Yes but they are matching masters so the format is the variable. They also describe the detail involved in the recording.but that track is from a different album
I find the new remaster of her classic album, Thousand Shades of Blue, incredible. One would think it impossible to improve but the devil is in the small details.
For the fun of it, I asked chatgpt why the remaster sounds better and amazingly it seems spot on;
Reading at the SL website it is a new mix and mastering;
The older version is available at Carmen Gomes Inc BandCamp site in redbook quality 16/44.
![]()
FYI one does not need to purchase you can do it at the site.
Yes but they are matching masters so the format is the variable.
Well I don't know if its legit or not. I did the test with HP and there were some very minor variances but none were better, to these aging ears.I don't trust them for one minute to offer straight honest comparisons.
Like cable companies having five or six difference cost levels of interconnects or speaker cables.
IMHO they're in the snake-oil business of selling you ever higher sampling rate masters that "they say" will sound ever better.
And many will require you to purchase special gear the play back DXD, 2x DXD, 10x DSD
From their friends that are in the Hi-End DAC cult.
It's all baloney.
If it sounds diffderent the mastering must be different. Or we have simple sighted bias.Is the mastering actually different?
not just the sample rate/bit depth
The article mentions a post by banned member amirm on that site. I wonder who that would beHow soon people forget.
Remember the Audioquest HDMI cable video. LOL
![]()
Potential Audioquest Rigged HDMI Demo Exposed
Audiophile drama is unfolding as an Audioquest HDMI cable demo, featuring an Audioquest employee showing unrealistic changes in sound, was seemingly debunked as fraudulent by Mark Waldrep, Dr. AIX.www.audioholics.com
AudioQuest HDMI Cables – Real HD-Audio
www.realhd-audio.com
Based on the preview tracks on respective album pages (mp3, 256 kbps, 48k for the original album and mp3, 320 kbps, 44k for the revisited one) it looks like they compensated for the high frequency hearing loss we all suffered since 13 years agoIs the mastering actually different?
Best not to open old wounds, you'll find a few of us banned there, dark times they were.The article mentions a post by banned member amirm on that site. I wonder who that would be![]()
But you are all here so it's all good as far as I'm concernedBest not to open old wounds, you'll find a few of us banned there, dark times they were.
Based on the preview tracks on respective album pages (mp3, 256 kbps, 48k for the original album and mp3, 320 kbps, 44k for the revisited one) it looks like they compensated for the high frequency hearing loss we all suffered since 13 years ago
View attachment 422879
View attachment 422880
Hm... no. Reading from the title "I'm on fire" should be enough. It's the first track on the album.Are we supposed to guess the song just by looking at the power spectral display?
The answer to the question in the post I replied to, whether it is a different master or just sample rate/bit depth change.What is to be gleaned from looking at those graphs.
Hm... no. Reading from the title "I'm on fire" should be enough. It's the first track on the album.
The answer to the question in the post I replied to, whether it is a different master or just sample rate/bit depth change.
I think the spectrum being visibly different is a good way to establish whether it's just a transfer or a remaster.It makes about as much sense as showing the single reflectivity of photo and having us all guess as to what it is a picture of.
It really does not say much about the song or the sampling.
Certainly being different says something more than if it was the same.I think the spectrum being visibly different is a good way to establish whether it's just a transfer or a remaster.
I find this view very one-sided.I don't trust them for one minute to offer straight honest comparisons.
Like cable companies having five or six difference cost levels of interconnects or speaker cables.
IMHO they're in the snake-oil business of selling you ever higher sampling rate masters that "they say" will sound ever better.
And many will require you to purchase special gear that play back DXD, 2x DXD, 10x DSD
From their friends that are in the Hi-End DAC cult.
It's all baloney.
But there is the porblem right there. They are doing exactly what @Sal1950 says they are.Sound Liaison offers these albums in different resolutions/formats,
Furthermore, we’ve pushed the boundaries of digital fidelity by remastering the album at 768kHz-32-bit, an astonishingly high resolution, over 17 times the standard 44.1kHz used for CD audio. This high sample rate reveals unparalleled harmonic richness and authenticity. While some of these nuances may only be fully appreciated by the most discerning listeners, the enhanced clarity of the soundstage is evident to everyone.
I would be happier if they simply made claims about that: The recording quality, the minimally compressed mastering, the one mic setup etc etc. All things that make a genuinely audible difference for the customer. Then sell at a single premium price for all distributed resolutions - even if that price was what they now charge for the highest res.....
Soundliason makes really beautifully done recordings, regardless if one likes the genre/artist/albums.