"they will send the master digital file with the understanding that the LP mastering engineer will deal with it as needed. "
Isn’t that pretty much what they sent the CD mastering engineer as well?
The end result will depend mostly on what determines how it will be dealt with at that point. Is it individual discretion? Maximizing the sound quality? Or compromising it in some way for whatever other reason?
My guess is as mentioned earlier it probably depends on the company and their target customers. That is assuming it costs more to produce a high quality product than otherwise, which is usually the case. Costs will be managed accordingly and differently by maker. In the end is it any different than last go round with records? Most are compromised (like CDs) but a few labels (and maybe some particular artists with clout) focus on sound quality more than others. Those are the ones that might be worth it it seems to me. Unless one just likes to play records regardless (we already know how that ended last time).
In the end it sounds like a very mixed bag, not any different than CDs, except with a format where the ceiling is theoretically higher at least in terms of dynamic range, something mostly only select few audiophiles with really good systems might care about. Resolution as well but the actual significance of the technical differences there are even more debatable.
And only a very few these days would even begin to think about large format tape formats, which is probably the only format historically that most would agree is the real champ.
High res digital can stake a claim even today I think in some cases if one looks hard enough. Someday perhaps not too far off I expect high res digital will in fact gain traction and exclusively claim a significant niche as the high end for home audio fidelity.
Records may survive as well not so much because of sound quality but because records are a nice product you can hold, read look at whatever, you know, teh physical connection that we largely lost with tiny CDs.
Isn’t that pretty much what they sent the CD mastering engineer as well?
The end result will depend mostly on what determines how it will be dealt with at that point. Is it individual discretion? Maximizing the sound quality? Or compromising it in some way for whatever other reason?
My guess is as mentioned earlier it probably depends on the company and their target customers. That is assuming it costs more to produce a high quality product than otherwise, which is usually the case. Costs will be managed accordingly and differently by maker. In the end is it any different than last go round with records? Most are compromised (like CDs) but a few labels (and maybe some particular artists with clout) focus on sound quality more than others. Those are the ones that might be worth it it seems to me. Unless one just likes to play records regardless (we already know how that ended last time).
In the end it sounds like a very mixed bag, not any different than CDs, except with a format where the ceiling is theoretically higher at least in terms of dynamic range, something mostly only select few audiophiles with really good systems might care about. Resolution as well but the actual significance of the technical differences there are even more debatable.
And only a very few these days would even begin to think about large format tape formats, which is probably the only format historically that most would agree is the real champ.
High res digital can stake a claim even today I think in some cases if one looks hard enough. Someday perhaps not too far off I expect high res digital will in fact gain traction and exclusively claim a significant niche as the high end for home audio fidelity.
Records may survive as well not so much because of sound quality but because records are a nice product you can hold, read look at whatever, you know, teh physical connection that we largely lost with tiny CDs.
