arnyk wrote: > Skipping over the fact that the well-known limitations of 1969 analog > recording makes the claim of "high resolution" a blatant fraud, there > also seems to be a misunderstanding of what remastering involves. Most > significantly to the current question, it is not remixing. The > technical quality of a 15 ips half-track master is audibly worse than > the same material recorded from the same source at 44/16. Ideally, the > recording was tracked digitally, and this was done fairly often but not > universally for up to 10 years before the advent of the CD (1983). > > The starting point for any remastering was at best the original > 2-track 15 ips mixdown master. It might have been even one of the later > versions, such as the master tape used for creating the generation of > master tapes that were sent off to the disk reproduction part of the > process. > > In those days the process went something like this: > > > Multitrack master -> Mixdown master -> Master tape for production -> one > or more cutting masters -> cutting ->plating -> pressing. > > Multiple cutting masters were often created when the disc was > simultaneously pressed at a number of different pressing plants. > > Usually there were different masters for different major markets such as > UK/Europe versus USA. > > I had the good fortune to be a guest of Uncle Sam in Germany during the > late 1960s and was able to enjoy the generally superior mastering and > pressing work that was done over there. I had US and UK/German versions > of about 100 disks, and in general they sounded different. Usually > better mastering and less compression on the UK/European versions. The > pressing quality for European releases was also generally far better. > They were also sold in the US by specialty stores at elevated prices. > Even the jackets were better produced. > > There are very few extant known examples of remixing. One related to an > assortment of Elton John tracks. > > Remixing can involve serious work. Remastering is always simpler and > often involves as little as rerecording with additional equalization, > IOW new baked-in tone control settings.
Hi Arny, Thanks for your detailed response which filled in some gaps in my knowledge. I do not suggest that the 24/192 box into which the recording has been fitted can make the change to the sound I have described. However since the recording was released on vinyl in 1969, it can also not have had any digital processing in the recording chain if you're right about the dawn of digital processing, which I'm sure you are. So now there can be nothing that could increase the dynamics of one version vis-à-vis the other (let alone extend the decay on a cymbal crash) since both must original from the same analogue 2 channel master tape? That is, if I take your point correctly. Unfortunately, I checked both versions of track 2 back-to-back again today & I am still clearly hearing the reported difference. Will PM Wombat for one of his yellow pills before he goes to bed... Dave :confused: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
