Not at all. It seemed you were confused as to which thread you were posting in.Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Are you offended because I said "...it's unlikely the end listener will ever know exactly what went on."?
That's true. You might easily, on the other hand, make your own recordings, as you've alluded to, and thereby know all the details from capture to playback. I'd encourage you to do so.
Yes:
The thread started with "CD Evolution" as header and it was claimed
"Redbook CD's are .. better than they were at the beginning."
This was continued with the question
"Does anyone have any data to support these observations?"
This question incuded changes in the mastering and the manufacture.
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...41&postcount=1
You agree with Jan that the A/D convertor chips of today are superior to the very first discrete A/ D convertors. And refering to Clarks post you added that 24 bit is another big improvement.
With the next passage you are argueing against these details of a practical implementation as the end listener will never know what is going on.
Picking up your last statement I reduce the scenario to one AD conversion, which is transparent to the end listener /user. It is even managable with an (old analog) LP, more than with a live recording. And coming back to the thread title "CD evolution" the end user can make a quality CD with a 24 bit soundcard, surely no soundblaster 16.
Jan got my idea right. Did I get your intention?
In case you do not want to follow I can not help.I don't follow....
____________
Peter
I 've thought about this and from experience find most remasters awful(loudness wars).
I reckon the mastering is pretty much as was the percieved improvement being down to the incremental improvemnets in the recording chain/process, better converters etc.
Maybe its just me but I actively seek out the pre '95 discs often sold bargain bin cheaply rather than the new 24bit digitally remastered versions as these tend to be mastered too hot. Some though such as Elbows 'seldom seen kid' are very very good modern pressings.
By mastered too hot, I assume you mean overly compressed. This is interesting, and may vary depending on exactly what music we buy. I have heard numerous accounts of today's pop giants' albums being compressed so that they sound loud and in your face... I don't tend to listen to this music, so I haven't had a real problem with it.
In my experience, my earliest CDs, the ones I bought back in the 80's now sound more lifeless and flat than many newer CDs. I have only re-purchased a handful of "re-mastered" CDs and these were all HDCD discs so it isn't really a fair comparison. The "re-mastered" HDCD discs are not overly compressed and do sound better than the originals.
Widget
In post #5 I said converters are so much better. I introduced that concept into the thread. And it is cogent. So, Ian agrees with me. AOK.
I do my best to try and follow others' posts. Sometimes they are ambiguous. Sometimes crystal clear. Sometimes fun or informative. Sometimes they are sarcastic and pointless.
It's up to the poster to make his intention known. I try to keep it as clear as I can. Sarcasm to a minimum.
I still don't know what you meant in post #9. Perhaps it's meant as humor.:dont-know
That is a good idea, I try my very best in this second language.
I am far away of offending someone in a forum where you only have some letters in front of you but not a person with a face.
____________
Peter
Thank you Peter, I appreciate the clarification.
I can see it your way.
In the meantime Widget and Cooky have made interesting comments.
Overly compressed and in more than a few cases clipped to boot.
Not all I admit but too many are fit only for the car which is why I tend to avoid new reissues unless someone gives me the nod that they are ok.
Some 80's ones do sound rather flat for sure but then I've more than a few vinyl albums that suck too-heaven help us
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote