On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:56:12 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 26/02/2017 6:56 AM, wrote:
Personally, I have yet to HEAR any of what people complained about
with EARLY CDs. Was this less than impressive sound attributed with
D-A convertors? Heck, no. I attribute the less than impressive sound
to A.) Not working with genuine First Generation Master tapes, B.)
Ill sounding Sony PCM machines that most didn't know how to operate,
C.) HUMANS that had no business (re)mastering music but loved the
money they gained, and D.) Not having the electronics (replaced by
DAW) as they did back in the days of analog mastering.
Some silly attempts to RECTIFY the ill CD audio was to use vacuum
tube equipment. Brilliant! As Doug Sax wrote, before RIP, is that MAN
will eventually get a better handle on digital sound.
A particular era of remastering is what I objected to most, and to a
degree original production.
That was partly to do with the limited digital technology of the time
(processing bit-dept achievable), coupled with the production idea that
make something sounding 'brighter' - sometimes glaringly - made it better..
geoff
On a Wrecking Crew CD set, some songs I heard early on now sound better. But, really, did they take the tapes and re-digitalize them? Maybe, but this music, though I love it, isn't worth the cost! The Animals, if you remember them, lots of higher frequencies are no existent. Maybe recorded that way. But, then again, they are on a Polygram or Polydor CD, so they may just have (spent) copies of Masters, probably recorded in UK.
You know, G', I used to listen to FM Stereo Radio, thought they received superior copies to promote, since mine didn't sound like theirs (vinly LPs). Even went as far as tracking down promo copies. Thing is, so few even talk about FM Stereo sound, why I don't actually believe the majority pay attention to what they are listen to.
Yeah, probably, early on, they didn't have the necessary tools to work in a digital world. They'd be luck to have a graphic equalizer.
Jack