SH Spotlight I'm asked stuff: Favorite mastering engineer, best BOSTON CD, best TRAVELING WILBURYS CD, etc..

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Steve Hoffman, Oct 3, 2018.

  1. jhm

    jhm Forum Resident

    I also think if HDMI had been around when these formats were launched, it might've helped more. Granted I was pretty naïve gear wise at the time, but when SACD first rolled out, I wasn't interested since players only allowed for analog output.
     
    sunspot42 and Tim Bucknall like this.
  2. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    I don’t think DVD-A ever had a chance - even if it had been 3-5 years earlier. Incompatibility with existing hardware and generally needing a monitor would have doomed it from the get-go for delivery of music to the mass market.

    SACD could have worked if the various division at Sony had been forced to work in harmony. But they never really pushed for making hybrid discs the standard. Maybe certain elements at Sony saw where the physical disc was headed and realized it would be a short-lived pyrrhic victory - so it wasn’t worth the investment. Or perhaps some of those elements were active participants in encouraging the demise of the physical digital disc.
     
    Steve356, sunspot42 and Tim Bucknall like this.
  3. sunspot42

    sunspot42 Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Francisco
    The decision to pretty much require a monitor to interact with many discs was idiotic beyond belief. I do think if it had rolled out with DVD itself in '97 the format might have actually established itself...and also strangled SACD in the cradle, avoiding a ruinous format war.

    Would it have been a "success"? Still really doubtful. But it might have been more widespread as an audiophile format from roughly 2000-2015, until high-res downloads probably overtook it. There certainly could have been more titles released - for example, we know Warners prepared a bunch of stuff for release on DVD-A, then pulled the plug in the mid-2000's. If the format had been better-established those titles almost certainly would have gotten a release.
     
    2141 and Plan9 like this.
  4. olinko

    olinko Forum Resident

    Location:
    Zagreb
    I myself think the streaming services will do their part eventually to get the broader public into audiophilia - even if it starts out as fake. What I mean is Spotify, Deezer, Tidal etc. all starting to push a hi-fi tier to their subscription gets the masses to at least consider it.* Coupled with things like Dolby Atmos releases, I do think hi-fi has a chance to reach more people than ever. For decades (including now), you have to admit audiophilia is a pretty niche hobby, not to mention it costs a fortune

    * The fact that much of this is currently fooling people into thinking their getting the highest quality available (cought MQA cough cough) is irrelevant for the argument at the moment.
     
    sunspot42 likes this.
  5. Joy-of-radio

    Joy-of-radio Forum Resident

    Location:
    Skowhegan, ME
    Opinion of course, but I view boasts of hi-Rez digital audio much like seemingly endless "REMASTERED" teasers. In the end with every recording, the proof is in the pudding! SACD, DVD-A, HI-REZ downloads and streaming are positively pointless if they're derived from lackluster masters. Another thing; I'm so sick and tired of people poo-pooing CDs! The audio produced from them can be extraordinarily accurate and pleasing! As for audiophile quality recordings becoming more popular with the broad public; That will NEVER happen! Most people enjoy their music like their food. They're perfectly content with shoving McDonalds in their cake holes! YUCK!!!
     
  6. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    Sorry, but all things being equal, CDs should be poo-poo’d. As a format, they really deliver virtually nothing unique or exceptional in 2021. That’s why so few buy new ones any more.
     
    mozz likes this.
  7. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Physical media? Lossless quality? No surface noise or IGD? I'd call that unique and exceptional.
     
  8. c-eling

    c-eling Fruit Juice Everywhere

    And even a few bonus tracks thrown in for good measure... :D
    [​IMG]
     
  9. 2141

    2141 Forum Resident

    This was always the big head-scratcher to me. Even now it's one of those "what were they thinking" amazements. :doh:
     
    nosticker, sunspot42 and JosepZ like this.
  10. Oscillation

    Oscillation Maybe it was the doses?

    @Steve Hoffman Handraise! As a pro I'm guessing that at some point you've had to work on projects you weren't particularly thrilled about. Which would presumably involve many hours listening to something that you may not like, and in fact may be completely turned off by. Can you devote the same amount of care to those projects as to others you might be thrilled by? And a follow up, how do you get the music indelibly etched in your brain through countless hours of listening out! Peace etc.
    M
     
  11. kwadguy

    kwadguy Senior Member

    Location:
    Cambridge, MA
    Yup. All the discs that were authored so that a monitor was necessary to access basic content were stupid beyond belief, and deserved to wind up on the trash heap quickly.
     
    sunspot42 likes this.
  12. Tim Lookingbill

    Tim Lookingbill Alfalfa Male

    Location:
    New Braunfels, TX
    I'll back you up on that opinion now that I know for a fact major music labels like Warner/Rhino get to define what qualifies as a remaster of a classic album reissue by only applying a limiter to make the new one sound louder than the old original such is the case with some 2002 Chicago remastered albums.

    A/B the original CD file by first applying a limiter to match the RMS of the 2002 louder version with no change in sound at all. Now how does that qualify as a remaster?

    Don't get me started on Dark Side Of The Moon remasters!
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2021
    Joy-of-radio and Echo like this.
  13. Because it was done at the mastering stage?
     
    Anthrax and lukpac like this.
  14. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    What 2002 Chicago albums were just the earlier versions with limiting applied?

    Regardless, "remaster" means nothing except "mastered again".
     
    Anthrax, Plan9, Joy-of-radio and 3 others like this.
  15. dance_hall_keeper

    dance_hall_keeper Forum Resident

    The Information Society. Now there’s the name of a group I haven’t heard in ages!
     
    c-eling likes this.
  16. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    You’re projecting.

    Hi-rez downloads of the same recording can do everything the CD does and better. I stand by what I wrote.

    CDs get poo-poo’d because they deserve it.
     
  17. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    While I don't object to HD downloads, they aren't a physical product. Art and liner notes are still nice to have.
     
  18. Carl Swanson

    Carl Swanson Forum Resident

    Isn't that a fundamental aspect of being a professional . . . anything?
     
    dom91932, mdm08033 and jhm like this.
  19. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    So what? It’s 2021, not 1994. HD downloads are quite pertinent to a discussion why CDs deserve poo-pooing. They literally do nothing that can’t be bettered.

    There’s nothing inherent to downloads which prevents them from having artwork and liner notes. And in a much better size and resolution. That many don’t is just as much as a label as to not put decent ones with a CD.
     
  20. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    As most HD downloads don't have liner notes or anything beyond the most basic cover art, yes CDs do better them in that department.
     
  21. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    But it’s not inherent in the format. It’s a human decision.

    If the miniature liner notes and artwork included with CDs are the strongest argument for not poo-pooing the format, you’re swimming upstream.
     
  22. Joy-of-radio

    Joy-of-radio Forum Resident

    Location:
    Skowhegan, ME
    True! But the hi-rez formats are only as good as the weakest link in the chain, which is the mastering far more often than not.
     
    sunspot42 likes this.
  23. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Can downloads come with liner notes and artwork? Sure. But...they almost never do. So from a practical standpoint, CDs have an advantage.

    Other reasons for not poo-pooing CDs: they can sound great. And as noted, they are a physical object.
     
    Anthrax, Plan9, sunspot42 and 4 others like this.
  24. InStepWithTheStars

    InStepWithTheStars It's a miracle, let it alter you

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Can we please move this format war bickering to another thread? (Or perhaps another website entirely, considering this forum's rules?) I'd really like to read what our host has to say about approaching mastering music he isn't familiar with, not some random person's opinion that CDs suck.
     
  25. Sidewinder43

    Sidewinder43 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Lavaca County, TX
    Nice to see some defense of CDs for a change.
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine