mijostyn: " Hold on there Tim. Most music after 1990 is recorded in hi res digital.
Older issue may still be analog but much of that has been digitized."
Hello mijostyn,
I do not believe it’s true that most music after 1990 is recorded in hi-res digital or, more specifically, most music has not been generally recorded ’directly’ to hi-res digital. My reasoning is that, if music recorded after 1990 actually was recorded direct to hi-res digital, it would be obvious to all since they would perform and sound a whole heck of a lot better than they actually do.
My main point is that the provenance of master recordings, if accurate, are excellent tools in determining the actual sound quality potential of those master recordings and the source material copies made from them. Statements that "the master was recorded direct to hi-res digital", or even "the master was recorded and mixed direct to hi-res digital", are very good indicators of high quality performers.
Statements similar to "the recording was remastered to hi-res digital", are very good indicators of music, originally recorded directly to a non-hi-res bucket or format, and then merely transferred to a much higher capacity hi-res digital bucket or format. In my previous post, I was stating my opinion that these transfers are best avoided for optimum results.
I only mentioned HD Tracks, as a prime example of a purveyor of these source material recordings with poor performance due to poor provenances, because it was my disappointment with their "remastered to hi-res digital" products that initially spurred me to investigate and discover the critical, but rarely mentioned, importance of master recording provenances.
I don’t believe HD Tracks is the only seller that tends to obscure, or at least avoid mentioning, the critical importance that master recording provenance plays in determining the quality of their products. I think this is a marketing mistake and that a better strategy would entail educating consumers on the truth, emphasizing the very obvious sound quality differences between transfers and direct to hi-res digital recordings and increasing profits by charging a premium for the good stuff. I’d definitely and gladly pay a premium.
My current opinion is that provenance is destiny concerning the sound quality of recordings. Ideally, recording companies and musicians will recognize this fact and make recording masters directly to hi-res digital the new standard method.
Tim
Older issue may still be analog but much of that has been digitized."
Hello mijostyn,
I do not believe it’s true that most music after 1990 is recorded in hi-res digital or, more specifically, most music has not been generally recorded ’directly’ to hi-res digital. My reasoning is that, if music recorded after 1990 actually was recorded direct to hi-res digital, it would be obvious to all since they would perform and sound a whole heck of a lot better than they actually do.
My main point is that the provenance of master recordings, if accurate, are excellent tools in determining the actual sound quality potential of those master recordings and the source material copies made from them. Statements that "the master was recorded direct to hi-res digital", or even "the master was recorded and mixed direct to hi-res digital", are very good indicators of high quality performers.
Statements similar to "the recording was remastered to hi-res digital", are very good indicators of music, originally recorded directly to a non-hi-res bucket or format, and then merely transferred to a much higher capacity hi-res digital bucket or format. In my previous post, I was stating my opinion that these transfers are best avoided for optimum results.
I only mentioned HD Tracks, as a prime example of a purveyor of these source material recordings with poor performance due to poor provenances, because it was my disappointment with their "remastered to hi-res digital" products that initially spurred me to investigate and discover the critical, but rarely mentioned, importance of master recording provenances.
I don’t believe HD Tracks is the only seller that tends to obscure, or at least avoid mentioning, the critical importance that master recording provenance plays in determining the quality of their products. I think this is a marketing mistake and that a better strategy would entail educating consumers on the truth, emphasizing the very obvious sound quality differences between transfers and direct to hi-res digital recordings and increasing profits by charging a premium for the good stuff. I’d definitely and gladly pay a premium.
My current opinion is that provenance is destiny concerning the sound quality of recordings. Ideally, recording companies and musicians will recognize this fact and make recording masters directly to hi-res digital the new standard method.
Tim