JimmyBOD Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 I just read a press release from ABKCO Recrords claiming that the forthcoming 50th anniversary 180g clear vinyl Rolling Stones reissues will be "meticulously mastered from high-resolution audio files sourced from the original master tapes". What in the hell does this mean, exactly? It's still a digital master so not truly analog, right? Will it even matter? They claim it will sound better than CD but does that mean worse than the original analog tapes? Any insight from an audio engineer (or self proclaimed audio geek) who would know is greatly appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markok Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 I would assume its similar to what was done with 2012 The Beatles re-issues, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almightyseancore Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 flac? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Quik Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 They're releasing Exile on Main Street again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jase Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Unless you have an amazing set up, you probably won't notice much any way. Why not email the company that did the press release for this, and ask if its a digital remaster or a complete analogue remaster. Instead of assuming right away it's digital. Because nowhere in what you quoted does it mention digital. So you know, assumptions and all... bear801 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinyl Fury Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 'high resolution audio files sourced from the original analog tapes' : that means digital, pretty clearly. it doesn't say 'digital' because that's a naughty word. the Rage Against the Machine reissue was done the same way. They transfer the tape to high resolution digital space and do the remastering digitally. Why? It's easier. But I don't care because I wouldn't buy any of these. mrrom92 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hezagenius Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 The source for these vinyl resissues are the DSD files created by Bob Ludwig (I believe in 2002). I'm not clear if they are going to be remastered again specifically for these releases or if they will use the prior master. I have not heard the prior Stones DSD vinyl releases but I've read that they have been cleaned up quite a bit (could be good or bad depending on what you like). I've also read several reviews saying that there wasn't much, if any, loss of quality in sound from the original source since the quality wasn't perfect to begin with. But to answer your question - yes, the source is digital, not analog. Also, I believe that the Bob Ludwig DSD releases only go up to Sticky Fingers so no re-re-re-release of Exile...yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbrh2001 Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 They're releasing Exile on Main Street again? Probably a good idea, the last re-issue SUCKED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Quik Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Probably a good idea, the last re-issue SUCKEDHow so?Just read the press release, exile on Main Street isn't one of the records getting reissued is the first batch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youspinmeround Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 I have both of the stones vinyl box sets. All of them sound great. I would assume they are using what they did for this a few years ago but selling them seperate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotfactory Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 I would assume its similar to what was done with 2012 The Beatles re-issues, no? Which happen to sound terrific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcpherson123 Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 It really does irk me something fierce when they reissue records that were already recorded on tape and source them from a digital rendering of the analog masters. What the fuck? You don't need to remaster it to fit in with the current mastering style (i.e. loud, clipped shit mastering). It came from a specific era. It should be allowed to sound like it came from that era. moonbeams 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBOD Posted May 16, 2013 Author Share Posted May 16, 2013 I haven't heard the 2012 Beatles remasters yet (still waiting on mono) or the Rage re-issue from earlier this year (or was it last year already?). I suppose this technique can't sound any worse than my 32 bit 192Khz vinyl rips that sound pretty damn fantastic to me. I just think that if you're releasing a remastered (supposed) audiophile pressing of a previously issued record on vinyl, it should be a true analog process throughout. Assuming, of course, that the analog source is still available. Thanks for all the input! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexH. Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 I suppose this technique can't sound any worse than my 32 bit 192Khz vinyl rips that sound pretty damn fantastic to me. I, too, love enormously bloated audio files that extend to 4 times the range of human hearing. Emo Revival and gmoney 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrrom92 Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Better than cd, but not as good as a real vinyl pressing mastered properly. So I'll pass. It's a cash grab IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piecemeal Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Would love to hear from an expert but it was my impression that regardless of whether it's coming from the analog masters, on vinyl reissues it is standard practice to convert to high resolution audio files before pressing. I believe Steven Wilson is a proponent of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexH. Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 If they never shared that they converted to digital for mastering, no one would ever find out or hear a difference. "Fully analog" sounds cool, but at the end of the day it's a lot more work for little appreciable difference. firefoxUSSR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefoxUSSR Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Digital doesn't necessarily mean ruined dynamics / poor mastering. Just depends on the market. If the market is iPod & cheap cd players dynamics will be crushed. If it's the music snob market the dynamics will with rare exception be present. As far as analogue vs. digital... you can't tell. Crappy mastering, loud mastering, sub-CD sample rates, and poor manufacturing: you'll notice. I *ahem* previewed the hdtracks of these releases, they are exceptionally good sounding. I then put them on a backup HDD cuz I'm not that big of a fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markok Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 I have one of the DSD releases (Hot Rocks, EU pressing) and it sounds very sterile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.