Funny thing. Today I was doing some more of my comparisons and broke
out original pre 1990 CD versions and compared them to my vinyl rips
at 44.1/16 and 96/24 just to see how things matched or did'nt match.
I noticed on the back of almost all my comaprarison samples which
turns out originated as supposed analog recordings (not really)
apologies by the record companies because the Compact Disc had such
high resolution I might hear analog artifacts that they did not intend
me to hear. so.....
Turns out the vinyl versions of these recordings are higher resolution
than the Redbook CD counterparts made and mastered in the same time
period. In fact it confirmed my initial impression of loss of
information during busy parts of the music or where transients were
strong. The higher bit rate rips handled those issues better than a
factory issued redbook CD made from the exact same master and at the
same time period. Separation turns out was also much better on the
vinyl despite the fact science prooves the Redbook CD by very nature
has a better S/N and separation spec.
We are quite possibly doomed here so I reccomend we archive as much
good music as possible for the future via a method that preserves it
properly.
On Feb 26, 1:29 pm, realafrica <paul.gam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I read the stuff on these link and consider most of it as bullshit.
> It's still compressed crap generally. With the best on offer being CD
> quality compressed in a new way.
> The most worrying thing is music producers and engineers being led by
> the nose by Apple, just because they have cornered the distribution
> market.
> Non of the criteria being used really relates to what is best for the
> music reproduction.
> Not only is Apple nose ringing the music industry, but so is the mass
> of the population on the planet, those sleepy sheep that can't hear
> the difference between a MP3 and a lowly compressed to hell CD, let
> alone have any idea about what real lossless music on SACD, DVD-A or
> vinyl can sound like.
> We are doomed by these lemming to a future of lossless music mass
> suicide and the best we can hope for is whatever the lowest common
> denominator of the day is, currently MP3.
>
> On Feb 24, 10:13 pm, "Noreltny-gmail" <norel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I agree! And to make their download products more appealing, include high
> > quality artwork and a PDF of the same sort of information normally included
> > with a CD booklet, like liner notes. Since you're not limited by the ~ 5" x
> > 5" size of the plastic jewel case, use standard letter size as the sheet
> > size for the PDF, which will provide space for a lot of interesting
> > information about how the album was made, biographies of the artists, etc.
> > And the album art should be a high enough quality, so when printed at your
> > local color printer (or if you have your own good quality inkjet), you get
> > very nice looking prints. Then, paying US $15 for a lossless (CD quality)
> > album might be more attractive. For music that is popular with teenagers,
> > maybe they should consider selling a downloadable digital copy of
> > artist/album posters, which could also be printed at local business who have
> > large format color printing services.
>
> > Plus, they could start offering higher resolution versions and surround
> > versions.
>
> > If only we were in charge!!
>
> > From: surroundsound@googlegroups.com [mailto:surroundsound@googlegroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Stephen Disney
> > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:34 PM
> > To: surroundsound@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: new Mastered for iTunes section
>
> > All this trouble CAUSED by Apple... why not just offer an ALAC download
> > option... or God forbid, FLAC.
> > S
>
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Ray Shackleford <mos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/02/mastered-for-itunes-how-aud...
> > neers-tweak-tunes-for-the-ipod-age.ars
>
> > Slightly more info here.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "SurroundSound" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "SurroundSound" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
No comments:
Post a Comment