[Notus]

What makes me concerned is the fact that they are butchering CD masters or not doing them properly to promote the sells of Higher bit rate albums that have different masters.
This is wrong, but not that uncommon with any industry, unfortunately.

 

[Krutsch]

  What makes me concerned is the fact that they are butchering CD masters or not doing them properly to promote the sells of Higher bit rate albums that have different masters.
This is wrong, but not that uncommon with any industry, unfortunately.

 
I wonder about that - I guess I was trying to say that in my lengthy post.  Are different masters used, for example, with Lorde's Pure Heroine for CD/HDTracks and iTunes?  The conspiracy theory is that this is intentional to dupe "audiophiles" into paying more for higher-res tracks.
 
But, as I also pointed out in my lengthy post, the costs for the "bonus tracks" versions are basically the same.  Additionally, this all seems like a lot of work to appeal to a relatively limited audience (i.e. HD Tracks downloads).
 
Not saying I know... I am saying I am wondering.

 

[bigshot]

  What makes me concerned is the fact that they are butchering CD masters or not doing them properly to promote the sells of Higher bit rate albums that have different masters. This is wrong, but not that uncommon with any industry, unfortunately.

 
How many copies of Dark Side of the Moon can you be convinced to buy?

 

[ferday]

How many copies of Dark Side of the Moon can you be convinced to buy?

Likely the same amount that you have copies of Star Wars on every format and remaster...

 

[Krutsch]

   
How many copies of Dark Side of the Moon can you be convinced to buy?

 
Exactly... let's see: I have DSoM on:
 
1) vinyl (from the 70s)  2) Japanese virgin vinyl pressing (from the 80s)  3) early generation CD  4) iTunes remastered  5) SACD
 
I can repeat much of the above with others, like Led Zeppelin, for example.

 

[sonitus mirus]

You do have to be mindful about the mastering of any music you purchase.
 
I believe that the following recently remastered Led Zeppelin albums are all audibly transparent between, say, an HD Tracks version and a CD purchase at Amazon.
 
There is over a 50% savings if you are willing to wait 2 days and rip the CD to your format(s) of choice.  You won't be able to hear a difference.
 
That said, there is plenty of high resolution music that is remastered and sold as such, and there may not be an equivalent CD available to purchase with the same mastering.

 

[RazorJack]

  What makes me concerned is the fact that they are butchering CD masters or not doing them properly to promote the sells of Higher bit rate albums that have different masters.
This is wrong, but not that uncommon with any industry, unfortunately.

 
I can't say I'm aware of this ever being done for an album that I have bought. And I listen to a lot of stuff.
 
What I find particularly disturbing is that HD tracks or whatever it's called doesn't even always come with all of the artwork intended for the album. So basically you're paying more but get less in the end: no audible benefit (assuming the CD was created with the same master) and incomplete artwork.

 

[Notus]

Well i admit it is not very common and partly was directed at generally badly mastered albums. I feel the masters have been better on DVD releases compared to the Red book releases. It was a bit too generalising comment. Also about the cost, it vary's a lot where you actually live. Difference can be up to 10€ depending how recent the release is.
Should have made clear that it bothers me that sometimes the audio professional who is doing the masters are intentionally making the Higher bit rate format sound better compared to Red book.
But i guess what i was after is, why would you even make 2 masters if not intentionally trying to make the other sound better to promote it?
Why not just use the same master for both releases?

 

[thievesarmy]

well, I FINALLY made it through the entire thread. *pats self on the back* It took 3 days, but I was genuinely interested in engaged in what is for me a VERY complex subject, that even now I certainly don't fully understand, BUT I do feel more equipped now to make better purchasing decisions wrt "audiophile" gear in the future. There are so many people that deserve thanks for their efforts in this thread, but the two that immediately stand out are @gregorio for starting the whole thing off and @bigshot for picking up the slack now that G has effectively gone AWOL. Not that bigshot is the only one picking up the slack, just one that immediately comes to mind and also cause I'm a fan of the way he has been knocking down the naysayers with a certain witty style & flair. Kudos.
 
The one person that stands out the most in this thread in the WORST way possible would have to be dbbloke (not tagging intentionally) who thankfully doesn't seem to be active anymore. If anyone wants a TLR, do NOT under any circumstances listen to a word this fool has to say. I mean the guy tried to rationalize his denial of science in this thread by referencing the "debate" around climate change. Seriously… hide your daughters.
 
Anyways, thanks again to all the great contributions from all the people far smarter than myself. Awesome stuff.

 

[headdict]

You nailed it! I have not made it through the entire thread, but could not live without my daily dose of sound science. It is so edutaining and brain-unwashing. Thanks so much for keeping it alive!

 

[bigshot]

  I can't say I'm aware of this ever being done for an album that I have bought. And I listen to a lot of stuff.

 
When I was trying to do a fair A/B comparison between redbook and SACD, I couldn't find a single legacy hybrid disk that had the same mastering on both layers. The redbook layer was always more compressed and had a higher noise level. I finally found a classical SACD that had the same mastering on both layers, and they both sounded the same. I believe that hybrid SACDs are deliberately hobbled to hold back the redbook layer.

 

[MrMateoHead]

  I will probably regret posting anything on Sound Science, not being a "Sound Scientist", but I feel compelled to mention why I have been buying 24-bit tracks on HDTracks (I don't work for anyone in the industry).
 
They cost the same, roughly speaking, as the physical CD for newer releases or remasters.
 
For example, Lana Del Rey's newest release (deluxe edition) lists at $US 17.99 and the same CD + bonus tracks lists at $US 15.99 on Amazon and, BTW, I can download it now instead of waiting for shipment.  Yes, I know you can buy used CDs for less - I am ignoring that, for new stuff, although I do buy used CDs for older releases.

I am tired of waiting a week to get a new release. I picked this CD up at Target for $16. The bonus tracks WEREN'T really that great (knew it!). But this has to be one of my favorite albums of the year so far. Really good stuff.
 
As far as the mastering quality I think it is a bit thick and rough. The heavy use of Reverb is a bit fatiguing on my headphones, and "messy" in my car (with pretty cheap components on board Lana's pretty voice sounds a little pulled apart). Also, many of the tracks have some clipping going on, which isn't as bad as other releases I've looked at. Unlike other female albums I've got recently, the vocals are actually pretty well balanced - they are usually too damn hot.
 
On the other hand, the new Roots CD is quite well mastered - not too hot, some dynamic range, and some great basslines. It doesn't clip but still has some bright / harsh samples that sound pretty bad on some speakers I have.
 
It has gotten to the point where recording / mastering quality is more typically my personal source of fatigue and irritation than my speakers. There is no cure for hot, clipped recordings sold by the millions. With unforgiving phones like the HE-400s, I basically just have to roll with the punches sometimes. On the other hand, I don't feel like paying for "HD" tracks which are mostly just how these CDs should have been mastered in the first place. But I should, on that note, add that I think it makes some sense that stuff mastered for "radio play" and "car audio" should be different than home audio. The typical listening environments these days range from vault-quiet to jackhammers, traffic, and trains. Maybe someday we'll buy "raw" audio that can be "mastered" on the fly for our listening environment!

 

[Mambosenior]

This is my daily treadmill read and I am on page 23. As you can see, I cheated and went to this latest chapter (did Gregorio marry Daisy after he returned from the long recording session?). So damn informative! Thanks.

 

[bigshot]

  It has gotten to the point where recording / mastering quality is more typically my personal source of fatigue and irritation than my speakers. There is no cure for hot, clipped recordings sold by the millions.

 
Expand your musical tastes into classical and jazz. All those problems will go away, because those genres are generally well recorded, mixed and mastered.

 

[headwhacker]

 
Expand your musical tastes into classical and jazz. All those problems will go away, because those genres are generally well recorded, mixed and mastered.

 


The problem is I can't just switch to a different genre just to avoid badly mastered recordings. I won't stop listening to rock songs just because of high chance of getting a bad master.

I listen to music because I like rock the most.