>
One reason however that some CDs really did sound cold and clinical in the early days was because the transfers to CD were using EQ curves that toned down bass and heightened treble frequencies for pressing vinyls. It made the vinyl records more even, but it made the CDs sound weak and harsh.You seem to refer to the RIAA equalization curve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization
It is true that bass is reduced and treble is increased before recording a vinyl LP, but the opposite curve is then applied when the LP is played back. The overall frequency curve of the whole chain is flat (or as close to flat as technically possible).
The purpose of the whole thing was not to make "vinyl records more even". The actual reasons were:
1. Reduce noise (which is mostly located in the high frequency area, and is reduced at playback due to the complementary EQ curve)
2. Reduce the very high amplitude meandering motion of the needle that would be imposed by high-amplitude bass (thereby requiring a much wider space between neighboring grooves and reducing the total duration of the LP). Because bass is reduced while recording, the needle doesn't wander that much; at playback, bass is restored to the right level.
Moreover, the RIAA curve is extremely deep. It's + or - 20 dB at either end, and that's A Whole Lot. Any CD mastered with such a curve applied at recording (but without the opposite curve applied at playback) would sound downright awful. It's not a subtle effect, it's about the same like turning bass all the way down, and treble all the way up, on a classic EQ with two knobs. That's not "cold and clinical", that's broken.
Perhaps some clueless sound monkeys indeed made such an egregious error back then, on a few CDs, but the backlash was no doubt very strong. When LP fans talk about the "cold" sound of CDs, this is not what they refer to. They are talking about the lack of a certain kind of added harmonic distortions that give vinyl its specific sound, that some people apparently prefer over a clear signal, for some strange reason.
Source: I'm old enough to have actually built preamps for LP players (and cassette recorders). Often my stuff was as good as high-end professional electronics, at a fraction of the cost. But it often looked like something a robotic gorilla threw up after an indigestion.
> HFR may require similar "mastering" to suit the newer format better, changing filmmaking techniques that no longer apply like they did in the 24fps era.
I totally agree.
They use 48 fps, but the shooting and lighting techniques are the same like in the 24 fps era. Of course there seems to be a disconnect.