Thread: Kate Bush

Posts: 18
Page: prev 1 2

Post by rammiepie August 25, 2014 (11 of 18)
AmonRa said:

The last sentence was just irony/sarcasm. The serious message was in the first paragraph. Low/middle-resolution material can not be turned into high resolution by transferring it to a high resolution carrier. Basic rule of information science, widely broken by record companies pushing SACD remasters from CD quality and even lesser quality material (a.k.a tape). Akin to buying a pint of beer in a one gallon container, paying four times the price.

Surprisingly, AmonRa, CD quality masters formed the Donald Fagen "Nightfly" and Dire Strait's "Brothers In Arms" 5.1 SACD/DVD~A releases with stellar results by carefully going back to the digital multitrack masters and 'creatively' crafting superior mixes in deference to the RBCD releases.

IMHO, the same can be done for Kate Bush's "Hounds Of Love" which was a great sounding RBCD!

Additionally, Paul Simon's "Graceland" was also an early DDD recording which I understand already has an unreleased 5.1 mix and would be a spectacular sounding hi res release, as well!

Post by fausto K August 25, 2014 (12 of 18)
rammiepie said:
...

Additionally, Paul Simon's "Graceland" was also an early DDD recording ...

No, not true. Graceland was recorded in full analogue, not digital! And neither was Hounds of Love. Of both, excellent remasters from those analogue master tapes have been released on recent vinyl, as I wrote earlier in this thread re Hounds of Love. (for Graceland, the original engineer Roy Halee did the remaster & recut.)

Post by rammiepie August 25, 2014 (13 of 18)
fausto K said:

No, not true. Graceland was recorded in full analogue, not digital! And neither was Hounds of Love. Of both, excellent remasters from those analogue master tapes have been released on recent vinyl, as I wrote earlier in this thread re Hounds of Love. (for Graceland, the original engineer Roy Halee did the remaster & recut.)

Thanks for the clarification, fausto K.

But my point remains that unlike AmonRa's assertion that early DDD and analogue recordings do not benefit from hi res transfers (especially 'meticulously' remixed into 5.1)......it just isn't true!

Post by AmonRa August 25, 2014 (14 of 18)
rammiepie said: AmonRa's assertion etc
New remix from original tapes or CD quality digital files might sound better than the original, but it would sound the same on CD also. I would say M&M SACD versus CD test showed at least that quite clearly.

MCH remixes are totally different matter of course, as RBCD can not hold more than stereo. There we are not talking about sound quality, but the number of channels.

Post by Alumni August 26, 2014 (15 of 18)
AmonRa said:

Why would that be? It is either tape with less than 1/1000 of dynamic range and detail even a CD can hold, and no HF extension, or 16/44 digital, with which up sampling does not help any as we well know. So what is this mysterious "HI-def audio treatment"?

Maybe your hearing just isn't that good if you can't hear the extra resolution of hi-res on the same mastering. I'll admit it's not always a big difference but it's certainly noticeable to me and I'm sure many others. So there's no need to make us feel like we're stupid or crazy if we feel differently. If there really was no benefit as you say, then mastering labels like Audio Fidelity wouldn't be offering reissues on the SACD format.

Post by AmonRa August 26, 2014 (16 of 18)
Alumni said:

If there really was no benefit, then mastering labels like Audio Fidelity wouldn't be offering reissues on the SACD format.

The benefit would be the money they make. There is a lot of stuff sold in the hi-fi world which gives no benefits what comes to audio quality, but if buyers want to buy the (scam) stuff and get some sort of mental satisfaction from that, and the seller is making a profit, it will go on.

Post by Alumni August 26, 2014 (17 of 18)
AmonRa said:

The benefit would be the money they make. There is a lot of stuff sold in the hi-fi world which gives no benefits what comes to audio quality, but if buyers want to buy the (scam) stuff and get some sort of mental satisfaction from that, and the seller is making a profit, it will go on.

I didn't want to start a debate, just to point out that your above post is a threadcrap, talk like that belongs on the Hydrogenaudio Forums, not here on SA-CD.net.

Post by onenairb August 26, 2014 (18 of 18)
Wilhelm—Xu Zhong-Rui said:

/showthread/116467/116601#116601

Ahh, so that's what Kate Bush looks like...

Dear oh dear another pointless huge photo.... Wilhelm, you do realise that this plays havoc with those using tablet devices. The picture is so big that the device renders the text of the discussion so small as to make it illegible and makes reading many of the forum threads you contribute too very frustrating...

Page: prev 1 2

Closed