Is 24 bit remastering a gimmick on a 1929 vintage recording?

[relm1]

This is a technical question but I am listening to a recording of Rachmaninoff performing with Stokowski from 1929.  The recording is mono and limited audio fidelity (lots of hiss for example) but is advertised as 24 bit digital remastering.  My question is are there any discernible benefits to having a 24 bit digitally remastered recording if the source audio is of inferior quality?  To me this is like advertising 16 million color television set in regards to a black and white program.  What should I be hearing that demonstrates the improvement because of the 24 bit remastering are is this a gimmick? 

[Holden]

The hiss, clicks and pops will be so much more realistic.

[Cato]

The hiss, clicks and pops will be so much more realistic.

That seems right to me.  Unless the recording has been put through some sort of cleansing and artificial enhancement, simply having "24-bit" remastering will do as Holden has suspected.   Some, however, do not like the results from such technology.

There are recordings made from Rachmaninov's cutting of piano rolls: not the same as hearing him and Stokowski come back from the dead for a concert today, but...the sound is 21st century.

e.g.

[asin]B000009RCS[/asin]

[Daverz]

This is a technical question but I am listening to a recording of Rachmaninoff performing with Stokowski from 1929.  The recording is mono and limited audio fidelity (lots of hiss for example) but is advertised as 24 bit digital remastering.  My question is are there any discernible benefits to having a 24 bit digitally remastered recording if the source audio is of inferior quality?  To me this is like advertising 16 million color television set in regards to a black and white program.  What should I be hearing that demonstrates the improvement because of the 24 bit remastering are is this a gimmick?

On the other hand, if you're using a 24-bit analog-digital converter for your analog masters, there's no reason to switch it to 16-bit just for this particular recording.

[71 dB]

This is a technical question but I am listening to a recording of Rachmaninoff performing with Stokowski from 1929.  The recording is mono and limited audio fidelity (lots of hiss for example) but is advertised as 24 bit digital remastering.  My question is are there any discernible benefits to having a 24 bit digitally remastered recording if the source audio is of inferior quality?  To me this is like advertising 16 million color television set in regards to a black and white program.  What should I be hearing that demonstrates the improvement because of the 24 bit remastering are is this a gimmick?

You could have only 12 bits of dynamics and it would sound the same.

[jochanaan]

It seems to me that any remastering from such old masters inevitably introduces new distortion and loses some old data.  Not worth the trouble.  Best to stay as faithful as one can.

[Pat B]

It seems to me that any remastering from such old masters inevitably introduces new distortion and loses some old data.  Not worth the trouble.  Best to stay as faithful as one can.

Is the implication here that a transfer from the 1980s or 1990s is more "faithful" than a new transfer? I don't buy that. (Unless the new remastering is done from the older digital remastering, but hopefully nobody outside the sleazy cheapo knock-off scene does that.)

At the same time, a 24-bit transfer is not necessarily better than an 16- or 20-bit one. The more important issues are probably:
-what is the source, including condition
-how good is the judgement of the transfer engineer

A 20-bit transfer by a good engineer using an original master in good condition will sound better than an overfiltered 24-bit transfer from a 2nd-generation copy in bad shape.

[jochanaan]

Is the implication here that a transfer from the 1980s or 1990s is more "faithful" than a new transfer? I don't buy that. (Unless the new remastering is done from the older digital remastering, but hopefully nobody outside the sleazy cheapo knock-off scene does that.)...

Not at all!  I've heard some terrible remasterings done in the 1970s.  I still remember a rereleased LP of Schumann's Rhenish, originally done by Bruno Walter and the NY Phil, in which the treble was so grossly overemphasized that the real virtues of the original release, perhaps from the late 1940s (which I also had), were lost.

On the other hand, one of my early CD purchases was of a beautiful, utterly faithful transfer of Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony doing Hovhaness' Mysterious Mountain Symphony, Stravinsky's Fairy's Kiss and Prokofiev's Lieutenant Kije, originally on RCA Living Stereo--really beautifully done by all concerned.  This was about the 1990s, but the original CD transfer may have been from the 1980s.

[Mirror Image]

There's one important thing to remember here: any remaster is only as good as it's source. If the source sounds horrible to begin with, there's only so much that can be done to clean it up.

[relm1]

There's one important thing to remember here: any remaster is only as good as it's source. If the source sounds horrible to begin with, there's only so much that can be done to clean it up.

That makes sense, but isn't the fact that the recording was made in 1929 going to mean the source will most likely be of poor quality?  To me, it sounds like hearing a great performance with cups over your ears. You can tell there is quality but all you hear is monofonic muffle while the cover boasts 24-bit remastering which is why I was asking if that's a gimmick in the first place.

I think I'm understanding the label to mean the original recording was EQed and perhaps cleaned up with some of the inherent distortions and hiss that will be present with the vintage recording utilizing the latest 24 bit software algorithms. The problem is it's unlikely to hear what if any improvement would be made with 24-bit or 16-bit or eight bit algorithms if the source material has limited fidelity to begin with.  It is sort of like saying a black-and-white movie is being presented in Technicolor which seems slightly like an oxymoron.