CELEBRATING 53,000 Classical CD reviews on-line (Sept 2016); 21,000 page views each day. Return to MusicWeb International
John Quinn Listerning Room
Posted by Terence on January 12, 2024, 5:22 pm
Hello. I have so many incarnations of the Britten Requiem. I received the latest as a download at Christmas. I don't want to open a Pandora's box but I appreciate that these recordings get improved with remastering: altering balances, cleaning up distortion, fixing edits, etc., and I am happy to have them. But I will get these in a 16/44 download, no? What do I get by opting for a 24/96 etc. transfer? Thank you.
Terence, I'm afraid I don't know much about downloads.
I have looked on the Presto Classical website (simply because I'm familiar with that site). If you go to the relevant page of that site - https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/9538661--britten-war-requiem - you'll see that there appear to be four different options in which you can download the 2023 remastering.
I don't know if you've seen my detailed review of the latest version. If you look at https://musicwebinternational.com/2023/12/britten-war-requiem-decca/ there's a more detailed discussion of the 2023 remastering than was possible in the Listening Studio. However, I only experienced the recording as an SACD.
I hope that someone who is more knowledgeable than me when it comes to downloads will be able to give you a better-informed answer to your question.
Terence, the simple answer is absolutely nothing, provided:
1. The stereo transfer was made using the full capabilities of 16/44 technology, and 2. The same, and hopefully original, sources have been used for both.
Regarding the latter, unfortunately the major labels in particular have been milking the reissue market for decades with, as they admit now, copies of recordings that were not the originals on the feeble excuse that these were not restorable. As a recording engineer with experience back to analogue tape days, I know this is utter nonsense (see my May 2023 thread on "Baking the Ring"). Apart from repairing edits and possibly 'doctoring' some dropouts, there is no reason why a simple and competently done analogue-to-digital stereo transfer at 16/44 will not give you exactly what the production team heard in the control room at the time of the recording. Personally, I'd prefer no noise reduction.
I'm happy to expound further, particularly on so-called "hi-res", but as you say, Pandora's box is creaking ... A final comment, however, is that on this subject I'm often disappointed by how much MWI reviewers seem to be in thrall of the industry's hyperbole, instead of calling them out for their sheer cynicism.
Previous Message
Hello. I have so many incarnations of the Britten Requiem. I received the latest as a download at Christmas. I don't want to open a Pandora's box but I appreciate that these recordings get improved with remastering: altering balances, cleaning up distortion, fixing edits, etc., and I am happy to have them. But I will get these in a 16/44 download, no? What do I get by opting for a 24/96 etc. transfer? Thank you.
Useful input from DH; thank you. Those of us not experienced in or knowledgeable of the technical basis of these remastered reissues can do only one thing, which is to use our ears to determine whether a reissue presents any improvement over previous incarnations. Certainly, I hope that none of us automatically concedes or even wilfully imagines any such enhancement because we are " in thrall of the industry's hyperbole"; if that amelioration in sonic quality is discernible to me, I say so, but I am equally prepared to advise the punter not to bother if I think it is negligible or non-existent - that is one of the benefits of our remaining financially or commercially independent of any influence by the recording labels. Indeed, reviews here have both lauded the revitalisation of a classic recording but in some cases also confessed to hearing little difference from previous versions - and of course, sometimes a reissue of a recording is welcome simply because it was always very good.
Previous Message
Terence, the simple answer is absolutely nothing, provided:
1. The stereo transfer was made using the full capabilities of 16/44 technology, and 2. The same, and hopefully original, sources have been used for both.
Regarding the latter, unfortunately the major labels in particular have been milking the reissue market for decades with, as they admit now, copies of recordings that were not the originals on the feeble excuse that these were not restorable. As a recording engineer with experience back to analogue tape days, I know this is utter nonsense (see my May 2023 thread on "Baking the Ring"). Apart from repairing edits and possibly 'doctoring' some dropouts, there is no reason why a simple and competently done analogue-to-digital stereo transfer at 16/44 will not give you exactly what the production team heard in the control room at the time of the recording. Personally, I'd prefer no noise reduction.
I'm happy to expound further, particularly on so-called "hi-res", but as you say, Pandora's box is creaking ... A final comment, however, is that on this subject I'm often disappointed by how much MWI reviewers seem to be in thrall of the industry's hyperbole, instead of calling them out for their sheer cynicism.
Previous Message
Hello. I have so many incarnations of the Britten Requiem. I received the latest as a download at Christmas. I don't want to open a Pandora's box but I appreciate that these recordings get improved with remastering: altering balances, cleaning up distortion, fixing edits, etc., and I am happy to have them. But I will get these in a 16/44 download, no? What do I get by opting for a 24/96 etc. transfer? Thank you.
I hadn't expected such interesting replies. This conundrum only happens for me when a much-loved recording gets a purported remastering. So I purchase it, and it's often not even an improvement - it can get too bright and brittle or too bass-heavy whatever. The War Requiem and the Solti Ring are two that deserve care and like Mr Hutchinson said, there is no excuse for not going back to the master tapes. Apparently, and from what I have heard, these two examples are great successes.The Decca Turandot remastering, on the other hand, in 2014, was not. I don't care about the hi-res so much as the correction of distortion, bad editing, bad balancing, etc. Thank you all.
Ralph, I'm referring in particular to the review of those "classics of the gramophone" from the analogue stereo era, which are repeatedly reissued with alleged technological improvements when, in reality, the technology and the original tapes were there from the beginning of the digital age to do the job once and for all time. Too often where the reviewer apparently observes "improvement" in the sound, it will be attributed without question to 24/96, SACD, blu-ray audio, "remastering", or whatever u-beaut technology the label is promoting, usually compared with a previous CD version, when in fact the most likely explanation is that a fresher version of the source was used. Of course the reviewer wouldn't know for sure whether the original tapes were used, and hitherto the sophistry of those mastering descriptions may have led to false assumptions, but now we learn (as many of us have suspected for a long time) that in key recent reissues, the original tapes have finally been used (or have they?) for reasons that simply beggar belief. But does the review then ask why we've been deceived for all this time, shelling out for the previous reissues on the promise of "the real thing"? No, apparently not - for all that we read, the industry is once again our conquering hero, to whom we and music history owe a great debt.
And as sure as night follows day, there will be another reissue ....
Previous Message
Useful input from DH; thank you. Those of us not experienced in or knowledgeable of the technical basis of these remastered reissues can do only one thing, which is to use our ears to determine whether a reissue presents any improvement over previous incarnations. Certainly, I hope that none of us automatically concedes or even wilfully imagines any such enhancement because we are " in thrall of the industry's hyperbole"; if that amelioration in sonic quality is discernible to me, I say so, but I am equally prepared to advise the punter not to bother if I think it is negligible or non-existent - that is one of the benefits of our remaining financially or commercially independent of any influence by the recording labels. Indeed, reviews here have both lauded the revitalisation of a classic recording but in some cases also confessed to hearing little difference from previous versions - and of course, sometimes a reissue of a recording is welcome simply because it was always very good.
Previous Message
Terence, the simple answer is absolutely nothing, provided:
1. The stereo transfer was made using the full capabilities of 16/44 technology, and 2. The same, and hopefully original, sources have been used for both.
Regarding the latter, unfortunately the major labels in particular have been milking the reissue market for decades with, as they admit now, copies of recordings that were not the originals on the feeble excuse that these were not restorable. As a recording engineer with experience back to analogue tape days, I know this is utter nonsense (see my May 2023 thread on "Baking the Ring"). Apart from repairing edits and possibly 'doctoring' some dropouts, there is no reason why a simple and competently done analogue-to-digital stereo transfer at 16/44 will not give you exactly what the production team heard in the control room at the time of the recording. Personally, I'd prefer no noise reduction.
I'm happy to expound further, particularly on so-called "hi-res", but as you say, Pandora's box is creaking ... A final comment, however, is that on this subject I'm often disappointed by how much MWI reviewers seem to be in thrall of the industry's hyperbole, instead of calling them out for their sheer cynicism.
Previous Message
Hello. I have so many incarnations of the Britten Requiem. I received the latest as a download at Christmas. I don't want to open a Pandora's box but I appreciate that these recordings get improved with remastering: altering balances, cleaning up distortion, fixing edits, etc., and I am happy to have them. But I will get these in a 16/44 download, no? What do I get by opting for a 24/96 etc. transfer? Thank you.
Speaking specifically about the Britten War Requiem, I have both the 24/96 release from 2013 and the 24/192 version of the 2023 reissue. I never purchased the original CD release (late-80's?) as I was told that the tape hiss was quite intrusive. The 2013 release all but eliminated the tape noise and I found the sound quality to be very good, nevertheless I did find the performance to be somewhat lacking in emotion. The 2023 remaster in comparison has opened up the sound and is a vast improvement. I believe that the method used to reduce the tape noise of the 2013 release also dulled some of the high frequencies, robbing the recording of some of the sparkle/life. The 2023 has restored those high frequencies, particularly in the brass, and you can now hear that the performance is fantastic with all the emotion that you would expect. The 2013 release is an enjoyable listen but the 2023 is on a whole different level.
Technology moves on and things can be improved. Unfortunately I cannot say anything about the CD release of the 2023 War Requiem, however if it was created from the same 24/192 master it should sound very close to the higher resolution version. Personally, I prefer downloads and I see no reason not to buy what is essentially the "master" of a recording, why bother with format conversions? For CD, the 24/192 master must be down-converted to 16/44.1.
Yes, not all remasters result in significant sound changes but each new release must be evaluated for its own sake and some clearly represent a major step forward in sound quality.
Robert, without labouring the detail, your subjective impressions of the various reissues strongly suggest that apart from the most recent, they were transferred from secondary sources, i.e. analogue copies of the original analogue masters, which will unavoidably have higher noise, compression and distortion, particularly of the nasty 3rd-harmonic kind. If the 2023 reissue is indeed "on a whole different level", I could almost guarantee you'd hear that difference if you had a 15ips tape machine and compared the original master with the hitherto used copy/s. I could also bet that you wouldn't need noise reduction, because Decca were renowned for their high recording levels, and no remastering* would be required because what you would hear on the original was exactly what Culshaw & Co heard and signed off on. Unfortunately of course for "commercial reasons", neither Decca nor any other label would allow such an audition.
The point of my previous post is that Decca could have transferred the originals in the first place (40+ years ago), and please don't let them b/s you otherwise! The fact that they have finally done so is hardly "a major step forward". To me, it reeks of cynicism and is typical of the industry playing on general misconceptions which, btw, they have largely created!
But, you might say, surely with 24/192 we can do it better today? Well no, actually, 16/44 used at its full capability will do the job nicely, since it will comfortably accommodate the frequency and dynamic ranges of magnetic recording tape. So will 24/192, but at a great waste of (digital) space, without sounding any better, along with some undesirable side effects of the unnecessarily high sampling rate. Explanations? Well, there are plenty around, particularly on YouTube by frustrated souls trying to demystify sampling theory and the myths around it. Perhaps the best is Christopher Montgomery, developer of the FLAC format, who has YouTube segments and a paper published in 2012 entitled "24/192 Music Downloads ... and why they make no sense". This paper was originally online only at xiph.org, and is no longer there, but I've saved it as a pdf and can provide it to Len for anybody who's interested.
By now I realise I've probably excited the audiophile fringe, who will always swear "but I can tell the difference", despite the clear evidence of independent research showing that they can't. For a final word on digital recording and reproduction, however, I'll refer to Geoff (I guess that's his name) who recently contributed to a YouTube discussion on 16-vs-24 bit. I'm quoting Geoff because he says exactly what I would say, perhaps even better:
"Many audiophiles conflate bits and sample rates used in the recording process with the bits and sample rates in the playback files. This is a mistake. High sample rates and more bits are used in the recording process to enable editing but are pointless for playback. If you actually had a 24 bit recording with a true 144dB dynamic range and the equipment able to handle it (which is impossible) and your quiet listening room had a 30dB background then a peak sound above background would be 174dB which would be lethal. No, I am not exaggerating, this sound level kills. Even a true 16 bit 96dB recording would be unplayable as the quiet passages would be inaudible or the loud passages screamingly loud. Most modern recordings can be delivered with 10 or 12 bits. A full symphony orchestra giving it all it's got () peaks at about 104 dB SPL. Let's give the orchestra 105 dB, and 105 dB - 30 dB = only 75 dB real dynamic range. Most recordings are compressed dynamically to a sensible range so the listener is not constantly having to twiddle the volume control. Higher sample rates on playback produces ultrasonic noise and does not improve audio in the audible range.
The quality of a recording is determined by the studio at the time of recording and production. A well recorded and skilfully engineered 16/44.1 CD can deliver audio quality that exceeds the limits of human hearing. Higher bit depth and higher sample rates are used in the recording process for editing purposes but are pointless for playback. 16 bits gives a huge dynamic range. You will never hear noise in a silent passage of a 16 bit recording unless it is tape hiss from a copy of an old analog recording. 24 bit playback does absolutely nothing to sound quality other than further reducing the noise floor which is already inaudible with 16 bits. Higher sample rates produce frequencies above 20KHz, which is not only above human hearing, but captures unwanted noise that can produce nasties in the audible range. These ultrasonic frequencies can get into a tweeter and cause problems. Higher sample rates on playback cannot improve quality in the audible range. Any effects from the brick wall filter were resolved 20 years ago by improved DAC technology such as over sampling. A modern $100 DAC can give superb audio. So called hi-res releases are marketing hype to sell the same music again. Loudspeakers and room acoustics have far more effect on sound quality."
(The emphasis on the penultimate sentence is mine.)
PS: Message to Terence - it seems Pandora's Box is now open!
*I use "remastering" in the sense that some listeners seem to imagine a kind of magic has to happen in the passage of an analogue source into the digital domain. However, if the source is of good quality such as an original mastertape, a simple transfer via an analogue-to-digital converter (ADC) will do the job. This need not be complicated or expensive - to transfer my tapes (which, btw, are of the same era as Decca's), I use an ADC which I can fit in my pocket and costs about the same as a large pizza.
Previous Message
Speaking specifically about the Britten War Requiem, I have both the 24/96 release from 2013 and the 24/192 version of the 2023 reissue. I never purchased the original CD release (late-80's?) as I was told that the tape hiss was quite intrusive. The 2013 release all but eliminated the tape noise and I found the sound quality to be very good, nevertheless I did find the performance to be somewhat lacking in emotion. The 2023 remaster in comparison has opened up the sound and is a vast improvement. I believe that the method used to reduce the tape noise of the 2013 release also dulled some of the high frequencies, robbing the recording of some of the sparkle/life. The 2023 has restored those high frequencies, particularly in the brass, and you can now hear that the performance is fantastic with all the emotion that you would expect. The 2013 release is an enjoyable listen but the 2023 is on a whole different level.
Technology moves on and things can be improved. Unfortunately I cannot say anything about the CD release of the 2023 War Requiem, however if it was created from the same 24/192 master it should sound very close to the higher resolution version. Personally, I prefer downloads and I see no reason not to buy what is essentially the "master" of a recording, why bother with format conversions? For CD, the 24/192 master must be down-converted to 16/44.1.
Yes, not all remasters result in significant sound changes but each new release must be evaluated for its own sake and some clearly represent a major step forward in sound quality.
Hello Des, and who did you bring with you? Oh, Hello, Pandora!
Robert, thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply. I agree with you, for what it''s worth. I have downloaded Britten's Requiem 2023 once as 16/44 and again at 24/96. As I suspected, it sounds much better b/c of the remastering, but that is heard at 16/44 as well as at 24/96.
As a footnote, I progressed as far as the blu-ray audio reissues for both the War Requiem and the Ring but now feel thoroughly duped. I most certainly won't be shelling out for the latest ... but maybe, hmm, after the next three fanfare-laden reissues I'll reconsider ... if I'm still alive.
Previous Message
Hello Des, and who did you bring with you? Oh, Hello, Pandora!
Robert, thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply. I agree with you, for what it''s worth. I have downloaded Britten's Requiem 2023 once as 16/44 and again at 24/96. As I suspected, it sounds much better b/c of the remastering, but that is heard at 16/44 as well as at 24/96.