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

These particular Rolling Stones masters are a Downgrade from the cd's imo. And I'm a huge 24 bit fan.

 

Well I can say to my ears on my rig, the Japanese SHM-SACD of Sticky Fingers sound great! Many feel it's the best digital version of this album. I don't have any of the other post LIB Japanese SACDs to comment on, however.

 

I'd have to agree. I don't always automatically prefer SACDs, but, the Japanese SACD of Sticky Fingers is the best I've ever heard that album sound.

 

If these are the 2009 remasters released at 44.1/24 how would they end up worse than the 44.1\14 CDs? It baffles me how the labels can’t get this right.

 

I would agree it is the best digital version of SF. Other than the few SF tracks on the Abkco Hot Rocks SACD.

 

This is a copy of a post I made regarding a cd & sq from another thread. So sad it's come to this..........

"Gary Moore - Live At Monsters Of Rock (my re-eq'd version)

I mentioned this the other day. I bought this a few years ago, & found the music great but the sq unlistenable. So I did something I've only felt the need to do one time in my life: ripped the cd, digitally re-eq'd it & also lowered the volume. It's still far from audiophile territory, but at least I can enjoy it. I was a bit surprised that just now going from Deep Purple MIJ 4 cd edition; this sounds better!"

 

I need to pick up the domestic SACD of Hot Rocks at some point. Thanks for the reminder. I was just listening to the DSD (from the Japanese SHM-SACD) on my headphone setup the other day. Man, does that sound amazing !

I've followed this thread for a long time (and continue to) despite the fact that the HR download situation has gone downhill as others had noted. I generally prefer physical media when I can get it, but in some cases, it's not possible (the Bernie Grundman remaster of CSN&Y's "Deja Vu" being a prime example). In other cases, the labels just seem to have gone nuts with pricing. Prior to the launch of Neil Young's online archive, the WB backed "Greedy Hand Store" (what an appropriate name that turned out to be) was routinely selling the NYA "approved" versions of his albums, in 192 KHz/24 bit resolution, for $9.99 to $12.99 each. I picked up the artist approved "Harvest" that way for $12 as I recall. After the archive launched, these same titles are being sold for $25 each. Who are these guys kidding? Why would I pay more than double for the same product you've been offering for years. It's almost like they're thinking "this download thing didn't take off like we thought, so we'd better gouge the few willing suckers that are left".

On the plus side, I can say that Concord Music, who now own the rights to the Stax/Fantasy catalog, made their mono version of Albert King's version of "Born Under A Bad Sign" available for download and it sounds nice. I'd have preferred even a CD of this one, but they opted (so far) to only release it as a limited RSD LP in 2019 (which now goes for crazy money). I think it cost me like $12 for the 192/24 bit version on Qobuz U.S. Under the circumstances, a relative bargain. I should note, however, that there is a small glitch during the fade of the track "Born Under A Bad Sign". It's unfortunate, but not a disaster IMO as the mastering is otherwise nice and dynamic. I'm not a mono mix die hard, but this was one of those albums where the stereo mix for most of the tracks drives me nuts. The drums are pushed to the hard right, the guitar and bass to the left and the vocals in the center. To me, it's a better listening experience to have it all pushed to the center.

 

Unfortunately you may have a point. But it used to be about better sound quality.

The point of high resolution files is to give consumers the master. High definition files are targeted at audiophiles so why would a mastering engineer compress the crap out of them? But yes, 24/96 doesn't always mean better. And sometimes the original master just blows.

Awhile back I got sent some instrumental music for a hybrid mountain bike/ Ebike commercial to mix. It came as 24, 16/44.1 WAVE tracks. It was a mess. I knocked it down to just 8 tracks. And a lot of editing was required. What I ended up with was very different from music they had sent me. I stripped it down to just the basics.

This song was written only on sharps and flats. (The black keys). I did 30 mixes but the client liked this one. Joke is it is overly bassy and the guitar is too loud. See what you guys think. This is the unfudged master.


File on MEGA

 

I have most of them (AFAIK Still Life is the only one I'm missing), and most of them are fantastic to my ears. Exile, Sticky, Goats, IORR, & Love You Live all come to mind as being the best versions of those I've heard. Some Girls is the only one I was so-so about. Not particularly an improvement over the CBS or Virgin CD's, but nowhere as bad as the CD and HDTracks Deluxe Edition versions.
It should be noted that in addition to fantastic sound, the Japan SHM-SACD's of IORR & Love You Live are unique in that: this is the only place the entire 83 min. LYL appears on a single disc, and I believe it's the only place where IORR is presented with full/longer versions of three tracks.

 

Um, the master is what has been released on CD, but in the original resolution before it was downsampled. No proper record label is sanctioning new special masters for a handful of so-called audiophiles download stores. Artists and record labels aren't going to start releasing limp sounding unmastered versions for people who scream about compression.

 

Not every release is like that and that's the whole point of audiophile community to still have interest (a vanishing one though) in Hi-Res versions of the albums. It seems like the "good" releases are released like "pre-mastered" versions and they differ from their CD counterparts, which suggests that there is such thing as "mastering for CD" by adding compression.
Again, it's not a standard (better DR for hi-res versions), but it should be.

 

An uncompressed master is essentially costless, why not release it?

 

I'm going to cynically guess that it's because if they did that, they'd have nothing else to sell us later.

 

Exactly my thoughts as well on it. Funny how fast those 'flat' Fleetwood Macs were replaced with the awful remasters.
They never want to give up the 'golden goose'.

 

If I don't care about mastering quality then it doesn't matter what they're selling, I'm buying the first version I see.

If I do care then I'm never buying "later" because I've already bought the good mastering. If they think I'm double-dipping they're idiots.

If I do care yet never had a chance to buy the good version I'm not buying anything at all. Surely > $0 revenue would be preferable to them? Apparently not, since they don't want to sell me what I want and foolishly think they can induce me to buy what I don't.

The movie studios do it right. First DVD, then Blu-ray, then 4k Blu-ray. First Dolby Digital soundtracks, now Dolby Atmos or DTS:X soundtracks. Rather than offering the best and then withdrawing it in favor of an inferior gimped product, they continually improve the product and give me an incentive to rebuy content I already own. Not all the 4k discs are clearly better, some studios put more care into their offerings than others. Sony in particular almost always does outstanding discs. The less said about the Lionsgate Terminator 2 4k the better.

 

I am curious with your opinions why are you using your time with this thread?

 

LOL I think you speak the truth as sad as it is!
So you think heaping loads of compression on a stereo mix is making it sound better? And that the original mixes are boring? Or do you mean that is how the record company sees it?

So all the mixes done before 1998 were boring?
Most youth today don't care. But then again they don't know what they are missing. Music has dynamics. A DR3 is not natural or exciting. Just a headache. But I see your point.

But after working in the field for 18 years I can say that most releases today are mixed compression happy and don't need anymore help.

You are half right about the master. The master is the 2 channel mix down. (In this case.) If I mix a 2 inch 16 track down to stereo the mixed file is the master. The 24/96 or 16/44.1 file with mastering on it is called the production master. Not the same thing. But it does get confusing.

 

Well said!

 

The compresion is one thing. But there isn't a lot of it on the remaster. Steve gave us the EQ curves to fix RUMOURS long ago. Here they are:

All at a Q of 1.
150 hz + 5 db
3 khz - 3 db
8 khz - 5 db

Bang. Instant flat master. This is from memory.
I don't think I left any curve out. I hope. I applied this EQ to every song using WAVE PAD EDITOR ($54) and then burned a new CD.

COME ON GUYS. Who are we? We are Hoffmanites! Do we take crappy-ass masters lying down like sheep? No!

The new burned CD can be cranked up so damn loud. It is beautiful.

 

Is that for disc 1 of the 16 bit Deluxe cd, the original cd, or.....? I have the flat transfer 24 bit of the main album & the more recent 24 bit compressed version of the bonus discs (also a Japan SACD); & the 2012 3 cd edition.

 

24 bit flat transfer. Wow!
The EQ curves would be for Disk-1 of the album.. But if you already have a 24 bit version you can just make a CD out of that. I don't know how much compression (if any) is on the remastered CD but they must be some.

Is you 24 bit file 24/44.1, 24/96 or something else?

 

2004 Deluxe Edition - Album details - Dynamic Range Database DR10
2013 35th Anniversary Edition - Album details - Dynamic Range Database DR9

 

Long story.

For those who don't work in the industry:
A master is the mixdown file or tape from the multitrack. The mastered 24/96 file or CD is called the production master. The master is NOT a CD. Unless the multitrack was mixed down to a CD recorder. When we request the master of a certain artist we get the stereo/mono mixdown tape or file.

Say you have a 100 track project recorded as a 24/88.2 Pro Tools file.
You mix that down to stereo 24/88.2 file. This is now a MASTER. You give the "master" to mastering where they will add compression, EQ, high pass filtering, normalization, etc. The finished file is now called a "high definition Production Master file." When you dither the files down to 16 bit and knock the sample rate to 44.1 khz that is called the "CD Production file or the CD Master.

A few years ago we DID NOT hire a guy at the studio because he thought the CD or mastered file was the master. And he couldn't save automation data on the SSL board to save his life. Kids today!

 

Thanks. If I may ask. Apparently questions on this thread are bad. Ahhh....What was the DR for the original CD release?

 

NO ARGUMENT THERE!