This may be a stupid question. But the novice is just clueless.
Please explain.

I read so much about how extra high sampling rate is good for the
reproduction. However, if the recording was done two decades ago
using a sampling rate designed for CD, then how would the change in
the mastering improve the quality of the recording?

I read so much about how extra high sampling rate is good for the
reproduction. However, if the recording was done two decades ago
using a sampling rate designed for CD, then how would the change in
the mastering improve the quality of the recording?

It wouldn't. However, any work you do on the files during mastering (level
changes, EQ, etc.) will work better if you do it at a higher bit depth (not
sampling rate).

Peace,
Paul

"CP" wrote in message
om
This may be a stupid question. But the novice is just clueless.
Please explain.

I read so much about how extra high sampling rate is good for the
reproduction.

That works only to a point. The usual diminishing returns effects still
rule.

However, if the recording was done two decades ago
using a sampling rate designed for CD, then how would the change in
the mastering improve the quality of the recording?

Most mastering really has little or nothing to do with sample rates. Sonic
changes during mastering relate to things like compression and equalization,
with perhaps some reverb tossed in.

Here is the rec.audio.pro FAQ article on mastering. Hope this clarifies
things a bit.

Q6.3 - What is mastering?

Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often misunderstood. Back in
the days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of
the master that would be used for pressing. This often involved a
variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately
be properly rendered on vinyl.

The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit.
There are now two elements often called mastering. The first is the
eminently straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing.
As most mixdowns now occur on DAT, this often involves the relatively
simple tasks of generating the PQ subcode necessary for CD replication.
PQ subcode is the data stream that contains information such as the
number of tracks on a disc, the location of the start points of each
track, the clock display information, and the like. This information
is created during mastering and prepared as a PQ data burst which the
pressing plant uses to make the glass pressing master.

Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a
recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get
the recording sounding the way it ought to. Tasks often done in
mastering include: adjustment of time between pieces, quality of
fade-in/out, relation of levels between tracks (such that the listener
doesn't have to go swinging the volume control all over the place),
program EQ to achieve a desired consistency, compression to make one's
disc sound LOUDER than others on the market, the list goes on.

A good mastering engineer can often take a poorly-produced recording
and make it suitable for the market. A bad one can make a good
recording sound terrible. Some recordings are so well produced,
mixed, and edited that all they need is to be given PQ subcode and
sent right out. Other recordings are made by people on ego trips, who
think they know everything about recording, and who make recordings
that are, technically speaking, wretched trash.

Good mastering professionals are acquainted with many styles of music,
and know what it is that their clients hope to achieve. They then use
their tools either lightly or severely to accomplish all the multiple
steps involved in preparing a disc for pressing. [Gabe]

CP wrote:
This may be a stupid question. But the novice is just clueless.
Please explain.

I read so much about how extra high sampling rate is good for the
reproduction. However, if the recording was done two decades ago
using a sampling rate designed for CD, then how would the change in
the mastering improve the quality of the recording?

It won't.

But if the original was done on analogue tape, a better job of digitizing
it will definitely result in a better end result. That could be better
either due to higher sample rates or just plain better quality converters.
The conversion technology 20 years ago was awful.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Thank you for all the replies. My intepretation of the answers is
that new recordings and very old recordings will be able to get the
most of of the high sampling rate. Recording for old CD can be
remastered but improvement will be limited.

"CP" wrote in message
om

Thank you for all the replies. My interpretation of the answers is
that new recordings and very old recordings will be able to get the
most of the high sampling rate.

Not so. The very high sample rates have no known reliably audible benefit.

Recording for old CD can be remastered but improvement will be limited.

Not so, many old CDs can be remastered and/or remixed for re-release in the
CD format with significant sonic advantages.