[brent_mr2]

I'm going to be getting Yanni Live at the Acropolis on a 24 bit mastered CD. My equipment, both portable and home is rather mediocre (see profile). Am I going to notice much of a difference in sound quality with this 24 bit CD?

TIA

 

[KR...]

It should sound a little bit better than the norm, but as you would guess, to hear just how good it really is you need more high-ended gear.

 

[elrod-tom]

My brother is a nut case for 24-bit remastered disks. Until VERY recently, he was listening to everything he owned with a $100 boom box.

Short answer is yes, but better equipment will have a greater impact IMHO.

 

[Audio-Me]

24bit mastering won't help poor recordings, let alone crappy music...

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Technically, there is no such thing as a 24-bit CD. So it will still sound like a CD. A really good fidelity CD, maybe, but it's still no better than the best a CD can be.

 

[elrod-tom]

At the risk of acknowledging (and thus giving credit to) a silly point: yes, it is true, that a CD mastered with 24-bit mastering equipment will in fact produce a CD, and not an SACD or DVD-A. Satisfied?

Given the format limitations, however, remastering with better equipment (and one assumes, better mixing and production) has GENERALLY made for a CD which sounds better than it's previous generation. Said better sounding CD will sound better on lesser equipment, but the difference will be more pronounced in better equipment.

 

[grinch]

Quote:

Originally posted by elrod-tom At the risk of acknowledging (and thus giving credit to) a silly point: yes, it is true, that a CD mastered with 24-bit mastering equipment will in fact produce a CD, and not an SACD or DVD-A. Satisfied? Given the format limitations, however, remastering with better equipment (and one assumes, better mixing and production) has GENERALLY made for a CD which sounds better than it's previous generation. Said better sounding CD will sound better on lesser equipment, but the difference will be more pronounced in better equipment.

i think it's more the engineer/producer who does the remastering, rather than the equipment. i've heard some horrible remasters in my days, and i have a tough time believing that it's the equipment that make it sound like digital crap.

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally posted by grinch i think it's more the engineer/producer who does the remastering, rather than the equipment. i've heard some horrible remasters in my days, and i have a tough time believing that it's the equipment that make it sound like digital crap.

Of course...but you might want to re-read my post, and pay special attention to the part that says "and, one assumes, better mixing and production".

Regardless, better equipment is needed to do 24-bit mastering...regardless of whether the mixing and production are changed.

Are we done making silly points yet.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Now now, no need to get snide. You're the one that called your brother a nutcase.

And I don't think my point was silly, neither. The original poster asked if they were going to be able to tell the difference, and I answered from the perspective of "you don't need special equipment".

 

[lini]

elrod-tom: I don't think grinch's remark was pointless at all. Of course, you might assume better mixing/production et cetera, but you're definitely not guaranteed to get it. Actually, with remasters you're not even guaranteed to get the original music - just compare the original Alan Parsons Project "Tales of mystery..." with the remastered version, and you'll know, that it's better not to assume anything with remasters...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[elrod-tom]

OK...I didn't mean to get so snippy. That said, it gets a bit annoying when one makes a GENERAL statement, only to be overrun by exceptions to the rule.