[vhiner]

HD-tracks just announced this and seem to be saying it's a brand new hirez remaster. Has anyone checked it out?

[HAL]

I am interested as well. 

I have the SACD reissue and it was very good.

[HAL]

Ok, I got the 24bit/192KHz download from HDTracks. 

First few cuts sound like a very good remastering.   

[vhiner]

Ok, I got the 24bit/192KHz download from HDTracks. 

First few cuts sound like a very good remastering.   

Great news! I'd love to hear more of your impressions. 

[TheChairGuy]

The standard CD and (nuthin' special) vinyl issues are outstanding already

That is just one classic album - recorded so simply it sounds

[HAL]

The rest of the cuts are very good indeed.   The only one that you can hear its 47 year age is Fur Elise, with higher tape noise than the rest.

Its as good as the SACD from memory and much easier to get on the Music Server. 

[vhiner]

The rest of the cuts are very good indeed.   The only one that you can hear its 47 year age is Fur Elise, with higher tape noise than the rest.

Its as good as the SACD from memory and much easier to get on the Music Server. 

Thanks HAL.  I'll be downloading it this weekend.

[vhiner]

People think I'm nuts but I listen to this album all year long, and I normally can't stomach Xmas music. A good jazz trio can do no wrong IMO.

I watched the Christmas special every year when I was growing up and this album always conjures great memories...and people who look down their noses at the Vince Guaraldi Trio are just being fussbudgets. 

[vhiner]

The rest of the cuts are very good indeed.   The only one that you can hear its 47 year age is Fur Elise, with higher tape noise than the rest.

Its as good as the SACD from memory and much easier to get on the Music Server. 

HAL,

Your review is right on target. I just got the 192 and am listening to it on my Perfect Wave DAC/Transport. I never heard the SACD, but this sure beats the Redbook! Thanks for doing the recon!

[HAL]

Glad to help!

This is one of my favorite recordings!   

[Russell Dawkins]

I like the music and performance well enough, but it puzzles me as to how they can justify the hi res treatment of this recording - the fundamental quality does not merit more than standard CD 16/44k resolution, in my books. The piano is miced too close in some - listen to the piano action (damper) noise in The Christmas Song, for example). I'm not a fan of bass hard right and drums hard left, either.

I do like this as background music - I just don't think it justifies the Hi Definition treatment.

[vhiner]

I like the music and performance well enough, but it puzzles me as to how they can justify the hi res treatment of this recording - the fundamental quality does not merit more than standard CD 16/44k resolution, in my books. The piano is miced too close in some - listen to the piano action (damper) noise in The Christmas Song, for example). I'm not a fan of bass hard right and drums hard left, either

I do like this as background music - I just don't think it justifies the Hi Definition treatment.

You won't find anyone more intolerant of hirez "pigs in a poke" than me.

Granted, the original recording has numerous flaws, but for people who love the material as much as I do, the improved bass, headroom and soundstage produced by the " hirez treatment" is, in this case, worth it to me. Anyone hearing this hirez version compared to the Redbook will notice the improvements...whether that's worth even a single dime is strictly up to each individual. My concern with some hirez releases is that some of them are actually *worse* or no better than the 16/44 original. This particular release is *not* a dog and, considering how many lousy ones are out there, it's worth noting the quality of this one.

[Russell Dawkins]

I guess what's confusing the issue is that these may not be just hi-res; they're re-mixed or re-mastered as part of the process. This way you may be thinking you're enjoying the higher resolution, but what you are actually enjoying is the superior mastering or mixing. 

Either of these can have more influence on the sound and the "enjoyment factor"  than the difference between 24/96 and redbook 16/44 CD or even mp3, especially with some older masters.

[vhiner]

I guess what's confusing the issue is that these may not be just hi-res; they're re-mixed or re-mastered as part of the process. This way you may be thinking you're enjoying the higher resolution, but what you are actually enjoying is the superior mastering or mixing. 

Either of these can have more influence on the sound and the "enjoyment factor"  than the difference between 24/96 and redbook 16/44 CD or even mp3, especially with some older masters.

No argument from me about the value of a remix or remaster. There are many examples of remastered rebook CD's that represent a far greater improvement than the jump to 24/96. I'm not an audio engineer nor do I know the provenance of this particular release. I suspect it's a combination of the 24 bits *and* remastering. All I know for sure is this: this release is an improvement over what I have.

[rofo]

The piano is miced too close in some - listen to the piano action (damper) noise in The Christmas Song, for example). I do like this as background music - I just don't think it justifies the Hi Definition treatment.

One of the hardest things to record is the piano. Depending on the piano some are noisier then others (foot pedals, hammer action etc.) if the recording captured this than it is true to the event (IMHO). If I was in the room with that piano and it made those noises I would want to hear it in the recording as that is the sound of that piano. I just listened to a saxophone recording and I could hear the reed vibrating and the person's spit enter the instrument. If the event happened I want to hear it, I don't want it filtered out. But then again you could be right poor mic placement or wrong mic, we have to live with the choices for the production at that time.