Decca Legends VS Original CDs
gperkins151
Have you ever compared a Decca Legends release to the original Decca
CD? I ask because I saw the original 2 disc set for Ashkenazy's
Rachmaninov preludes/sonata 2 yesterday, but I already own the
preludes on the Legends series. The sonata 2 I have on the trio set
with the concerti. If there's a chance it will sound better in it's
original incarnation, I'd like to know. Thanks.
I should add that Jed Distler says in his Classics Today review that
"Decca Legends squeezes all 80 minutes and 34 seconds of Vladimir
Ashkenazy's 1975 Rachmaninov Preludes onto a single disc, in its
cleanest and clearest transfer to date. Reduction in tape hiss yields
a quieter ambience yet does not compromise the pianist's rich and
colorful sonority one iota."
George
Steve de Mena
> Good Morning/Afternoon, :)
>
> Have you ever compared a Decca Legends release to the original Decca
> CD?
You would have to discuss a particular release. You can't make a
general statement about the whole series as the results will run the
gamut of:
Original release sounds better
Reissue sounds identical to original
Digital recording, no remastering even claimed
Reissue sounds better
Reissue sounds different, but not better
Some think the reissue sounds better, some think the original sounds
better
Some Decca Legends are on newer Decca Originals also.
Steve
gperkins151
I did mention a specific release.
George
Steve de Mena
Yes?
Steve
wagnerfan
news:4370ae6c-1f07-4d03...@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I compared the recent Decca Originals Rheingold to the second CD mastering
of the recording from 1997 and they sound the same - they even carry the
same remastering article by Jimmy Locke from 1997 and there is no later date
given in the booklet. .My understanding (though I haven't heard it) is that
the Solti Rosenkavalier is also just a repackaging. Wagner Fan
wagnerfan
news:uPCdnTE2vshv0FjU...@giganews.com...
Oh I haven't heard the Ashkenazy set you were specifically asking about.
Wagner Fan
gperkins151
> "wagnerfan" <wagner...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:uPCdnTE2vshv0FjU...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > "gperkins151" <gperkins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I bought the original today and the difference is that they used more
noise reduction on the Legends. Not sure if they used any NR on the
original, but it sure sounds better, less muffled in the upper
register.
George
Eddie Williamson
96kHz remastering on booklet cover AND which were reissued as Decca
Legends in 1999-2001 have the *same mastering*. Simply reissues with
different artwork. Andrew Wedman was the remastering engineer in most
(all?) cases.
dbrowne
wrote:
I'm curious.... would that also apply to Philips recordings that were
first remastered as "Philips 50" and then later reissued as
"Originals", such as the Knappertsbusch Parsifal?
Eddie Williamson
I believe so, yes.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:88728072-a48b-4264-b5a9-b71f51e06630
@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
Wasn't it established here that the Knappertsbusch "Parsifal" in the
"Philips 50" series was *claimed* to have been remastered, but wasn't?
In other words, that the record label -- and let me choose my words very
carefully here -- told a lie in order to trick its customers?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
td
Decca spent a small fortune remastering the Ring cycle for the 1990e
deluxe set. In all cases the original multi-tracks were digitalized
and remixed in the digital domain, all supervised by engineers who
worked on the original releases for LP.
There have been and probably will be NO further remasterings of these
tapes, specially now that Decca has been merged into DG and all the
original engineers are gone, the last two just recently.
So, whichever Rheingold you happen to buy now will be identical in
sound to the 1990s issue, minus the special deluxe packaging, of
course. If you hear something different, you're dreaming.
TD
Taffy Brendel
Of course, you wouldn't have the foggiest notion about the quality of
the sound of the different releases as you detest Wagner
and do not listen to his music...right?
Taffy
Steve de Mena
> dbrowne <dbrow...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:88728072-a48b-4264-b5a9-b71f51e06630
> @z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Mar 21, 9:30 pm, Eddie Williamson <eddiewilliamso...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Titles in the recent Decca Originals series that highlight 24-bit/
>>> 96kHz remastering on booklet cover AND which were reissued as Decca
>>> Legends in 1999-2001 have the *same mastering*. Simply reissues with
>>> different artwork. Andrew Wedman was the remastering engineer in most
>>> (all?) cases.
>> I'm curious.... would that also apply to Philips recordings that were
>> first remastered as "Philips 50" and then later reissued as
>> "Originals", such as the Knappertsbusch Parsifal?
>
> Wasn't it established here that the Knappertsbusch "Parsifal" in the
> "Philips 50" series was *claimed* to have been remastered, but wasn't?
>
> In other words, that the record label -- and let me choose my words very
> carefully here -- told a lie in order to trick its customers?
I wonder how they could be established? One could theoretically
remaster a CD and come up with the same results.
Steve
wagnerfan
"Eddie Williamson" <eddiewil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b1f554e-94f0-4a2f...@q11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 21, 6:40 pm, dbrowne <dbrowne1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 9:30 pm, Eddie Williamson <eddiewilliamso...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Titles in the recent Decca Originals series that highlight 24-bit/
> > 96kHz remastering on booklet cover AND which were reissued as Decca
> > Legends in 1999-2001 have the *same mastering*. Simply reissues with
> > different artwork. Andrew Wedman was the remastering engineer in most
> > (all?) cases.
>
>
I believe so, yes.
"I'm curious.... would that also apply to Philips recordings that were
> first remastered as "Philips 50" and then later reissued as
> "Originals", such as the Knappertsbusch Parsifal?"
Yes I know for a fact that the Kna 1962 Parsifal has not been remastered -
and doesn't need to be Wagner fan
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:gfGdncNM65EfI1jU...@giganews.com:
I have to admit up front that I misremembered *which* release was shown not
to have been remastered -- it was "Winterreise," not "Parsifal"!
That said, examine this thread here, in which the posts appear to have been
numbered out of sequence:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/Philips50lie
As Michael Lee states, "But the Philips 50 Winterreise does not just sound
the same -- it is digitally identical to the earlier CD release!" As you
can see, he used a program called Exact Audio Copy which generated a
checksum of all the numerical contents of the recording.
td
> Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> appears to have caused the following
>
>
>
>
>
> > Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> >> dbrowne <dbrowne1...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
HA HA HA HA HA
How could it be different.
It was a digital original.
HA HA HA HA HA
What a boob!
TD
Steve de Mena
Digital Recording.
Typical "scientific evidence" I'd expect to find on the internet.
Steve
td
> Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> > Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> appears to have caused the following
>
> >> Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> >>> dbrowne <dbrowne1...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
Correct.
They don't even look, Steve. They need some dumb programme to tell
them what is what.
Really!
TD
operafan
> Good Morning/Afternoon, :)
>
> Have you ever compared a Decca Legends release to the original Decca
> CD?
I have compared the original CD's of Mahler's Das Lied with Bernstein
and Mahler's 2nd with Mehta. In both cases, the Legends were
noticeably better.
A N Other
>
> - Show quoted text -
Some early digital recordings after editing ended up, as I understand
it, rather less than 16 bit. This may explain partly the tizzy sound
in some of those cases.
More recent reissues of early digital recordings have been upsampled
to 24 bit for editing then downsampled to 16 bit, resulting in some
say better transfers. Chandos, for example, have released some like
this, and no doubt more information is obtainable from the website or
booklets.
gperkins151
Thanks for your input.
George
Michael Lee
> > I have to admit up front that I misremembered *which* release was shown
not
> > to have been remastered -- it was "Winterreise," not "Parsifal"!
> >
> > That said, examine this thread here, in which the posts appear to have
been
> > numbered out of sequence:
> >
> > http://preview.tinyurl.com/Philips50lie
> >
> > As Michael Lee states, "But the Philips 50 Winterreise does not just
sound
> > the same -- it is digitally identical to the earlier CD release!" As
you
> > can see, he used a program called Exact Audio Copy which generated a
> > checksum of all the numerical contents of the recording.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dzdxk6
>
> Digital Recording.
>
> Typical "scientific evidence" I'd expect to find on the internet.
>
> Steve
A digital recording on CD is a result of mixing and editing of many takes
(and from more than 1 microphone most of the time) on digital master tapes.
If the engineers do take the effort to remix a digital recording for a
re-release, the final result on the re-release CD will surely be different,
which can be better or worse than the original release. Think of the
Karajan Gold series - they are the same digital recordings but
mixed/equalized differently. Even if there is no remixing/equalizing, the
result can be different if you down-sample a 20-bit digital recording to
16-bit using newer technology.
Michael Lee
________________________________________
Guide to Classical Music in Hong Kong
http://home.netvigator.com/~leeji/guide/
A N Other
>
> A digital recording on CD is a result of mixing and editing of many takes
> (and from more than 1 microphone most of the time) on digital master tapes.
> If the engineers do take the effort to remix a digital recording for a
> re-release, the final result on the re-release CD will surely be different,
> which can be better or worse than the original release. Think of the
> Karajan Gold series - they are the same digital recordings but
> mixed/equalized differently. Even if there is no remixing/equalizing, the
> result can be different if you down-sample a 20-bit digital recording to
> 16-bit using newer technology.
>
> Michael Lee
> ________________________________________
> Guide to Classical Music in Hong Konghttp://home.netvigator.com/~leeji/guide/- Hide quoted text -
>
> I was going to mention the Karajan reissues, they are well documented.
Steve de Mena
Do you actually *know* what the Karajan Gold series did?
I think the fact that the cover of the Philips Winterreise was missing
the normal "96kHz Remastering..." text in the lower-left corner should
have been a clue that maybe there was no remastering done....
Steve
rkhalona
I know of at least one case where the Decca Legends reissue sounds
worse than the original CD:
Erich Kleiber's Concertgebouw Eroica, which was pitched sharp on the
reissue.
RK
td
And what pitch was it pitched at in both versions, may I ask?
TD
Matthew B. Tepper
> Michael Lee wrote:
>> "Steve de Mena" wrote...
>>
>>>> I have to admit up front that I misremembered *which* release was
>>>> shown not to have been remastered -- it was "Winterreise," not
>>>> "Parsifal"!
>>>>
>>>> That said, examine this thread here, in which the posts appear to
>>>> have been numbered out of sequence:
>>>>
>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/Philips50lie
>>>>
>>>> As Michael Lee states, "But the Philips 50 Winterreise does not just
>>>> sound the same -- it is digitally identical to the earlier CD release!"
>>>> As you can see, he used a program called Exact Audio Copy which
>>>> generated a checksum of all the numerical contents of the recording.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/dzdxk6
>>>
>>> Digital Recording.
>>>
>>> Typical "scientific evidence" I'd expect to find on the internet.
>>
>> A digital recording on CD is a result of mixing and editing of many
>> takes (and from more than 1 microphone most of the time) on digital
>> master tapes. If the engineers do take the effort to remix a digital
>> recording for a re-release, the final result on the re-release CD will
>> surely be different, which can be better or worse than the original
>> release. Think of the Karajan Gold series - they are the same digital
>> recordings but mixed/equalized differently. Even if there is no
>> remixing/equalizing, the result can be different if you down-sample a
>> 20-bit digital recording to 16-bit using newer technology.
>
> Do you actually *know* what the Karajan Gold series did?
>
> I think the fact that the cover of the Philips Winterreise was missing
> the normal "96kHz Remastering..." text in the lower-left corner should
> have been a clue that maybe there was no remastering done....
Advance publicity from Philips at the time stated that they had all been
remastered.
cab...@strath.ac.uk
> Do you actually *know* what the Karajan Gold series did?
>
IIRC Tony Movshon in this newsgroup did some analysis and found the
major change was a bit of adjustment over certain frequencies.
> I think the fact that the cover of the Philips Winterreise was missing
> the normal "96kHz Remastering..." text in the lower-left corner should
> have been a clue that maybe there was no remastering done....
>
I think the "96kHz...." blurb is added by the people who design/print
the booklets for the series and isn't a reliable guide at all. In fact
for the CD you mention there appear to be at least 2 different covers
(!):
click on the "see larger image" and hey presto the "96kHz...."
disappears!
Best wishes
Ed
Michael Lee
news:ee30353d-5481-4d1b...@d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
The copy I bought had the "96kHz...." logo on it. That's why I did the
digital comparison and felt cheated when I found the checksums of the tracks
on this disc were identical to those on the original CD!
td
> <cab...@strath.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:ee30353d-5481-4d1b...@d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 22 Mar, 20:21, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
> > > Do you actually *know* what the Karajan Gold series did?
>
> > IIRC Tony Movshon in this newsgroup did some analysis and found the
> > major change was a bit of adjustment over certain frequencies.
>
> > > I think the fact that the cover of the Philips Winterreise was missing
> > > the normal "96kHz Remastering..." text in the lower-left corner should
> > > have been a clue that maybe there was no remastering done....
>
> > I think the "96kHz...." blurb is added by the people who design/print
> > the booklets for the series and isn't a reliable guide at all. In fact
> > for the CD you mention there appear to be at least 2 different covers
> > (!):
>
>
>
>
> > click on the "see larger image" and hey presto the "96kHz...."
> > disappears!
>
> > Best wishes
>
> > Ed
>
> The copy I bought had the "96kHz...." logo on it. That's why I did the
> digital comparison and felt cheated when I found the checksums of the tracks
> on this disc were identical to those on the original CD!
Did you consider suicide?
TD
Andrew Rose
> More recent reissues of early digital recordings have been upsampled
> to 24 bit for editing then downsampled to 16 bit, resulting in some
> say better transfers. Chandos, for example, have released some like
> this, and no doubt more information is obtainable from the website or
> booklets.
Unless you're going to carry out processing on the file at 24-bit level
this would have no effect whatsoever, other than to add noise through
dithering back down to 16-bits.
A straight bit-depth increase (this is not upsampling or downsampling,
BTW, as the sample rate remains the same) will merely add a string of
zeros to each sample, which goes from being a 16-bit number to a 24-bit
number.
Eg. 1001100110011001 (16-bit) will become 100110011001100100000000 at
24-bits and replay identically. You can't add any information when doing
this as clearly it was never there in the first place.
However, as soon as you start applying any digital signal processing (EQ
etc.) those extra bits come in very handy, though personally I'd want
more than just 24-bit resolution for any serious DSP. When this is
complete the recording can be dithered back down to 16-bits for CD
production.
However, a straight conversion back to 16-bits would merely lop off
those last 8 zeros in the example above, and a noise-shaped dithered
reduction would add low-level high frequency noise to the audio before
lopping off those final 8 zeros, which by then would have been altered.
There really shouldn't be any mystery about digital audio - it's all
just a series of ones and zeros!
--
Andrew Rose
Pristine Classical: "The destination for people interested in historic
recordings..." (Gramophone)
A N Other
Thanks very much for clearing that up! I realise for a start I've been
using the word "downsample" instead of "dither". Another example of
this sort of remastering of digital recordings is Carlos Kleiber's
Brahms 4, certainly sounding remastered on DG Originals. Whether this
is due simply to equalisation changes I cannot say.
Tassilo
> Decca spent a small fortune remastering the Ring cycle for the 1990e
> deluxe set. In all cases the original multi-tracks were digitalized
> and remixed in the digital domain, all supervised by engineers who
> worked on the original releases for LP.
And they wasted their money: the first CD reissue sounded best.
-david gable
wkasimer
> > Decca spent a small fortune remastering the Ring cycle for the 1990e
> > deluxe set. In all cases the original multi-tracks were digitalized
> > and remixed in the digital domain, all supervised by engineers who
> > worked on the original releases for LP.
>
> And they wasted their money: the first CD reissue sounded best.
I thought otherwise, David. The difference wasn't enormous, but I
thought that the second CD issue sounded both clearer and less harsh
than the first.
Bill
Tassilo
> I thought otherwise, David. The difference [between the first and second transfers of the Solti Ring on CD]
> wasn't enormous, but I
> thought that the second CD issue sounded both clearer and less harsh
> than the first.
I agree that there was very little difference between them, but the
first release sounded more natural, more rich and full, less
"Cedarized" to me. I didn't think the first release sounded
particularly harsh.
-david gable
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:31aedbae-9cc3-41fb-8988-
dd3039...@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
Maybe I should hang onto mine, then; I've never replaced it.
td
LOL
For someone who claims to be a scholar, your generic use of "good",
"better", "best" are totally inadequate.
Best how, where, in what, for what?
TD
td
It wasn't "cedarized".
TD
td
It should.
It was one generation closer to the original multi-track masters than
the first, which was simply a digitalization of the age-old LP mixed-
down masters.
TD