Barbirolli M9 Rereleased

[Michael]

FYI, EMI released the Barbirolli/BPO M9 under the "Masters" series on Tuesday, as shown on Amazon U.S.: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004H59ZIM/

I am not entirely sure why they did this as the info in the track listing still indicates a 2002 remastering.  Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[John Kim]

I own the original EMI CD and Japanese Toshiba EMI remastering and am very satisfied with them.

Why would I need this one?

I just don't see how the sound can be further improved.

John

[akiralx]

FYI, EMI released the Barbirolli/BPO M9 under the "Masters" series on Tuesday, as shown on Amazon U.S.: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004H59ZIM/

I am not entirely sure why they did this as the info in the track listing still indicates a 2002 remastering.  Anyone have any thoughts on this?

These Masters reissues are just a releases in a cheaper series so no remastering will have been done.

[Michael]

Thanks for the info.

[barry guerrero]

"These Masters reissues are just a releases in a cheaper series so no remastering will have been done."

I'm not so sure of that. Sometimes they sound the same, and sometimes they sound slightly different. It seems to vary a on case by case basis.

[perotin]

96kHz/24bit remaster on hdtracks:
https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD5099970463453

[justininsf]

96kHz/24bit remaster on hdtracks:
https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD5099970463453

Any experience with HD tracks or audio with higher resolution than CD quality?  Can you tell any difference?

I listen to mostly lossy compressed mp3's, on sub-audiophile level equipment, so makes no difference to me really.

I found this from the SACD article on Wikipedia, anyone know about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#Comparison_with_CD

Comparison with CD[edit]
In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8 % success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50 % that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.[40] The authors commented:
Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.[1][41]
Following criticism that the original published results of the study were not sufficiently detailed, the AES published a list of the audio equipment and recordings used during the tests.[42]

[justininsf]

96kHz/24bit remaster on hdtracks:
https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD5099970463453

Any experience with HD tracks or audio with higher resolution than CD quality?  Can you tell any difference?

I listen to mostly lossy compressed mp3's, on sub-audiophile level equipment, so makes no difference to me really.

I found this from the SACD article on Wikipedia, anyone know about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#Comparison_with_CD

Comparison with CD[edit]
In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8 % success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50 % that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.[40] The authors commented:
Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.[1][41]
Following criticism that the original published results of the study were not sufficiently detailed, the AES published a list of the audio equipment and recordings used during the tests.[42]

Sorry, not trying to hijack this thread but just found this topic interesting, I've included a link to the source article for anyone interested in further reading on the topic.  They say the NONE of the subjects could discern a difference between CD level audio and higher bit rate audio.

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback

[Engineering Report] Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

[justininsf]

Oh I really am not trying to hijack the thread, but this is so fascinating.  This last section of the study displays incredible insight of the two authors of the study:


4 A NOTE ON HIGH-RESOLUTION

RECORDINGS

Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs— sometimes much better. Had we not “degraded” the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them. 

Plausible reasons for the remarkable sound quality of these recordings emerged in discussions with some of the engineers currently working on such projects. This portion of the business is a niche market in which the end users are preselected, both for their aural acuity and for their willingness to buy expensive equipment, set it up correctly, and listen carefully in a low-noise environment. 

Partly because these recordings have not captured a large portion of the consumer market for music, engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been made with great care and manifest affection, by engineers trying to please themselves and their peers. They sound like it, label after label.  High-resolution audio discs do not have the overwhelming majority of the program material crammed into the top 20 (or even 10) dB of the available dynamic range, as so many CDs today do. 

Our test results indicate that all of these recordings could be released on conventional CDs with no audible difference. They would not, however, find such a reliable conduit to the homes of those with the systems and listening habits to appreciate them. The secret, for two-channel recordings at least, seems to lie not in the high-bit recording but in the high-bit market

[perotin]

human ears vs high resolution files "war" is the subject of endless debates. Still, generally when recordings are released in hq quality, new remastering is to be done. As we know in many cases (when it comes to classical music recordings) new remastering means better sound so another hq audio release is worth of interest.

check this line from hdtracks: Records Ltd. Digital Remastering ℗ 2011 by EMI Records Ltd.
remastering from latest cd version: 2002.

i haven't listened to cd version for years - for me, after discovering many great Barbirolli recordings, his M9 was some kind of let down. But surely I'm gonna compare it with hdtracks remaster when...I finally will buy a cd drive - i don't have it included in my pc