So I misused a word, instead of recorded I should have said re-mastered, it's all the same, older especially originals, usually have better dynamic range and to my ear sound better.
Because of it I don't know, maybe I just don't like re-masters even if they're the same level, as the originals, but then there's the dynamic range which I prefer to point the finger at, because the DR website let me see this, and it gels with what I'm hearing.
Cheers George |
kalali
It looks like the older the recording the higher the dynamic range. Just scrolling through the chart, regardless of the artist, the lossless CDs from late 80's and 90's all have consistently higher DR. This is completely the opposite of the common wisdom. Anyone else noticed this or am I just misreading the numbers?
geoffkait
kalali
It looks like the older the recording the higher the dynamic range. Just scrolling through the chart, regardless of the artist, the lossless CDs from late 80’s and 90’s all have consistently higher DR. This is completely the opposite of the common wisdom. Anyone else noticed this or am I just misreading the numbers?
uh, that’s kind of the whole point. The industry has become more and more aggressive in compressing dynamic range in favor of loudness. This all starting about 20 years ago. Check out the more recent recordings in the past few years, LP, SACD, CD, even downloads. The trend is not your friend. You’ll notice many of the recent releases are all in the red. Hel-loo!
You guys only just find that out?
https://forum.audiogon.com/posts/1408833 Cheers George |
It looks like the older the recording the higher the dynamic range
Just inferring this is what I said in my first post, and gave the DR website for everyone to check. Cheers George |
I had an audio session at Deqx’s Allan Langfords place on Monday and took a 1st issue Sade Diamond Life CD he’s into downloads, here’s what I said about it on the SNA forum. " PS the original European 1983 Sade (Diamond Life) on cd that I bought along, it blitzed all the versions (about 5 of them) Al had on his 20 terabytes of H/D hi-rez, re-mastered, re-con-cocked downloads even the MoFi one he had." not one of them stood up to the original 16/44 1st edition. http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Sade&album=diamond+life Cheers George |
dynamic range isn’t the only factor No there are other factors, but to me it’s the most important to start with and you can do something about it now, and the DR website let’s you be the controller of what you buy today. Cheers George |
|
|
Most of the re-masters I’ve heard are just louder and more compressed.
Typical example was the Moody Blues On the Threshold of a Dream, the original Decca release is so much better than the MFSL re-master.
Sure the Decca was a "little" raw, but the MFSL re-master was blunted and fat, no excitement in comparison.
Cheers George |
|
Mobil Fidelity Sound Labs only did one jafant, the one I linked to above.
Cheers George |
I’d love this, got the CD Issue/ cat no. and year it was done? I can see on the net he did a SACD version but the redbook layer of that was crap. All the SACD’s on the list show it was also compressed no DR, all done in 2003
For him to have done this, he would have had to get the original master tapes from that recording session 21 January 1972 .
Cheers George |
|
If you go to this website put in your artist and album you'll find usually the earliest original cd’s are the most dynamic, the later and remastered ones are just louder recorded and more compressed rubbish. http://dr.loudness-war.info/ Cheers George |
