darrenyeats wrote: > Let's say my standard assumption that this was a different master > doesn't apply; then such a conversion would have been from 24 bit to 16 > bit, I think ... or, conspiracy theory! > Darren
That's why my suspicion is that they *purposely* did a decrease in volume from 24-bit to 16-bit. Notice that none of the tracks have a volume peak at 0; and just went lower from 24 --> 16-bits. Modern mastering technique would have actually tried to push the peak up to 0 so you would maximize the dynamic range of the 16-bit version. They did not do this - instead they lowered the volume and did not make an effort to use the full 16-bits from the 24-bit source. Strange... Cough. Cough. Cough. Conspiracy :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98590 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
