[hogger129]

Quote:

"Let It Bleed" was released 1969, so it was mastered analog, and since then sampled/converted in many different forms. Rather than purchase a "high definition" copy, I think you should be able to get close to the same result upsampling it yourself for free.
 
There **might** be some advantage to hearing something originally recorded at 24/176.4, but I'm thinking it would be a very small difference indeed in anything except a live binaural recording of classical music in a near-acoustically-perfect venue.

 
 
From what I understand, the copy I have which is from HDTracks is the same master as the 2002 SACD.  If I upsampled a CD, wouldn't I just be basically "padding" 16/44 and not really getting any better sound quality out of it?

 

[UltMusicSnob]

Quote:

 
 
From what I understand, the copy I have which is from HDTracks is the same master as the 2002 SACD.  If I upsampled a CD, wouldn't I just be basically "padding" 16/44 and not really getting any better sound quality out of it?

What was the master used for the SACD, the original analog mixdown? Or was it re-mastered? In the latter case, if that's the only way you can get it, it might be worth having, for huge fans of the Rolling Stones. My comment about doing it yourself would only apply if the Redbook CD I could get in the store now would have the same master as the SACD you're talking about.
  I have upsampled some of my 16/44's, and it sounds different and better to me (VERY subtly), which I attribute to the fact that my DAC necessarily plays back the different sample rates...well, **differently**. Filters and all that. I also find the high resolution rates smoother, but that's a very general impression.
  If you don't want to use the Hard Drive space, then for those purposes the discussion is already over (not worth it)--I don't mind using the space, myself.
  One thing you could do is get hold of someone's post-2002 "Let It Bleed" CD, upsample it yourself with software (I would never buy an upsampling hardware device just to upsample), and then do an ABX test with your purchased high-res version, see if it makes any difference or not.

 

[stv014]

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltMusicSnob /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
  I have upsampled some of my 16/44's, and it sounds different and better to me (VERY subtly), which I attribute to the fact that my DAC necessarily plays back the different sample rates...well, **differently**. Filters and all that. I also find the high resolution rates smoother, but that's a very general impression.
  If you don't want to use the Hard Drive space, then for those purposes the discussion is already over (not worth it)--I don't mind using the space, myself.

 
Putting discussion regarding the usefulness of upsampling aside, it is not necessary to use any additional hard disk space, since the upsampling can also be performed in real time (for example, using the SoX resampler plugin in foobar2000, which - with the right settings - can produce the same results as the iZotope converter you used).

 

[bigshot]

The Stones have been remastered a bunch of different times. Even on LP, the singles were mastered differently than the same song on the LP. The SACD even has a different master on the redbook layer as the SACD layer. You can't compare formats using the Stones as an example, because it's never the same.

 

[Digitalchkn]

There is one thing that doesn't make much sense to me and that's the loose use of the term "remastered". As you probably know mastering is production step after the sources are mixed. In a sense, a master is already a second generation copy of the original recording. I am guessing the exception to that would be done in 50's and 60's.  In either case, if you take the master and copy it over to another format (be it in 16/44.1, 24/96, DSD, whatever) and create another master, in principle the best you can get is what is on the original master. At that point one could tinker with the sound to make improvements, but it is still a copy of the original (at which point I may start to cry foul because I want the best original recording possible).  If the recorded sources are available, then you can truly create a new master but at that point there is inevitable remixing because there is no way to recreate precisely the same mix as was done before.  My point is, the term "remaster" seems to be thrown around too loosely by marketing - a carry over from early days of CDs I guess (when simply using the word "digital" was all the rage). Is it just me who's unclear on this? Shouldn't we as a consumer how what is being done?

 

[bigshot]

There was a link earlier in the thread that outlines what mastering is.

 

[Digitalchkn]

Quote:

There was a link earlier in the thread that outlines what mastering is.

 

I must have missed that one. So is there an standard definition then?

 

[bigshot]

I think this was the link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_mastering

 

[Digitalchkn]

Quote:

I think this was the link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_mastering

Thanks, but the point is trying to make is that the sources used to master varies. Sometimes only an original master is available. Sometime source multitrack is available. Some mastering engineers like to rerun the dub at different rates on best equipment for each rate, others simply downconvert in software. Many labels just don't specify how this is done, I think. 

 

[bigshot]

It's been my experience back when I was still working with analogue material recorded on 24 track, the 24 track mix would be bounced down to two tracks of a 4 track ADAT digital master. That became the master element and protection copies would be made. I would guess that if the 24 track mix can't be gone back into or is missing, they would use the first generation analogue bouncedown for that... a two track tape sub master, then to ADAT. Today, there isn't much of a problem with generation loss, a digital submaster is going to be a bit for bit copy of the master. Not like in the old days where submasters were sometimes several generations from the source.

 

[Digitalchkn]

  It's been my experience back when I was still working with analogue material recorded on 24 track, the 24 track mix would be bounced down to two tracks of a 4 track ADAT digital master. That became the master element and protection copies would be made. I would guess that if the 24 track mix can't be gone back into or is missing, they would use the first generation analogue bouncedown for that... a two track tape sub master, then to ADAT. Today, there isn't much of a problem with generation loss, a digital submaster is going to be a bit for bit copy of the master. Not like in the old days where submasters were sometimes several generations from the source.
 
 
I am assuming we are talking about analog sources here. Generally, why would you remaster a digital master?
 
I guess mixdown onto a new master could be a more consuming process, so even if multitracks are available more than likely that the source for remaster is the original analog master. So in this case a "remaster" is simply a close-to-original digital copy of the analog master and should never be better than the original. How come different remasters sounds so different then?

 

[bigshot]

Did you take a look at the wikipedia article? There's a whole raft of processing that they can do, from compression to noise reduction to sweetening with reverbs or EQ.

 

[UltMusicSnob]

 

A remastered version could easily be better, worse, or as-good-as-but-in-a-different-way, as the earlier master. Mastering is not just a technical exercise; it involves aesthetic choices, trade-offs and compromises, and a multitude of solutions to anticipated uses of the material.

 

[xnor]

Sadly, remastering today often just means a v-shaped EQ curve and compression, compression, compression.

 

[UltMusicSnob]

Mastering for delivery on vinyl meant taking into account all sorts of physical conditions of the record material that just don't apply any more. The spacing of the grooves is not constant, for example--this is why you can see the bands of material when you hold up a record  and let light bounce off its surface--some are dense, the quiet passages; some are further apart, the louder passages. A treatment called the RIAA equalization curve was used (in part) to limit the required size of grooves, allowing more playing time per side on LP's.
 
A CD does not care how loud the material is. It holds a Redbook CD's worth of data, period. CD's also have some track flexibility here, but the main point is that the amplitude of the signal does not affect playing time on a CD.
 
If I were a copyright holder/label owner requesting a remaster of a classic rock album, the first thing I'd do is ask the mastering engineer to go back and examine all the LP-ready compromises that went into the first master. Probably I'd want it mixed down again, not just remastered, so that I could fully 'un-compromise' the result. Maybe even bring back the band, if they're around, show them the capabilities that couldn't get onto the original record because of compromises made for LP vinyl distribution.