Crystal clear old recordings?

[EmpNapoleon]

Are few historical recordings clear?  All Furtwangler cds I have are hard to listen to.  My Karajan's Beethoven set is poor too ('63), but his Brahms and Schoenberg are better.  Walter's symphonie fantastique is impossible to listen to, and although it's a live recording, it says "digitally remastered" on it.  Same with Horenstein's Mahler 7. 

Are the SACD historical recordings all clear?

[71 dB]

Are few historical recordings clear?  All Furtwangler cds I have are hard to listen to.  My Karajan's Beethoven set is poor too ('63), but his Brahms and Schoenberg are better.  Walter's symphonie fantastique is impossible to listen to, and although it's a live recording, it says "digitally remastered" on it.  Same with Horenstein's Mahler 7. 

Are the SACD historical recordings all clear?

How could historical recordings be crystal clear? 

Stoneage recording technology gives you stoneage sound. That's why I prefer new recordings.

[EmpNapoleon]

Can't the computer people who think their so great figure out how to make clear these historical recordings?

[EmpNapoleon]

I'm sorry computer people.  If you could you would.

[head-case]

Can't the computer people who think their so great figure out how to make clear these historical recordings?

Maybe computer people could create a program to restore your grammar.   

On another note, old recording sound poor because old equipment did  not have enough resolution to capture all of the nuances of sound.  It is not possible to restore the information that is lost, although some improvement can be made by restoring out-of-balance equalization and filter out excessive noise.

[Bogey]

I see you are already here Q....no need to page you. 

[Que]

Can't the computer people who think their so great figure out how to make clear these historical recordings?

What you have in mind is that someone artificially fills in the gaps (where information is lacking or distorted) - like the people at Pristine Classical claim they do successfully. In other words: make up information that was not there.
Though their definition of "historical" means they have somewhat older recordings in mind.

Their claim to magic:
"Pristine Audio XR remastering is quite simply the most astonishing remastering development in the field of historic recordings we know of. After the clicks and crackle have been removed and the hiss reduced, XR digs deep into the grooves to almost magically restore lost upper frequencies. It then scientifically rebalances the entirely frequency spectrum, bringing a degree of realism that is hugely greater than ever been heard before."

Best sound IMO comes from original sources or sources as close to that as possible - and flitering does in many cases more harm than good.

Q

[EmpNapoleon]

Maybe computer people could create a program to restore your grammar.  

I'm sorry.  I'll correct my sentence for you: Can't the people who work with computers figure out how to make historical recordings clear? 

Thanks for your answer headcase. 

On another note, old recording sound poor because old equipment did  not have enough resolution to capture all of the nuances of sound. 

You need to make "recording" plural. 

[EmpNapoleon]

What you have in mind is that someone artificially fills in the gaps (where information is lacking or distorted)...

Oh, ok.  I see what you mean.

[Que]

Oh, ok.  I see what you mean.

On what labels are your Furtwängler recordings?

Q

[EmpNapoleon]

EMI, ARPCD ADD MONO

I like the sound of "Legendary Performances" on Decca records though.

[KevinP]

and although it's a live recording, it says "digitally remastered" on it. 

Dude, every single CD is digitally mastered. And if the material's been released before, no matter what format, then the CD is digitally remastered, unless the new release uses the same mastering. It has nothing to do with being live or studio.

[EmpNapoleon]

Dude, every single CD is digitally mastered. And if the material's been released before, no matter what format, then the CD is digitally remastered, unless the new release uses the same mastering. It has nothing to do with being live or studio.

Dude, ok thanks.  I don't know these things!

[George]

Their claim to magic:
"Pristine Audio XR remastering is quite simply the most astonishing remastering development in the field of historic recordings we know of. After the clicks and crackle have been removed and the hiss reduced, XR digs deep into the grooves to almost magically restore lost upper frequencies. It then scientifically rebalances the entirely frequency spectrum, bringing a degree of realism that is hugely greater than ever been heard before."

Best sound IMO comes from original sources or sources as close to that as possible - and fitering does in many cases more harm than good.

Q

Yes, IOW, Pearl. 

[Que]

Yeah, doesn't that sound like the cheap talk of a traveling sales agent in automated back scratchers or what? 

Q

[George]

Yeah, doesn't that sound like the cheap talk of a traveling sales agent in automated back scratchers or what? 

Q

Indeed, sounds like Pristine Classical is run by the keeper of OZ. 

[KevinP]

I've not heard any classical XRCDs, but the jazz I've heard have been pretty spectacular and well worth the hefty price. Don't dismiss their claims as advertising hyperbole without hearing them. (I'm guessing some of you have. I just hope all of you have before jumping on the bandwagon.)

And this from an analogue-lovin', filter-hating, digital-weary guy.

[Bogey]

And this from an analogue-lovin', filter-hating, digital-weary guy.

This, in some form, should be your signature Kevin. 

[Que]

I've not heard any classical XRCDs, but the jazz I've heard have been pretty spectacular and well worth the hefty price. Don't dismiss their claims as advertising hyperbole without hearing them. (I'm guessing some of you have. I just hope all of you have before jumping on the bandwagon.)

And this from an analogue-lovin', filter-hating, digital-weary guy.

OK, now seriously!  First, the hyperboles use by Pristine are - whatever the quality of their work - downright ridiclous. Seems they like to make an effort in disqualifying themselves: "simply the most astonishing remastering development in the field of historic recordings we know of." "almost (!) magically restoring". Come on!

As for the actual results - it seems to sound rather nice. I believe Harry Collier was impressed, but also read a review in which it was being described as rather artificial (which it actually is).

Q   

[KevinP]

By all means, slam the rhetoric, but their results are worth defending, and I just want to make sure we're separating the two.