24-bit releases of old albums?

If they are 16 bit up-samples, yes its a con,  but if they are taken from the original master tapes its a different story, The question is what were they originally recorded in, old original analogue tapes can be copied into a high level digital format & some great remasters made.  

........  problem is what is the story behind the recording(s) ?? !!!.   

I have some excellent 24 bit recordings that are remastered from the original master tapes,  some on the other hand are not so good.  Like I say,  what is the story behind the recording,  & maybe another question is do you trust the vendor 

I think Mike-B does indeed have it right.  All that 24 bit can give you over 16 bit is a lot more levels between extremely quiet and extremely loud. So a good analogue recording carefully re-sampled at 24 bit may well sound better than the same analogue recording sampled at 16 bit (ie as in a CD), where there is a constant compromise with level and dynamic range.  Linn explains this well on their download site, but in the context of digital recordings of course.

i think this probably means that 24 bit may have something to offer where the master was analogue (or 24 bit obviously) but probably isn't going to give anything extra where the "master" or source recording is 16 bit.  So it is indeed all about the history of the recording.  HiFi News reviews some digital downloads each month and this is very revealing. There certainly are no standards out there right now! It's fascinating.

David

There are some excellent old albums that have been rereleased as 24 bit and that sound, imho, much better than the original 16 bit versions but there are also others that do not.  Its worth a little research before you buy.  Most of mine are rock albums including the likes of Rush, Fleetwood Mac and the Eagles and they generally speaking are worth the purchase.

So far I have good experiences with older ones, but perhaps I am lucky...

I downloaded a lot a 24 bit stuff from HDTracks while I was in Brazil. Certainly agree that as yet there is no standard - i found it was not possible to assume it would guarantee an older album sounded better - most yes, but still a bit hit and miss.

I rely on a couple of online forums for added info about remasters etc. Computeraudiophile and the Steve Hoffman forum. 

+1  ...... or is that +2 ??

As with any forum you have to sort through the content that you choose to pay attention to.  But on each there are some seemingly good 'reviews' of new releases / new remasters. 

Not surprisingly, there are always differing opinions as to preferences for versions.  This is one reason why my server has sometimes several versions of certain favorites, such as Close to the Edge and Dark Side of the Moon.  Between original versions, remasters, Japanese SHM releases, SACD ripped to PCM, etc etc., there is a lot of variety.  But I fear that the online streaming services have zero interest in providing this level of detail to the very very few among us who care!

Wat sometimes we need a little alchemy, esp. before .dsf support was implemented

But overall I'm way more interested in the mastering than the format of the bits, with the proviso that I do hear the benefits of "hi res" vs redbook when all else is equal (which, as this thread points out, often is not the case).