SeagramSeven
Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Posts
- 75
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
This may be true for modern recordings, but older recordings were almost universally all below CD resolution. What does this mean? If you have a digital recording from 1985, it most likely used 9 or 10-bit analog-to-digital converters. (which were the best they had at the time for sampling the signal). Post editing/mixing, this would then be transferred to a CD with a much greater bit depth(16), and equal or greater sample rate(44.1khz).
I fail to see how this translates to improved quality, unless your idea of better is someone fiddling around with an equalizer to "make things more snappy and fun".
If someone thinks, based on real-world experience, that remasters sound better, I would like to hear an example that brought them to that conclusion, as everything I have heard in "remastered" form vs the original release, has always, without exception, had worse overall quality. And it has worked both ways, sometimes it would be with an original I've owned for years---hear a remaster and the degredation is very noticable. Other times, the remaster is the first thing I hear. It might sound very bad, it might sound ok, until I hear the original and realize how much better it was.
Originally Posted by gsansite /img/forum/go_quote.gif The source recording is higher quality than the CD (the limiting factor), therefore you can 'add' details by using a better ADC process or better digital mastering. Remasters are a mixed bag, lots of great ones, lots of terrible ones. Try looking for reviews of the different versions before purchasing. |
This may be true for modern recordings, but older recordings were almost universally all below CD resolution. What does this mean? If you have a digital recording from 1985, it most likely used 9 or 10-bit analog-to-digital converters. (which were the best they had at the time for sampling the signal). Post editing/mixing, this would then be transferred to a CD with a much greater bit depth(16), and equal or greater sample rate(44.1khz).
I fail to see how this translates to improved quality, unless your idea of better is someone fiddling around with an equalizer to "make things more snappy and fun".
If someone thinks, based on real-world experience, that remasters sound better, I would like to hear an example that brought them to that conclusion, as everything I have heard in "remastered" form vs the original release, has always, without exception, had worse overall quality. And it has worked both ways, sometimes it would be with an original I've owned for years---hear a remaster and the degredation is very noticable. Other times, the remaster is the first thing I hear. It might sound very bad, it might sound ok, until I hear the original and realize how much better it was.