"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

With CD under identical circumstances few - very few, if any - will
reliably tell which is which.

In my experience there is so much post production that goes on at the
mastering stage that often the master tape and the production CD are
wildly different. This may or may not be a good thing. But it doesn't
matter really, as the public have never heard the original and so have
no reference.

I think that depends on the circumstances. The listener may have some
'reference' if the recording is of something like a symphony or an opera,
and the listener has some experience of how these sound in concert/opera
halls. Thus they expect the result to be a convincing representation of
familiar acoustic instruments in a convincing, appropriate, and plausible
acoustic. Sometimes one for a hall they have heard before.

In some cases they may also have the 'reference' of having heard the same
performance broadcast on R3. (e.g. This occurs when a broadcast is
subsequently put onto a cover CD for BBC Music Mag.)

Hence I'd say this *does* matter in some cases, but becomes part of the
'recording chain' so far as the end user of the CD is concerned. Thus I'd
agree that it "may or may not be a good thing", but disagree with your
view
that it does not matter.


When I wrote the above, I was thinking more about pop music.
I was "referee" at a CD mastering session just this morning, where the label
owner wanted someone with experience to keep an eye on the final phase
of the project.

As far as classical and jazz recordings are concerned, there is much more of
an effort made to make as few alterations as possible, so the CD bears a
much greater resemblance to the master.

Iain