And in nearly every case either one of two things happens: the original sounds better, or I have trouble distinguishing them.
I do all of my comparisons in foobar with replaygain so volume has NO advantage whatsoever. I have been, for a few months now, seeking out the best mastered versions of all of my albums that date prior to 2000 or so. So these things must be taken into account. We obviously know this means louder, but EQ is affected as well, as nobody really listens on flat speakers. Nothing is a flat tape transfer anymore (ignoring audiophile labels for a second.) and everything is mastered to be "caught up" with current day trends. The mind set of mastering is completely different. I honestly don't think modern day techniques really matter as far as sound quality goes. But if you're interested in "the best", you gotta do what you gotta do.Ībout the mastering process and A/D converters. And some of these CDs hailed as the best version of a particular album are not even close to cheap or easy to obtain. but head over to the forums and get into a discussion about which CD pressing of an album is the best and your head will hurt even more.
#Flaming lips soft bulletin demastered how to
Man, people complain about head-fi being a burden on your wallet and probably bad for your brain too with all this thinking and talking about sound quality and how to achieve the best. You can hear what a high quality recording really sounds like there. The Japanese "black face harvest" version of Wish You Were Here is one of the best discs I have ever heard. Pink Floyd, despite what audiofil said above, has some AMAZING sounding audiophile quality discs that were pressed in the late 80s. The Japanese "black triangle" CDs are a good example. You just couldn't find them anywhere in the US. The Beatles.įact is, there are non-remastered Beatles CDs out there that don't suck. In other words, if you live in the US, you'd be talking about the US "first pressing"/"non-remaster" version of a particualr CD, i.e. This means that it is localized to your own country. When most people say "non-remastered" they are talking about one CD: the one they found in their local CD shop in the late 80s/early 90s when the CD was first pressed. I will stand by these numbers with great fervor. I would say in maybe 100 albums, I can find only 1 or 2 that sound better in remastered form. The first wave of CD masters (up till' early 90's) were particularly bad (Pink Floyd, Beatles, AC/DC etc were notorious for it).
Otherwise they wouldn't have created them in the first place. Originally Posted by audiofil /img/forum/go_quote.gifĪs a general rule the newer remasters are better than the old (digital) masters. Knowing that it was transferred from tape with a lot of care and modern converters feels good. I do it this way: if I can put my hands on a newer remaster that is not a victim of this loudness cr*p, I take it. I guess one can say that the more commercial the object is, the higher is the probability that there's clipping in it. I've got the "25th Anniversary Edition" of "Thriller" by Michael Jackson, and it really is just WAY too loud. Some remasters are magnificent, while others are just unbearable. What about noise-shaping and dithering? My background is not technical, but I guess it is safe to say that - back then - these silver discs weren't as sophisticated as today.įor example, I think that the new Beatles remasters are great. Of course one has to distinguish between analogue and digital recording, but whatever is the case: converters weren't as good as today. Sometimes there's obviously a big advantage because older releases are not as compressed as modern discs, but people should keep in mind that the CD wasn't as good as today around the time it came out. In my opinion, non-remastered CDs are not ALWAYS better. Originally Posted by non-entity /img/forum/go_quote.gif
0 kommentar(er)
