Otherwise they wouldn't have created them in the first place. No pun intended.Īs a general rule the newer remasters are better than the old (digital) masters. Sorry I had to say it as I see it way to often. We'd still be painting cave walls if the world was guided by such thoughts. I think this is a naive and nostalgic concept as everything old is better than the new. Knowing that it was transferred from tape with a lot of care and modern converters feels good. I do it this way: if I can put my hands on a newer remaster that is not a victim of this loudness cr*p, I take it. I guess one can say that the more commercial the object is, the higher is the probability that there's clipping in it. I've got the "25th Anniversary Edition" of "Thriller" by Michael Jackson, and it really is just WAY too loud. Some remasters are magnificent, while others are just unbearable. What about noise-shaping and dithering? My background is not technical, but I guess it is safe to say that - back then - these silver discs weren't as sophisticated as today.įor example, I think that the new Beatles remasters are great. Of course one has to distinguish between analogue and digital recording, but whatever is the case: converters weren't as good as today. Sometimes there's obviously a big advantage because older releases are not as compressed as modern discs, but people should keep in mind that the CD wasn't as good as today around the time it came out. In my opinion, non-remastered CDs are not ALWAYS better.
0 kommentar(er)
