Jump to content

Nirvana Nevermind Remaster 24/96

Recommended Posts

Dizziness: "The current 20th Anniversary Redbook and HDTracks releases are identical masters."


Ergo, the HDTracks 24/96 is merely up-sampled?


And, umm, 'scuse me for sounding stoopid, but if a remaster is a compression/loudness job, then what's the point in releasing in a hi-res format (aside from milking saps like me)?


It's illogical, surely?






Link to comment

Hi 6th.replicant - Good questions. Remastering can do much more than adjust the loudness level. Here is a general article from Wikipedia -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remaster


I highly recommend people listen to the 24/96 version (if possible) before massacring it. So far I like what I've heard from this download.




Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

Yeah, the CD and HDTracks download are the same mastering job. But the HD Tracks is clearly the hi-res master BEFORE it was downsampled and dithered to 16-bit. As I said before (and I agree with Chris), the HD Tracks release is audibly superior, albeit with limited dynamic range. The fidelity difference is smaller than an "Audiophile" recording but heck, it's rock and roll.


iMac/Wireworld Ultraviolet/Arcam rDAC/Blue Jeans LC-1/Audioengine A5

Link to comment

Chris and Dizziness, thanks for your replies.


Sure, remastering can have its benefits - Davis's Kind Of Blue and Bowie's David Live and Stage are prime examples, IMHO - but why compress/clip?


When remastering, give us improved soundstage, separation and vinyl-type bass punch etc - but leave the dynamic range intact, please.


If I listen to HDTracks Nevermind 24/96 online samples via USB, will I be hearing genuine 24/96 or are HDTracks samples compressed (i.e. AACs or similar)?


Thanks :)




Link to comment

He guys,


I can show you some facts.


And, just for fun I downloaded the highly promoted "newly remastered" version from the iTunes store (AAC256kbits44.1kHz converted to WAV by Foobar2000).


For my taste of listening, I like the MFSL disc most. I don't like the clipping of the newly remastered versions. The MFSL represents more dynamic, air, room and body to the sound.


But I fully understand HDtracks, it's definitely not their fault. They are not responsible for the mastering. They only want to offer an absolut top album in their download store and they can.


Enjoy listening, Bernhard


P.S.: For better understanding:



Link to comment

After reading the disappointing posts about the remaster her I jumped over to eBay and found a used copy of the MFSL CD for $47 and free shipping. Can't wait to hear it.




Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

Mac Mini->Roon + Tidal->KEF LS50W

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

So with everyone having a few weeks to download/listen to these files, I was wondering what the general opinion is of this download. I own the CD- not the MFSL version, just a regular version bought at a retail store eons ago- and it is ripped at 320kbps MP3 quality.


Would I notice a significant difference between the MP3 and this 24/96 download? I saw the mentions of reduced dynamic range from the CD, so I am unsure of whether or not it is worth the money...can anyone else comment on their experience comparing the CD (whether it is ripped to FLAC/MP3, or just listening to the disc itself) to this download?


Welcome your insights before deciding whether or not to purchase this album from HDTracks. Thanks!




Office: iPod classic/iPad -> Shure SE425 IEM Home: Oppo BDP-83/Synology DS211j -> Integra DTR-7.8 -> Revel speakers

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...