Digital remastering

There's been a lot of discussion over recent months about digital and remasters, buoyed by the Beatles box set. Last night I played Simon and Garfunkel - the Collection (box-set).

I have 'Bridge Over Troubled Water' and 'Bookends' on vinyl, and then I played the remastered CD box-set with the same two albums (plus three others) and although the clarity and detail was immense compared to vinyl, after about 10 mins, however, I was totally bored with cd and plonked the record back on. The record, albeit with background noise, had far more soul, realism - and somehow sounded more personal.

My point is, based on last nights experience and previous listenings, does technology guarantee better sound quality? Or what modernity adds to sonic enjoyment, does it not deprive it in other areas?

...Or is some brands of amplifiers/CDPs better suited at reproducing modern stuff than others?
 

Sizzers

New member
Jun 20, 2008
188
0
0
Visit site
I remember when CD was launched there was a raging debate about how "clinical" and "soulless" CD was compared to vinyl.

I had a pretty decent budget TT set-up at the time but never had the opportunity to really make a direct comparison with CD as due to circumstances I had to lose the hifi. My memories of vinyl, though, are of a warm, involving experience. In those days it was an "event" to go out and buy an album, rather than just picking up a discounted CD and stuffing it in your coat pocket. Happy days, but don't miss the clicks, crackles, and pops!
 
I'd forgotten about the physical presence being more fun. Even today it's a pleasure to actually look at an album cover/sleeve - it's a pride of ownership thing.

Strange really, because there are many aspects that CDs get very right, but when it doesn't then it sounds (like you mentioned, clinical). On a majority of recordings digital is good, but the minority seems to have the life sucked out....

NB: In my case, it's probably an age thing....
emotion-9.gif
 

Sizzers

New member
Jun 20, 2008
188
0
0
Visit site
plastic penguin:
I'd forgotten about the physical presence being more fun. Even today it's a pleasure to actually look at an album cover/sleeve - it's a pride of ownership thing.
emotion-9.gif


Absolutely! People today don't/can't understand this which to me is a great shame.

iTunes? Spotify? Each to their own, but to me it's disposable music like disposable food (McDonald's comes to mind!) And don't forget your disc error when you've lost the lot!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Unfortunately it has nothing to do with technology or equipment, but with extreme stupidity of the sound engineers. Or in short; the Loudness war...
emotion-9.gif
emotion-41.gif


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkkqsN69Jac

That is why Digitally Remastered usually means "Digitally Fattened". So hold on to those original 80‹es CD's or the vinyl originals...

Another reason to sign up with the sole organization that is trying to stop this madness!

http://www.turnmeup.org/
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
SirDancelot:Unfortunately it has nothing to do with technology or equipment, but with extreme stupidity of the sound engineers. Or in short; the Loudness war...
emotion-9.gif
emotion-41.gif

That does only apply to CD though, vinyl isn't affected from what I understand. It doesn't stop vinyl remasters from being bad though, I bought the remaster of Thriller on vinyl, the sound quality is excellent, however the "new" production has ruined it for me, Thriller itself has completely lost any edge that it had, the bassline has lost all its attack and Vincent Price's rap at the end now sounds like he's reciting poetry, everything has just become extremely polite, it's a real shame.
 

idc

Well-known member
Great links Sir D. I was listening to some pop through my TV recently (a test to help another forum member) and it sounded so flat and uninvolving. I presume now, that is due to loudness robbing it of its dynamic range. Dynamics and clarity are my main aims with hifi.
 
T

the record spot

Guest
So an analogue recording, with an analogue transfer but a digital mastering won't be good?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I was surprised to see the difference in the Beatles waveforms of the wiki page, the 2000 one really must sound very different, most likely quite bad. The redbook cd definition is 'analog'like in the sense that loudness has a linear relationship with the average bit values of the 44.1k/s samples. Just like the amplitude of the stylus is related to loudness in records, or the amplitude of a driver's conus.

Using the entire range of possible sample values (65k for 16 bits) is not a bad idea: it allows one to reach a more accurate digital representation of the signal (just as 24 bits is more accurate than 16 bits, which in turn is better than 8 bits, etc). There is nothing wrong with that idea, but you must be willing to adjust the volume between tracks (which no one wants when listening to a record with soft and loud tracks). But blowing up a signal like this to make use of the entire range of possible values is not by definition bad. In contrast, using dynamic compression and then apply an overall gain is of course a horrible strategy. Does anyone know what the dynamic range is of a symphony orchestra? I can imagine is does not fit in 16 bits.

All this is not really related to the fact that records sound different. A mechanical/electric way of picking up a signal from a record groove has a particular impact on the sound reproduction and some people apparently prefer that. Also, as far as I remember, differences among pick up elements could be quite large - I would say much more so than differences among cd players/dacs. Interesting experiment would be to digitize a vinyl analog source to preferably 96k/24 bits and then play and compare the results. I suspect they would sound very similar, thanks to the faithfulness of modern ADCs and DACs of high quality. Never tried it though.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I tend to agree that it's the re-mastering process that is used.

Here is an easy (ish) test. find an old vinyl album you enjoy and transfer it to CD yourself being careful not to over-use any of the effects and filiters on your choosen software and paying attention to how the recording levels are set up.

If you listen to this CD it'll be a pretty faithfull copy of the vinyl (that's IMHO having now done this some 40 odd times with different albums. Let's not start a war about what you think I can hear.
emotion-2.gif
)

Now go out and buy said album as a modern CD - you will hear the difference. Not saying it'll be better or worse but it will be different to the vinyl. Much much more so than your home recorded effort.

Having said that it's not always a problem. I have a fair few old jazz tracks proffesionally "re-mastered" onto CD. In this case you can tell the sound engineer just played the old tape and ripped the CD - no fiddling about in the studio on a big mixing desk. They are so good you can clearly hear the original tape hiss present on the recording. Not to everybodies taste by any means judging by the comments I get from some friends.
 
T

the record spot

Guest
plastic penguin:
There's been a lot of discussion over recent months about digital and remasters, buoyed by the Beatles box set. Last night I played Simon and Garfunkel - the Collection (box-set).

I have 'Bridge Over Troubled Water' and 'Bookends' on vinyl, and then I played the remastered CD box-set with the same two albums (plus three others) and although the clarity and detail was immense compared to vinyl, after about 10 mins, however, I was totally bored with cd and plonked the record back on. The record, albeit with background noise, had far more soul, realism - and somehow sounded more personal.

My point is, based on last nights experience and previous listenings, does technology guarantee better sound quality? Or what modernity adds to sonic enjoyment, does it not deprive it in other areas?

...Or is some brands of amplifiers/CDPs better suited at reproducing modern stuff than others?

Based on this, I nipped back into Vinyl Villains (excellent secondhand record and CD shop on Elm Row at the top of Leith Walk in Edinburgh) and picked up an early edition of the Bookends CD today.

This one was mastered by DADC Austria (usually a good sign) and I'm listening to it just now. Have to say, I'd recommend getting this one if you can find it - pre-remastered version, plain looking CD with a red-sidebar on the silver disc down one side (very common on Columbia/Sony issues of the early 90s). Lovely version, sounds good. Not been tempted by the boxset, there are too many good early editions from the label that are out there, and so easily obtained, to pass up.
 
Pleased I'm not talking total rubbish....
emotion-4.gif


Back to the remastered thing - I asked this question nearly two years ago to a slightly lukewarm response, so hear goes:

Based on the fact that manufacturers are seeking audio perfection with CD repro, downloaded music files so on and such like, isn't it the case with (some)* amplifier, CDP and speaker brands.

More and more on this forum threads appear with regularity about equipment being too bright or lacking bass. I've tested a lot of amps over the past two years and I believe with the extra clarity, detail etc. some brands are depriving the products of what made us all gravitate to music in the first place - soul or atmosphere or presence?

* Please note: that not all makes are clinical or soulless, but a sweeping generalisation or a consequence of technology.
 

idc

Well-known member
PP that makes sense to me. Whilst hifi manufacturers have been working hard to improve the sound, the source has got worse. But is that the case with CDs and CD imports only? Is vinyl remastered? What about streamed music and downloads?
 
idc:PP that makes sense to me. Whilst hifi manufacturers have been working hard to improve the sound, the source has got worse. But is that the case with CDs and CD imports only? Is vinyl remastered? What about streamed music and downloads?

Good point, idc; while feeling very sorry for myself today I loaded the CDP with one of these freebie-cds you get in a Sunday newspaper. It's a compilation cd "Beautiful Day" and it has an early Rod Stewart track, You Wear It Well - it sounds fantastic. The bass is deep and well defined and the detail levels is epic. You can actually hear the guitarist's fingers clicking on and off the strings.

I've heard downloaded tracks played through my amp - albeit not lossless - and it just sounds....I'm going to get slaughtered for this, but it sounds artificial or over clinical.

One amp I heard, a multi-award winning device too, and it sounded....well it sounded [use of the dreaded word] nice. It didn't blow me away as I'd hoped it would. Fish and Chips is nice, comfortable shoes are nice, but if I'm spending money on upgrades I expect more than just good old (that word again) nice.
 

Gusboll

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2008
58
1
18,545
Visit site
I'm no huge fan of the Beatles but would rate the re-mastering job on the albums I took a punt on. However, I'm in total agreement with a previous poster; in the hands of someone who has not the got the first idea of what they are doing it can end in total disaster; cue Billy Gibbons the genius guitarist/songwriter from ZZ Top - the biggest re-mastering **-up in the history of music in taking phenomenal gutsy down-to-earth texas blues-rock and turning it into off-smelling disco cheese. Even my musical hero Zappa did it. Music is created at the time; enhance it to suit the format by all means; but don't re-make it.

Currently listening to: Doobie Brothers' first album
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts