Hi
I was going to post this in the Kind of Blue thread in the Music Section but think it belongs in a general discussions
That a person doesn't like it is OK. To each his own. I do believe however that this album seem to enthrall most if not ALL Jazz lovers. It is that good for a Jazz Lover. Let put this aside.
Most people do not realize what mastering of any album is about. What you hear from an album is dependent of mastering. Same recording will sound VASTLY different with different mastering. The mastering process involve quite a bit of adding and subtracting what was on the recording ... We have Mastering Engineers here in this forum and I would like them to chime in ( Bruce B ) .. Where are you ? ).. Suffice to say that for a given recording mastering can make or break what one finally hears.
Now about the different format for a given piece. I have 3 Pieces for KOB. An old Columbia Stereo (6 eyes) which escaped unscathed a calamity I tend not to name, a Classic Record 4 Pieces and a Columbia/Sony Gold Super-Bit-Mapped ... They ALL sound different. Not slightly in any way, 3 different pieces for anyone who is not deaf. I find myself listening to the CD more often becuse of practicality, it is a simple thing and now that it is on an HDD , a click of the mouse and music ...!! In term of pure sonics the Classic Records are much better.
Now the question comes, are the differences due to the media or the mastering? How much of the comparison we make on the quality of the medium are due to the mastering?
We must understand that the Music Industry is ..well .. an Industry .. They produce what they believe their customers wants. Yes, once in a while, they do thing out of the conviction of its value. They are after the profit however and one way to get that is to produce what in their mind the customer wants, so mastering DOES take into account who will listen to the product and on/ through what it will be played... So are the differences finally due to the medium or the mastering.. I don't think it is an easy answer.
It remains however that a medium maybe intrinsically superior to another. I will sidestep the analog vs digital debate but R2R seems superior to LP thus I would expect the R2R of a given piece to sound better than the LP.
This goes even further than thinking that one can apply the same process to master an LP and A CD.. Not really, there steps taken in mastering an LP that are not necessary in Cd and (maybe) vice versa .. So how do we compare the different formats? How can we infer from these tests the intrinsic value of a medium?
I sincerely are welcoming the input of people actively involved in this last but definitive steps, the mastering process on the subject ..
Frantz
I was going to post this in the Kind of Blue thread in the Music Section but think it belongs in a general discussions
That a person doesn't like it is OK. To each his own. I do believe however that this album seem to enthrall most if not ALL Jazz lovers. It is that good for a Jazz Lover. Let put this aside.
Most people do not realize what mastering of any album is about. What you hear from an album is dependent of mastering. Same recording will sound VASTLY different with different mastering. The mastering process involve quite a bit of adding and subtracting what was on the recording ... We have Mastering Engineers here in this forum and I would like them to chime in ( Bruce B ) .. Where are you ? ).. Suffice to say that for a given recording mastering can make or break what one finally hears.
Now about the different format for a given piece. I have 3 Pieces for KOB. An old Columbia Stereo (6 eyes) which escaped unscathed a calamity I tend not to name, a Classic Record 4 Pieces and a Columbia/Sony Gold Super-Bit-Mapped ... They ALL sound different. Not slightly in any way, 3 different pieces for anyone who is not deaf. I find myself listening to the CD more often becuse of practicality, it is a simple thing and now that it is on an HDD , a click of the mouse and music ...!! In term of pure sonics the Classic Records are much better.
Now the question comes, are the differences due to the media or the mastering? How much of the comparison we make on the quality of the medium are due to the mastering?
We must understand that the Music Industry is ..well .. an Industry .. They produce what they believe their customers wants. Yes, once in a while, they do thing out of the conviction of its value. They are after the profit however and one way to get that is to produce what in their mind the customer wants, so mastering DOES take into account who will listen to the product and on/ through what it will be played... So are the differences finally due to the medium or the mastering.. I don't think it is an easy answer.
It remains however that a medium maybe intrinsically superior to another. I will sidestep the analog vs digital debate but R2R seems superior to LP thus I would expect the R2R of a given piece to sound better than the LP.
This goes even further than thinking that one can apply the same process to master an LP and A CD.. Not really, there steps taken in mastering an LP that are not necessary in Cd and (maybe) vice versa .. So how do we compare the different formats? How can we infer from these tests the intrinsic value of a medium?
I sincerely are welcoming the input of people actively involved in this last but definitive steps, the mastering process on the subject ..
Frantz