Sad to hear Allan Ramsay's statements about the Callas remastering. Sure, it's common nowadays to make the analogue to digital transfers at say 24/88 or 24/96 or even higher. It can help with precision in audio restoration. But once the production is finished, a CD quality release is more than adequate, even for the most demanding listener. Even a high quality mp3 is unlikely to audibly compromise the original sound.
Listen to the hiss in the opening orchestral bars. I'm sure the Abbey Road transfer and remastering engineers have done a great job. The quality limitation here is the original tapes, as we would expect.
You are totally right. Any beginner sound engineer knows that sample rates higher than 44 / 48 khz won't be not noteciably "better". The increase in "higher frequencies" is beyond human hearing capabilities.
Whose to say the imperceptible higher frequencies as you say, don’t actually carry human emotion. Nothing can ever capture the full frequency of a live performance. I believe there is more that cannot be captured but can only be felt
iTunes uses compresseed audio for downloading ( AAC ) , so what´s the use of having a 96kHz 24 Bit remastering , and then listen to it in a lossy audio format like that ( AAC ) ,go for the CD a lossless audio format ( WAV ), although 16 Bit 44kHz , but far better than AAC , MP3 , etc
Not quite true. Lossy formats are a great development. DVD and Blu ray are a perfect example where both picture and sound are data compressed. There are varying grades of data compression from very low quality to very high quality. A skilled engineer - and buyer - chooses the right quality. Done poorly, it can sound terrible. Done right, there can be little or no perceptible loss of original quality.
Rancid Overcoates: “Shame you are a deaf a**hole. Her voice is not such a “dreadful voice” for the stereo remake. The engineering, casting and conducting id better. If there is a loss of power in some passages, the overall dynamic of the character is still maintained. No one has really studied and determined why her voice declined from the mid-fifties on. It’s always attributed to her weight loss but I don’t accept that simple explanation. Otherwise she should have gain back some of the weight!! The remastering is very good and I wonder what Pristine Audio would make of it.
@@johnpickford4222 Ah, a weeping Callas widow. The wound time never heals. Such a shame allowing oneself to be deprived of rudimentary animal instinct at hearing ugly shrieking. You’d never last in the jungle, carino.
@@ransomcoates546Why , close to fifty years after her death, does Callas affect people so strongly, either in worshipful devotion, or angry mockery ? I simply don’t understand it. You like, you don’t like, listen or don’t listen . There are many sites dedicated to other artists, yet people always gravitate to Callas, to love or to hate, and I guess that says it all, gone, but for better or worse, never forgotten.
Pues, un gran trabajo, quitar las imperfecciones y dejar nitida la impresionante voz de Maria Callas, voz sideral, de otro mundo.
Overdue but finally out, her Art transcend time!
My dear Callas!!! My favorite!!! Mi cherring!!! My only!!!!!!!
This is a dream come true! Hopefully, WB will also release Callas remasteres as BluRay Audio
I hope they finally get it right this time around.
Fantastic sound!
very impressed with what has been done but more investigation needed . well done warners
This article has lots of information. There are three pages.
www.stereophile.com/content/callas-remastered-la-divina-receives-her-due
This is thrilling!!
Sad to hear Allan Ramsay's statements about the Callas remastering. Sure, it's common nowadays to make the analogue to digital transfers at say 24/88 or 24/96 or even higher. It can help with precision in audio restoration. But once the production is finished, a CD quality release is more than adequate, even for the most demanding listener. Even a high quality mp3 is unlikely to audibly compromise the original sound.
oldgoody1 in classical music no, because listener is interested in subtle points.
Listen to the hiss in the opening orchestral bars. I'm sure the Abbey Road transfer and remastering engineers have done a great job. The quality limitation here is the original tapes, as we would expect.
You are totally right. Any beginner sound engineer knows that sample rates higher than 44 / 48 khz won't be not noteciably "better". The increase in "higher frequencies" is beyond human hearing capabilities.
Whose to say the imperceptible higher frequencies as you say, don’t actually carry human emotion. Nothing can ever capture the full frequency of a live performance. I believe there is more that cannot be captured but can only be felt
are those regular CDs or DVD Audio / SACD?
Is the box set only available by pre-ordering?
iTunes uses compresseed audio for downloading ( AAC ) , so what´s the use of having a 96kHz 24 Bit remastering , and then listen to it in a lossy audio format like that ( AAC ) ,go for the CD a lossless audio format ( WAV ), although 16 Bit 44kHz , but far better than AAC , MP3 , etc
Not quite true. Lossy formats are a great development. DVD and Blu ray are a perfect example where both picture and sound are data compressed. There are varying grades of data compression from very low quality to very high quality. A skilled engineer - and buyer - chooses the right quality. Done poorly, it can sound terrible. Done right, there can be little or no perceptible loss of original quality.
Interesting
@@oldgoody1 mmm. Cool
BUSINESS.... nothing else......not the slightest idea of "what a voice is".
Shame she is in such dreadful voice for the second ‘Norma’ set.
Rancid Overcoates: “Shame you are a deaf a**hole. Her voice is not such a “dreadful voice” for the stereo remake. The engineering, casting and conducting id better. If there is a loss of power in some passages, the overall dynamic of the character is still maintained. No one has really studied and determined why her voice declined from the mid-fifties on. It’s always attributed to her weight loss but I don’t accept that simple explanation. Otherwise she should have gain back some of the weight!! The remastering is very good and I wonder what Pristine Audio would make of it.
@@johnpickford4222 Ah, a weeping Callas widow. The wound time never heals. Such a shame allowing oneself to be deprived of rudimentary animal instinct at hearing ugly shrieking. You’d never last in the jungle, carino.
@@ransomcoates546Why , close to fifty years after her death, does Callas affect people so strongly, either in worshipful devotion, or angry mockery ? I simply don’t understand it. You like, you don’t like, listen or don’t listen . There are many sites dedicated to other artists, yet people always gravitate to Callas, to love or to hate, and I guess that says it all, gone, but for better or worse, never forgotten.