now let's listen to the outro. Focus on the relationship between the shakers and bass line. You should be able to hear a clear difference in balance:
Outro - Loudness matched (remaster reduced by 1dB)
Now, let's take a listen to some vocals. Here's the beginning of the 2nd verse:
Second verse - Loudness matched (remaster reduced by 1dB)
Here are a few things to listen for:
Try focusing on the balance between the vocals and band. It might be easier to focus on one instrument—try listening to the balance between the vocals and the bass. Note the differences between the masters. To my ears, Rooke's master has the vocals more upfront, whereas Ludwig's has them tucked back into the track.
Now listen to the vocals themselves. How is the fundamental range of the vocals (lower frequencies) balanced against the upper harmonics? To me, Rooke emphasized clarity and presence, whereas Ludwig focused more on fullness and weight.
Sibilance. Take a listen to the word "deciding", and pay attention to the difference in sibilance between the two masters. You should be able to hear that Ludwig's master has the sibilance more controlled.
Concluding Thoughts
Ultimately, there are pros and cons to both versions. Everything in mastering is about balance. Every time you're making a decision to process a track a certain way, it might come at the cost of something else. That's why there's room for so many great mastering engineers in the world. Everyone hears things a bit differently. Here's why someone might choose one of these masters over the other:
Steve Rooke's Abbey Road version:
If you prioritize clarity, presence, and width, you'll likely prefer the original. If you like the vocals to be really upfront, this one is the way to go.
Bob Ludwig's remaster:
If your preferences skew towards warmer, rounder, "more organic" records, you'll likely prefer Ludwig's remaster. It also has the vocals a bit more "connected" or "glued" to the band.
Personally, I prefer Ludwig's interpretation. It's not as immediately exciting as the original. But as I listen through the whole record, I find I prefer the warmer version. And I always have a strong preference towards great bass—I find the bass line to be clearer and more prominent in the remaster.
Of course, there was nothing wrong with the original master at all. I think Steve Rooke did a fantastic job. If the main objective of mastering is to present the music in a way that invokes an emotional response from the listener, I don't think you can fault the original. It's one of the most critically acclaimed records of all time.
But I'm glad that the new version exists, as it gives a different perspective into one of my favourite records.
