Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g (Read 26039 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

[deleted]

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #1 –
hi,

Manowar rules! The Battle Hymns definitifly one of the best albums on this f... planet. I have the original version of it. Can't say anything about 24bit remastered versions because i haven't any albums in "both" versions. but Manowar rules!

best regards
Dezibel

--
Don't drink and Root!

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #2 –
its quite possible that post production work was done in 24-bit. once the cleaning and sequencing and mastering work is complete, studios tend to use a high quality dither and noise shaping algorithm (i.e. apogee VU22HR or waves IDR) to reduce the resolution to 16-bit, and from that they created a master disc. so in the end its a 16-bit product, not 24

>>>'Does anyone else agree that studio 24-bit remaster releases are not what they are always cracked up to be, and can even sound worse than the originals? '<<<

it is possible that the remaster can sound inferior to the original. remastering and restoring old recordings is a delicate work, and if its done in a sloppy manner it will sound shit
Be healthy, be kind, grow rich and prosper

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #3 –
Quote
Originally posted by TrNSZ


Now, I listened to this whole CD, and I think that it's not a HUGE improvement on my other non-remaster copies.  However, it IS better.  But that's not always the case with so-called "digital remasters".

I've often found that my original versions, or even my non-digital versions, sound better than some of these remasters!  I can cite a few of these, right off the top of my head.  Steve Miller remastered re-releases for example... While you get an improvement in the highs and the low bass, you seem to also get more noise and background hiss, and that totally ruins it for me! 

Does anyone else agree that studio 24-bit remaster releases are not what they are always cracked up to be, and can even sound worse than the originals?  And can we sue the bastards for this?!





yup...


the world of digital music is strange....

the most thinkable reason behind the "remaster" qualety...
is the q.. of the media...

example...  when the californiacation album was released in
scandinavia.. i got a pre-release from the distributor.

i did make some copyes of it.. with this config:
a teac 55s, discjuggler and ritek`s "noname" 80min.. cdr

resoult: exelent remaster.. (btw.. the mpegtv codec padus is
using.. is perfect for replica.1 to 1..)

a buddy made a few more copyes.. using a liteon, nero and
T.Y- discs.. poorly resoult..(compared with mine..)

i can name you more examples.. but i think you get the picture..

most of the record world.. is buying T.Y discs.. for duplication..
some are extremely high qualety.. some not
some companies even get pirated discs.

anyway.. with my copyes.. this is what happend..

1. the overall dynamic opend upp.. much more clearer sound..
ritcher to..

2. the mid frequency was fantastic...

3. the bass/lower freq. was boosted..

so choise of media are alfaNomega when qualety regards..

most of the"remastered" albums i have listened to..(in studio)
was exelent.. in downmix..
but bad media have ruined the listening pleasure

ps. MANOWAR still ROCKS......

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #4 –
Quote
Originally posted by n68

anyway.. with my copyes.. this is what happend..

1. the overall dynamic opend upp.. much more clearer sound..
ritcher to.. 

2. the mid frequency was fantastic...

3. the bass/lower freq. was boosted..


Let me get this straight, you are claiming that using "quality" cd-r's did this? 

Umm....

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #5 –
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
Let me get this straight, you are claiming that using "quality" cd-r's did this?
I've seen people argue that by using high-quality CD-R's with lower error rates, or CD-R's with the black bottom, improve the sound by either reducing jitter or by keeping the laser light from refracting all over the place.

Whether these claims have any credibility whatsoever, I have no idea, but I doubt it. Would anyone with technical knowledge on the subject care to explain if and why these claims are false, or post a link to a site that does?

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #6 –
Remastering doesn't usually mean making a copy of a CD.

However, standalone CD players may perform better provided with a high quality medium. Block errors and jitter may cause significant loss of audio data, which the CD player tries to mask with varying success.

A quote from http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html.

Quote
Periodic fluctuations in the time base (#1 above) can cause spurious tones to appear at low levels, blocking our ability to hear critical ambient decay and thus truncating the dynamic range of the reproduction. Often this type of jitter is caused by clock leakage. It is analogous to scrape flutter in analog recorders.


I recall some tests about bad quality media playback were made. These tests showed attenuated and distorted high/low frequency band and several other effects. Sadly I can't seem to remember the address for this site.

When a CD is digitally extracted, preferably with EAC, and listened through HDD there should be no jitter errors or anything.

Remastering -- "Make CDs from the past sound like CDs of today". In other words, squeeze out dynamics and normalize to 106%. People enjoy clipping and 1.1 dB of dynamics .

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #7 –
http://www.digido.com ,"jitter" article. Then have a look into the FAQ, where many points of the article are discussed.

Basics :

-Different CDR have a different sound, because of jitter.
-CD players can be more or less sensitive to the quality of the media. On a given player, two different CDR will be easily recognizeable, while being nearly indistinguishable with another player.
-Professional top of the art digital-to-analog converters should eliminate jitter and make all CDR sound equal to a pressed one in theory.
-How the jitter is transmitted from the CDR to the digital output, no one knows (it could be the servo-engine of the CD spoiling the power supply, so that the master clock becomes unstable), and unfortunately, the apparatus to measure all the jitter spectrum of an SPDIF output are out of reach for Joe Tester.
-Jitter is not cumulative. When the data pass through asynchronous devices, such as hard discs, the jitter is reset until the next clock (when the data is clocked in order to be burned on CDR). Therefore, as long as there is no data loss, it is possible to make a good sounding copy from a bad sounding one with a computer.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #8 –
I just purchased two remastered albums yesterday:
- Suck On This by Primus
- Frizzle Fry by Primus

I have the original, hard to find copies of both of these albums. The remastered copy of Frizzle Fry sounds very clean. A little better (to my ears anyway) than the original copy.

Suck On This has some major flaws throughout. In a few places the music just seems to skip for no reason. Other than the obvious flaws, it doesn't sound any different to me.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #9 –
Quote
Originally posted by niktheblak
When a CD is digitally extracted, preferably with EAC, and listened through HDD there should be no jitter errors or anything


"Jitter errors" have nothing to do with jitter in a digital output. It's a mistracking causing a click during a digital extraction. It must not be mistaken for jitter.
"Anything" is another matter.
Jitter is the same thing as wow and flutter, but for a digital stream. In an SPDIF stream, the data must come evenly spaced in time. If a data comes a little late or a little early, it prevents the converter to work accurately.
On the hard disc, a wav file has no defined jitter, because the data is not clocked. We can't tell if the data is early or late until it's actually played.
Ripping a CD, there is no jitter either, because the data is ripped in bursts. It is neither late nor early since it's not expected to come on the hard disc at a given time.

But when you play the wav file, the soundcard clocks the data in order to send it to its converters or to the digital output.

Therefore one must not believe that a computer with a digital output is a jitter free source. In fact, the digital output has the jitter of the soundcard.

FWIW, In short listening tests, I found an SB live SPDIF output sounding inferior to the one of a standalone Yamaha CDX 860 player (450 €), and a Marian Marc 2's sounding superior (playing a wav extracted from the CD played by the Yamaha) (Sony DTC55ES as converter, AKG K400 headphones).

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #10 –
Led Zeppelin 1. The digital re-master generally sounds better except for "youre time is gonna come" which has unacceptable background hiss during the initial organ sequence.

Yellow Submarine by the Beatles on the other hand is awork of art, so I guess as always its in the skilll equipment and hearing of the sound engineer.:confused:

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #11 –
Dire Straits - On Every Street. Original recording made in 1991, fully digital already, and sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. (It's for me the best recording I've ever heard.)

In 1996, a "Dire Straits Remastered" series was released, all albums "Remastered by Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering" using "Super BitMapping". Even the 1991 album, although fully digitally recorded already (like the one before, 1985), was remastered - with a not too good result. (Much more bass on most tracks, too much in fact - that's the only difference, and it totally destroys the sound.)

Does anybody know more about this Bob Ludwig character? I have got quite a few CDs that were mastered by him, and I have seen loads more.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #12 –
yup...


back to the issue of cd ® qualety...

get a atip reading from your cd-rom/writer..

ex: the cdr identifier by Gluckert/Wolf

Disc manufacturer
Dye type
media type
nominal capasity

usualy.. the higher(from 7. and upp..) dye typ. the better audio capabilities


lego------






On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #13 –
Thanks for the clarification, Pio2001!

My facts were not completely clear on the topic of jitter in playing vs. copying audio data. One always learns something new .

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #14 –
Quote
Originally posted by n68

example...  when the californiacation album was released in 
scandinavia.. i got a pre-release from the distributor.

Are you just referring to your CDR copies of it as 'remasters' or do you mean that there is actually a studio 24bit remaster of californication available? If the latter, could you give me some more info on it? I love this album, but thought it sounded kind of poorly mastered, so if theres a real remaster I would love to hear it.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #15 –
Quote
Originally posted by kennedyb4
Yellow Submarine by the Beatles on the other hand is awork of art, so I guess as always its in the skilll equipment and hearing of the sound engineer.:confused:

Keep in mind, the songs on the recent reissue of yellow submarine aren't just remasters, they're actually complete remixes. Not 'remix' in the sense of a techno-house-dance remix (heh) but actually redone the mixing (and mastering of course) phase of production - rebalanced levels and rearranged stereo placement... you can hear whole new instruments/parts that got lost in the mix on the originals, and the stereo images sound a lot more natural - the beatles were really into gimmicky stereo tricks, frequently putting certain instruments or vocals on only one channel or the other, with virtually no 'center channel'. The new mixes sound alot more modern.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #16 –
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom


Let me get this straight, you are claiming that using "quality" cd-r's did this? 

Umm....


That's amazing. I didn't realize a "1" or a "0" could be improved upon by using different media. So then, better CDR's  would produce a more pronounced "1", and possibly a less than zero "0"


I'm with you......Ummmmmmmm......


-indybrett
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #17 –
Quote
from digido.com
When I started in this business, I was skeptical that there could be sonic differences between CDs that demonstrably contained the same data. But over time, I have learned to hear the subtle (but important) sonic differences between jittery (and less jittery) CDs.
Okay, I'm convinced now. I doubt I'll ever hear a difference in my lifetime, but it's nice to know that there's one more thing I should probably worry about when trying to burn a music CD

OT: The Californication album sounds like utter crap. I like the music but the album is so clipped I can't listen to more than one song at a time. My Parallel Universe MPC got a Replaygain value of -14.22dB! The album gain is -12.97dB... it was a remarkable engineering feat to make the music even audible. This album needs a remaster, pronto.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #18 –
yup...


you are quite right indybrett...
the binary string ain`t changing.. but the pulse modulation
differ in the block/sector size..


& yes randum.. a 24bit californiacation is out there on ftp..
ill try to look it upp...

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #19 –
Quote
Originally posted by n68

& yes randum.. a 24bit californiacation is out there on ftp..
ill try to look it upp...


Oh cool... if you find it up somewhere, could you let me know where? I own a legal copy of the album, so I don't even think it would be illegal. I suppose the remaster would be technically considered a different product, but the mastering of the original falls into the category of 'defective product warranting free replacement' IMHO

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #20 –
"My Parallel Universe MPC got a Replaygain value of -14.22dB! The album gain is -12.97dB... it was a remarkable engineering feat to make the music even audible. This album needs a remaster, pronto."

How did you come up with this information, is it done automatically for you or do you have to manually toy with it until it sounds right? Thanks Jeff

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #21 –
get a atip reading from your cd-rom/writer..

ex: the cdr identifier by Gluckert/Wolf

Disc manufacturer
Dye type
media type
nominal capasity

usualy.. the higher(from 7. and upp..) dye typ. the better audio capabilities


lego------

_______________
sins.n68

Well, golly gee thanks to you we have a whole new topic in which to discuss. Now everyone can get that program and discuss the best cdr and rw to write to. I must admit I'm indeed curious to know which of the lesser expensive ones available are considered the best. Thanks Jeff

NOTE: The above message was sincere I just wanted to sound a slightly bit scarastic just for the fun of it.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #22 –
Quote
Originally posted by Pio2001

On the hard disc, a wav file has no defined jitter, because the data is not clocked. We can't tell if the data is early or late until it's actually played.
Ripping a CD, there is no jitter either, because the data is ripped in bursts. It is neither late nor early since it's not expected to come on the hard disc at a given time.
But when you play the wav file, the soundcard clocks the data in order to send it to its converters or to the digital output.

Therefore one must not believe that a computer with a digital output is a jitter free source. In fact, the digital output has the jitter of the soundcard.


All of these apply to a CD player too. The data read from the transport is not clocked. The data written on a CD is sort of "scrambled" and has to be "de-scrambled" and reclocked before played. Any jitter present on the output of a CD player comes from the internal clock feeding the DAC, the same as with a sound card.

Any jitter present in the media, as long as there are no data errors, should be totally removed in any decent CD player.

Quote
Originally posted by n68

the binary string ain`t changing.. but the pulse modulation 
differ in the block/sector size.. 


????? What does that mean? There are no sectors in cd's, only 1 continuous data track.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #23 –
Quote
Originally posted by jjarmak
"My Parallel Universe MPC got a Replaygain value of -14.22dB! The album gain is -12.97dB... it was a remarkable engineering feat to make the music even audible. This album needs a remaster, pronto."

How did you come up with this information, is it done automatically for you or do you have to manually toy with it until it sounds right? Thanks Jeff
I just encoded the album with mppenc.exe (standard preset) and then ran Replaygain on the album. Those are the values it generated, which are by far the highest I've ever seen, even on the hyper-compressed pop tracks.

Of course you can set the Replaygain value yourself to whatever you want, but that really defeats the purpose.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #24 –
Quote
Originally posted by jjarmak
get a atip reading from your cd-rom/writer.. 

ex: the cdr identifier by Gluckert/Wolf 

Disc manufacturer 
Dye type 
media type 
nominal capasity 

usualy.. the higher(from 7. and upp..) dye typ. the better audio capabilities 
------
Well, golly gee thanks to you we have a whole new topic in which to discuss. Now everyone can get that program and discuss the best cdr and rw to write to. I must admit I'm indeed curious to know which of the lesser expensive ones available are considered the best. Thanks Jeff
This kind of stuff is usually discussed more in-depth on CD-recording forums. For more discussion on media quality, try going to the forums at www.cdrinfo.com, www.cdmediaworld.com or www.cdfreaks.com . Beware, there could be a lot of misinformation on these boards, so take everything with a grain of salt, especially anything regarding audio compression