I don’t really understand this statement . The recording that I was
referring to, the Shostakovich Tenth Symphony with Nelsons and the
Boston SO, is a recent recording, issued as a CD and then a few weeks
later as a download in 3 resolutions. I would presume that it was only
“mastered” once, and never “remastered”,
Hi mahler123
Unfortunately, I know this is an unreliable inference. It has been shown over time that releases on different formats are mastered differently. Even different releases of the same recording on the same medium may have a different profile, including changes in:
- Compression
- Spectral balance (i.e. EQ)
- Channel separation.
It is possible to take a high resolution recording and down sample it, and put that on a CD, but without actually talking to the engineers responsible, I have no idea what happened.
Again, I don’t understand the point here. The original focus of the
thread was on modern DACs , the thesis being that current DACs enhance
Redbook so much that High Rez is irrelevant.
I think "irrelevant" is too strong a term, and if I said that I should correct it. My apologies. I meant, "a lot less desirable" . Saying modern DACs killed High rez was hyperbolic, which is kind of my brand. :)
Modern DACs bring out the best in everything, all resolutions. IMO they
do a better job of showing the distance between High Rez and Redbook.
Ok, but what if this isn't that High rez is better, but Redbook playback is bad? I mean, we have this bias that poor CD playback prooves high resolution is better data. What if it just poor CD performance?