|
Post by firebottle on Mar 2, 2021 16:03:47 GMT
Good post ^^^^^^
|
|
|
Post by sq225917 on Mar 2, 2021 18:30:39 GMT
Remastering really depends on the source. Tapes, like photo negatives have an particle, emulsion density, this is the absolute limit on the 'resolution of the file. Add in hiss from the tape head, noise picked up cables and produced by the mic amps and countless bounces around the desk, wow and flutter, print through during long term storage and a raft of other things and you end up at the real world noise figures for what's on the finished analogue master.
A lot of this can be accounted for on remastering, you rip to high res digital, filter, compress, add gain and noise shape all in the digital realm at higher bit length beyond that of the delivery medium and you have an almost lossless editing process. Done sympathetically it 'can' surpass the original for perceived quality.
If you did all that at 16 bit it would for sure degrade the recording, and that is a high res remaster, usually.
If the source was digitally recording at a bit rate above the intended delivery medium then its a free lunch, you can do what you like to it within reason. All you get is rounding error.
Of course none of that means any remaster will sound better, it's all down to taste.
The point about signal and data compression is an important distinction and one much misunderstood.
|
|