pfarrell;601771 Wrote: > On 01/11/2011 02:44 PM, Phil Leigh wrote: > > firedog;601760 Wrote: > >> specifically stated that the 16/44 is a downsample of the 24/44 > master. > > > > They have exactly the same number of samples :-) > > And as beloved as the ancient tape machines in the 60s were, its > highly > unlikely that there is actually any signficant bits in the last 8 bits > of any 24 bit sample made from it. Those machines barely had 70 dB of > SNR. > > > -- > Pat Farrell > http://www.pfarrell.com/
A lot of these older CD masters are perfectly fine - I feel sometimes they are criticised for being too accurate! The EMI 88 Beatles recordings are a case in point. The earlier Beatles albums sound brash and some of the later ones sound great e.g. Abbey Road, most of Revolver etc. It sounds to me you get what went in. I don't know why things go wrong with most CD remasters. Maybe it's our desire these days to "improve" everything? Or maybe it goes like this. They do the transfer to red book with the more advanced technology. The geeks are happy with their work but maybe a marketing guy comes along and points out the new CD doesn't really sound much different to the original CD. And certainly not on his or her system at home. "Can we do something to the sound so we don't get sued for releasing effectively the same recording?" Well, some tasteful dynamic compression might do the trick? You might even hear hear more detail on the train or the radio. Who knows what happens really. But I can tell you the result, that most (not all) CD remasters in my experience are more dynamically compressed than the earlier CD master. If you want remasters that are focussed on fidelity to the original materials then, usually, that means specialist labels like Mobile Fidelity. Also perhaps remasters for SACD or hi-rez - their buyers are practically queuing up to describe all the differences they hear, even when they don't exist (I'm being wicked again). This is why usually I go for the very earliest CD master where a choice of CD masters exists. Where my definition of best is "they have not messed much with it" rather than my personal conception of what sounds good! (The old accuracy versus 'sounds good' debate.) What I have seen, heard and read so far indicates that EMI "messed with it" less in 88 than in 09. Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. (Inguz bass EQ'd) SB3 -> (pre bypassed) Krell KAV-300i -> PMC AB-1 (caps bass EQ'd) Desktop -> Genius Slab SW-flat2.1 700 Sennheiser HD 25-1 II SqueezeControl for Android ------------------------------------------------------------------------ darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
