His stance exposes the compromises labels often push when remastering classic albums.
Brothers in Arms is one of the best-selling digital albums of the 1980s and a landmark for the CD era. Yet when the label offered Steve Hoffman the chance to cut a new version, he turned it down.
His reaction explains how reissue projects really work behind the scenes and why mastering engineers still fight with labels over access to the right tapes. Keep reading to see why Hoffman refused and what it says about today’s record business.
The Brothers in Arms Rejection
During a recent audio roundtable, Hoffman revealed why he turned down the chance to work on his “favorite Dire Straits album.”
When the label approached him about the project, Hoffman asked what source material they had. However, it turned out that they only had the CD production master, not the original digital stereo mixes.
“Ew. We don’t want that. That’s an EQ dub,” Hoffman said during the interview.
To understand Hoffman’s disgust, it helps to know the difference between original mixes and CD masters.
When an album is mixed, engineers create the original stereo mix from all the individual tracks. This mix is the purest and basically the closest we can get to ‘what the artist intended’. But when that mix gets prepared for CD release, it goes through mastering, which prepares that mix for release, adjusting EQ, dynamics, and levels for the target format.
For instance, Bob Ludwig, who mastered the album in 1985, has said the CD version was “totally mastered for the CD medium,” which means it reflects choices made for that specific format, not a neutral starting point.
The problem comes when you try to use that processed CD master to create a vinyl record.
That’s why Hoffman balked. Brothers in Arms was one of the first major albums recorded to Sony 24-track digital; it was mixed on an analog SSL console and captured back to digital two-track.
That untouched mixdown is what he wanted to work from, and not a CD production master that had already been shaped for consumer discs.
Hoffman’s Vinyl Mastering Philosophy
Hoffman’s standards follow a clear source hierarchy that matches the format.
For tape-era albums, he wants the original analog stereo master (mixdown) tapes, i.e., the final two-track mixes, not the multitrack session reels. If shipping those isn’t possible, he’ll accept a 1:1 analog safety copy at 30 IPS, ½-inch, made straight across without added EQ.
For digital-era titles, he asks for the original digital stereo mixes created at the end of mixing, before any CD mastering. Those mixes aren’t locked to a release format, so they give the cutting engineer room to work.
“There is no reason to transfer an analog tape to DSD and then cut a record from it,” Hoffman stated.
“Why do that? Just play the SACD.”
His point is to keep the chain short and skip extra conversions.
He simply wants to begin at the real mix whenever possible. Starting from a DSD transfer or a CD production master means you’re already using audio shaped for another medium.
He’s also not anti-digital. When the original is digital, he’s fine cutting from the original digital stereo mixes. For instance, on some Phil Collins and Eric Clapton releases, his team cut from the original digital mixes rather than a CD-sourced, EQ’d file.
Industry Resistance and Business Impact
Labels are increasingly reluctant to hand over true masters. In fact, some will not ship originals at all, which stalls projects before they start.
It’s mostly because of safety concerns, but Hoffman offers a workaround.
“Make an analog copy at 30 IPS, ½ inch, 1-to-1. At least give that to the engineers. That’s what I’d use any old time.” he explained.
“I would use that. It’s analog. It’s just an analog, you know?”
Another hurdle is the push to use existing in-house transfers instead of tapes. Teams often prefer archive DSD files because they are easy to send and insure. Hoffman’s view is that this adds a step and locks in decisions meant for a different medium, so he pushes to start from the real mix whenever possible.
Licensing has tightened, too. So, some labels are keeping more work inside, which leaves less for independent reissue outfits.
Worse, even when labels agree to provide original sources, finding the real master is its own grind after the licensing and policy hurdles.
For example, when working with Nat King Cole’s Love Is the Thing, they had to pull about 35 reels, most of which were labeled ‘master.’
One box started with When I Fall in Love, then jumped to Stardust, which meant it was The Very Thought of You filed in the wrong place. Meanwhile, the messy reel covered in notes, handwriting, splice tape, and wear turned out to be the one that had actually been used.
They still verified by ear, reading leaders, and matching to a known first pressing, which took days.
What It Would Take for Hoffman to Say Yes
Hoffman’s pass on Brothers in Arms is not about nostalgia or ego. It is about starting from the right place. If the label can meet a few concrete conditions, the project becomes viable instead of compromised.
What the label needs to provide
- The original two-track digital stereo mix for Brothers in Arms at its native rate and bit depth, created at the end of mixing and before any CD mastering moves.
- If shipping that file or medium is a risk, a 1:1 analog safety copy at 30 IPS, ½-inch, made flat with no EQ, compression, or limiting.
- Direct, supervised access to the source for verification or an on-site transfer done specifically for the cut, avoiding hand-me-down archive files.
- Paper trail and listening verification that the source is the true mixdown, followed by a reference test cut and approval listening before production.
- Agreement to skip unnecessary format conversions that were not part of the original chain.
What listeners gain when it is done this way
- Highs that are open instead of brittle, especially on cymbals and sibilants.
- Low end that carries weight without bloat, so kick and bass stay defined.
- Sharper transients on snare hits and guitar attack, which restores drive and timing.
- A steadier center image with wider, more coherent space on big passages.
- Reverb tails and ambience that feel like recorded space, not added gloss.
Meet those conditions, and a new cut of Brothers in Arms is no longer a recycled CD production master. It becomes a true reissue that honors the original mix and gives vinyl its best shot. If those terms are not on the table, Hoffman’s answer stays the same, and the project remains a pass rather than a proper upgrade.
Did you stop writing mid thought??? There’s no conclusion to this story which was fascinating not ultimately frustrating given the lack of finality
Thanks for the feedback, Dan. We will be better.
It’s good to know there are pro engineers who respect the music BEFORE simply collecting a pay check for a job done incorrectly, strictly for the greedy convenience of more sales. The verbiage that is now used to describe the source is often not clear to the consumer, and I wonder if that is intentional. Kudos……
It was probably cut to 1610 or 1610 UMatic. How many mastering engineers (beside me) have working machines and original conversion? BTW, despite lower noise, 30ips rolls off the bottom significantly as 15ips. You’ll need LFbill corrective EQ for 30ips and it’s tricky.
Why would you ‘remaster’ anything? Leave it; this is what the artists wanted it to sound like back in the day and this is how we grew to love it.
Remastering in most cases doesn’t mean altering the music. It just gives engineers an opportunity to “remix” any flawed portions of the original or enhance parts of the recording to enrich the sound. Or rearrange the mix to emphasize aspects of the recording. An expert of this is Giles Martin. His remasters are known for crystal clarity for certain instruments, to the extent not heard before. For some of us, we really enjoy this added clarity. For others, they prefer the original mix, which is fine. Matter of preference.
This is exactly why as a consumer you are always best of looking at the original release from the country of origin. There is no doubt as to the authenticity and quality. It will also have been cut when those tapes were new.
Most of the vinyl reissues floating about are simply discs of plastic where you could probably listen to the digital file that it was cut from, a fake pastiche designed to make people feel authentic and “connect with the music”. It’s a waste of time and bad for the environment. No one will want them in the future, so many of these 180Gram remasters will recognised for what they are, much like lots of 80s CD reissues being cut from vinyl masters.
Getting your hands on a good copy of an original vinyl release is an expensive and often frustrating process. We can all sell records online but how many copies are missing graded?
There are occasions where the original release was rushed or poorly mastered- Hendrix first UK release is vastly inferior to the US version, in general however, you won’t go wrong with an original release from the country of origin and you won’t have any doubts that it’s just a piece of plastic spinning around dressed up in the original release’s clothes.
Thank you for your integrity, Steve!
Do a little research on Hoffman. He and the word “integrity” don’t belong in the same sentence.
Case in point Flesh and blood half speed remaster vinyl is anaemic by comparison with the original Bob Ludwig issue.
An even better choice would be to make an exact clone of the original digital multitracks, remix in the digital domain using the original release as a guide and put it out that way.
Using Steve Turnidge’s quote. If the cake is already baked well all you can do it eating at that point. Hoffman’s refusal is just asking the machine to stop being silly.
It was Stan Ricker who relented to working on the first “audiophile” vinyl reissue of Brothers In Arms from the CD masters. Not great. As Steve Hoffman predicted. I own it. It’s actually pretty dynamic, but it’s steeply cut off at the knees in the bass. And it sounds bright and sometimes harsh.
Robert Ludwig’s original vinyl, even if the songs are a bit truncated, sounds real, warm, and musical. It’s still my favorite pressing. Mobile Fidelity’s, like Stan Ricker’s, has the complete songs, but it’s a bit too bright. I still prefer listening to the RL original.
When mastering, you make big decision not just for eq, but for compressing and dynamics. Lately I’ve been using two mastering engineers and their approach for the same track can be very different. If you master from original 2-track mix, you can make this album sound totally something else, even with 2-track source tape. And then it is not anymore the album we knew. This is a risk. When you go a step further and mix it using original stems, or even mixing it totally again from the original multitrack, you can have another album, which should have another name. However, from the original 2-track mastered digital file ”made for CD” as the article states, you can do a lot. You can eq and compress etc differently, and probably you will stay more true to the original – which is not bad at all. Remastering Brothers is a bit useless. Its flaws are already well before mastering, and cannot be fixed with a new master. Some maybe with a totally new mix, but then it would be vol II and do we really need it? I bought both vinyl and CD back in -85, I’m happy with them.