Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Master recordings then vs now (Read 2938 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Master recordings then vs now

I used to collect the CDs put out by the DCC, Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs and Audio Fidelity labels.  These were/are labels that put out CDs that are mastered from the original master tapes.  Almost all of them are re-masters of older releases when recording and mastering was all analog. The key word in "original master tapes" seems to be "original".

ProStudio Masters releases 24-bit/96khz files that are labeled as "Studio Masters".  Quite a few of these are recent albums where the recording and mastering was almost certainly digital. 

Forget the high-rez stuff that probably doesn't make an audible difference. Since digital copes are all the same, what difference does it make if it's an original  studio master or not? Given that say Breaking Benjamin's "Dark Before Dawn" was all digital in the studio, if the bit rates are ignored, wouldn't this download be the same as my CD?  This is not the same thing that the 3 aforementioned labels do, is it?

Thanks,
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile

Master recordings then vs now

Reply #1
Keep in mind that 'mastering' originally meant  adjusting the sound of the original mixdown master to suit a particular consumer delivery medium.  This mattered when LPs were the most common delivery medium; they could not handle full-scale dynamics and frequency ranges, so ranges were attenuated, bass was summed to mono, etc.


'Mastering' acquired other meanings since those early days...



Master recordings then vs now

Reply #2
Quote
Since digital copes are all the same, what difference does it make if it's an original studio master or not?
If it was remastered there could be some noise reduction, or EQ, or it could be a Loudness War victim. 

So, the remastered version could be an improvement or it could be degraded depending on the sound quality of the original master, and your taste.

If  Mobile Fidelity can get hold of an unmastered digital mix, they could potentially release a copy without modern loudness-war compression & limiting.  That would be considered an improvement assuming you like musical dynamics.

Master recordings then vs now

Reply #3
@krabapple  Thank you that puts it into perspective.


This wasn't a question about the inherent quality of the masters used.  Let me put it another way: The point of the Original Master Recordings is that with master tapes you'd have generation loss as copies were made of copies and those were used as master tapes.  With digital, there is no generation loss from copy to copy, so all else being equal, does "Studio Master" matter when talking about modern recordings where a lot of stuff is done through a DAW. I'd say "no".  I also note that they're being advertised as "Studio Masters" and not "Original Studio Masters",
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile

Master recordings then vs now

Reply #4
From their About page:
"We offer high-resolution digital masters received directly from major and independent record labels (never from media transfers)"
"ProStudioMasters.com, a new premium online music store specializing in high-resolution audio downloads (original studio master sound quality)"

Judging from this and the haphazard availability of formats for each title in their catalog, it looks like they just buy the best digital files the record companies are offering, and assume that the material is never sourced from CD or vinyl, but rather comes from some master recording, be it on tape or digital. (No reason to believe there's anything misrepresented here, but I doubt anyone really verifies, either.)

I would not assume that the phrase "studio master" has any meaning beyond this. It is whatever the record company decides to supply as the "master", and I highly doubt that ProStudioMasters obtains anything other than digital files. It's unlikely any label is going to ship original stereo mixdowns on multiple reels of disintegrating 40-year-old tape from their archives to some random digital vendor to bake, digitize and remaster. They're just sending the best digital transfers that they already made in the last 25 years. In some cases it may well be the same source material that was remastered for previous CD/SACD/DVDA releases.

Master recordings then vs now

Reply #5
With digital, there is no generation loss from copy to copy, so all else being equal, does "Studio Master" matter when talking about modern recordings where a lot of stuff is done through a DAW. I'd say "no".
Not to suggest it matters, but while you and I can probably do a bit-perfect copy easily enough, you'd be surprised how difficult some recording studios seem to find it. There a some CDs where the tracks are clearly ripped from other CDs (not always perfectly), re-dithered (or worse), and then mastered onto the new CD. I don't have any examples where this is bad enough to be audible, but I have some compilations where this is obviously the case, and a couple of artist-albums where the release in one country is copied from the CD release in another country.

Cheers,
David.


Master recordings then vs now

Reply #6
but I have some compilations where this is obviously the case, and a couple of artist-albums where the release in one country is copied from the CD release in another country.


How to tell that it isn't just so that the two got identical files?


I bought this album on FLAC from the Drag City label, and got an XLD rip log.

Master recordings then vs now

Reply #7
but I have some compilations where this is obviously the case, and a couple of artist-albums where the release in one country is copied from the CD release in another country.

How to tell that it isn't just so that the two got identical files?
...because it's not a bit perfect copy  I know of one with obvious ripping errors. I had two copies of one release: one that had obviously been re-dithered from the other.

Cheers,
David.

Master recordings then vs now

Reply #8
How to tell that it isn't just so that the two got identical files?
...because it's not a bit perfect copy  I know of one with obvious ripping errors.


Huh, didn't I even realize that ... https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...mp;#entry906532

Pink Floyd, even. One sample on my copy (which is the majority in the AccurateRip base!) looks suspiciously like it is interpolated, but with absolutely no sign of C2 errors being produced, trying a lot of drives and dBpoweramp/EAC/CUETools.


one that had obviously been re-dithered from the other.


Is that what I get when running foo_bitcompare and each track-pair produces differences, but with ridiculously low difference peaks? If so, should one then look for the most noise-alike LSBs?
(I have some that are harder to explain, typical peak around -30 dB.)

Master recordings then vs now

Reply #9
It could also simply be that there's a different pressing created with errant PCM data

I've seen this on multiple occasions. I've seen it with "holy grail" Japanese releases as well.

Regarding interpolation, I've seen errors involving dropped bytes, flipped bits as well as synchronization problems.