Hi-Res Download News (HDTracks, ProStudioMasters, Pono, etc.) & Software/Mastering Part 12**

Since the constant outrage from some people. See the 2015 Rush remasters affair. I guess it depends if the music is popular with the site clientele or not.

 

Can't fix stupid.

 

..a legacy recording done at 44.1..I get the purists wanting to keep it that way, but if it is passing through an analog stage..higher sample rates are beneficial..if mastering in the box, don't higher rates provide more headroom and dynamic range?

 

Which recordings have more dynamic range than is possible on CD?

 

..i was referring to the mastering process when numerous plug ins and processors are being used..

 

Maybe because if you have to get up from your listening seat to manually select the track, you've subtly changed your listening/ear position.

 

My "favourite" Hi-Res rip-off is this one: Steve Miller Band - Ultimate Hits - Abracadabra

It looks like it was sourced from a MP3 file:

 

Yes and the plug-ins and processes used in the box function and sound better.

 

...the new Keef remaster is excellent. Beats the CD big time. More presence..wav form looks superb in Audacity.

Recommended..now I hope they do Main Offender.

 

I can highly recommend the great Charles Aznavour's 24/192 albums. They are really good.

The SACDs are even better but expensive.

 

All the Rush hi-res came out initially at 24/96 or 24/192. But download sites quickly changed Moving Pictures, Signals and others to 24/48 since they were mastered from a lower res source.
I think that's fine, and transparent.

 

...I don't think another another sample rate change was needed..it can't have been of any benefit.

 

Just a heads up for everyone...Talk Is Cheap is on 7digital for 11.49. Not affiliated with them in any way.

 

that is a steal..probably what I paid for the original CD.

 

It really is! I have the original CD and vinyl and couldn't pass it up.

 

That's good to hear. I've got the MFSL CD, and am pretty happy with that. But its good that they left the dynamics intact on this remaster. If it was an analog recording, its too bad they limited this to only 44.1 khz, but it could have been digital to begin with.

 

...actually I forgot I have the MFSL version too...that also is excellent.

 

I just looked at 7-Digital and all of Keith's albums are there in 24-bit. The release date is 2015 though...Hmmmmm

So is HDTRACKs version a new master? Or did they just get around to adding what 7Digital has already had for years along with Main Offender?

Curious minds want to know

 

Darn good questions..but I had not been aware of the first two albums being remastered until now..certainly under the radar...

 

Oh God please no! Parish the
thought of all those A/D/A/D/A/D/A/D transfers. Are you trying to give me nightmares? No....Always kept digital back in those days.

Errors and more importantly jitter does creep in sir. When you take a CD and rip to your computer in Wave or FLAC it is a perfect copy. The computer won't tolerate any errors. Multiple copies going back and forth on 3/4 inch professional video is another matter.
But this is one of the reasons DCC disks sounded mmm mmm good - no more generations than was neccessary. They assumed each copy was perfect. But was it?
Have you noticed how some 80's CD almost sound like vinyl (big claim I know. Please don't stone me!) and others sounded good and then others sounded like ELO's, Afterglow Box set. And still others worse like ELO's original 80's release of No Answer. What was the reason?
Low generation analog copies should be real hissy and have reduced top end and bass but these disks had a crappy sound that uniquely belonged to them.

 

Wait!..What the fudge and cookies?! You are kidding right?

 

Yes, some 5th generation digital copies sounded great but others didn't. Weird eh?
Maybe some scientist on here can tell me why a 16/44.1 CD master file that sounds fudge and cookie awesome gets sent out to be manufactured and the test disk comes back sounding nothing like our CD master file. Isn't the CD a clone of the CD master file?

 

Have you ripped the CD and compared with the master?

 

I think the secret word here is BITPERFECT. Today, we can easily make bitperfect clones of digital sources on our PCs at home. But I assume that the 80s Sony digital tape machines were not bitperfect and therefore each copy would be different from the master and change even more with each new copy made from it.

 

Actually, the standards have always had gobs of error correction tacked on, since they relied originally on 3/4" UMATIC tape decks, which aren't exactly known to be dropout-free.

If people were making analog copies of digital videotapes that might have been a problem. But if they were going digital to digital the copies - really clones - would have been bit-perfect.

I suspect issues with (some) early CD releases had more to do with sourcing 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation tapes equalized for various crazy things - like LP mastering - or sourcing the original studio master instead of a master that had gone thru the hands of a proper mastering engineer.

Clones would have been the least-likely source of trouble.

We also know many original analog masters weren't exactly in pristine condition by the time the '80s rolled along. Which is why sometimes copies had to be used, or else extensive EQ work done to try to compensate for the degradation. Both are likely to result in an end product that sounded worse than the original LP.