[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 11, 7:39*pm, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Monday, February 11, 2013 5:25:12 PM UTC-8, Edmund wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:37:08 +0000, Scott wrote:
snip
The obvious way to preserve the best possible quality is digitizing the

original masters at the highest possible sample rate, after that they

can always trow away quality as they like.

That was done. The flat transfers on 192/24 still exist.

What I understand from Audio_Empire is that an LP is made from

16bit /44.1KHz masters.

Someone who knows more about this particular set of re-issues (and for that
matter Beatles reissues in general) than I do has noted that the analog studio
masters were digitized at 24-bit, 192 KHz, but that those digital masters
weren't directly used to cut the LPs, a 16-bit, 44.1 KHz copy of the 24/192
digitization was used to cut the LPs and that is what the journalist to whom
I was referring said. Even though I doubt seriously that it would make any
audible difference to the LP sound once disc cutting moves were applied, still
the details about the transfer was hardly my original point. I had two:
1) If a record company is going to go to the trouble to press fresh, new
reissues of old analog material onto vinyl, it should be from the original
analog source, not from some digital copies of same. Using CD quality
masters might not be a compromise sonically, but to do so IS more than
slightly dishonest (in my estimation).
2) The journalist in question seem to not have a clue about either digital
quantization of analog material or the real properties of analog tape.

Which is pretty much useless, unless someone wants to combine the worst
of two worlds.

I don't know about useless. I'm sure that there must be buyers for that LP set who won't
know or won't care what the source material for the LPs was. But as I stated earlier,
I cannot imagine that in 2013 there is any LP market except vinylphiles and believe
me THEY CARE.









But maybe Apple records is not as stupid as it seems to be, maybe they

like to trow away quality right from the start! After all if there is

no decent recording to be found, they can claim that there crappy apple

players sounds " as good " as decent audio equipment.

I think you are comparing Apples to Apples. Two different Apples.

OK my bad but I don't understand why anyone would make a record from a
redbook digital master.

Neither would most people. Given the size and type of market that exists for
new vinyl, it would seem like a slap in the face to those who would be in the
market for any vinyl re-issues. Might as well save the extra dough and by a
set of CDs. They are much cheaper than this LP set.

The guy who actually cut these LPs has said the source was the 24/44.1
masters. I'll take his word on the subject over anybody else's word.
he also explained quite clearly why that was used and why the original
analog tapes could not possibly have been used. The trouble of
starting from scratch and going through all the approvals would have
made the project cost prohibitive. IOW it was this or nothing. There
is nothing bone headed about that choice.