Sy: " ... The issues with remasters are numerous. The "digitization" is the least of them. Assuming that the remastering engineers have good intentions and don't deliberately screw things up ..."
IMOP, One of the best examples of a really great remastering from the original tapes: http://www.classicrecords.com/item.cfm?item=HDAD 2008
(Some folks consider this the best folk blues album, ever. Some consider this to be the best Muddy Waters album, ever. Some recording engineers consider this to be the best transfer from restored tape to digital media, ever. Me, I like it a lot = IMOP best played on a "universal" DVD player with a bang up DAC to stereo system. Me, I still like to play "Electric Mud" as well, on vinyl ...
)
IMOP, One of the best examples of a really great remastering from the original tapes: http://www.classicrecords.com/item.cfm?item=HDAD 2008
(Some folks consider this the best folk blues album, ever. Some consider this to be the best Muddy Waters album, ever. Some recording engineers consider this to be the best transfer from restored tape to digital media, ever. Me, I like it a lot = IMOP best played on a "universal" DVD player with a bang up DAC to stereo system. Me, I still like to play "Electric Mud" as well, on vinyl ...
)Speaking of classic rock, I just picked up a new (to me) turntable this weekend- Thorens TD295 MkIII. Going through my record collection, I found a copy of the Led Zepplin ZoSo album. I didn't even know what it was, as they didn't print any text on the jacket- no group, no title, no stock number, nutin. I doubt it's been played more than once or twice, if that. No pops, clicks, or excess surface noise. That's the album with Black Dog, Stairway to Heaven, and a bunch of other well known stuff. My previous Sony table wasn't terrible, but man, there really is a difference. Or, maybe it's all in my head, just knowing the platter weighs about twice what the Sony did. Though I listen to vinyl, I mostly record to CD using a homebrew preamp, and an Emu 0202 interface. Cartridge is an Ortofon OM30 that's probably ready for a new stylus.
I have heaps of the early rock on vinyl, discs I bought (and paid through the nose for as imports/1st gen way back when) but I listen as often as not to the CD reissue/remasters. Who's Next and Who Are You are not about the audio quality. I'd listen to both on a 4th generation cassette copy, and have hundreds of times.
Keith and John are, and always have been, my heroes.
Janis too.
Get over it; it's about the music stoopid!
Keith and John are, and always have been, my heroes.
Janis too.
Get over it; it's about the music stoopid!
I get a lot of pleasure from music on 2" scratchy radio speakers, but I get a lot more when it sounds like what was intended. Go into any music store and look at the variety of picks, strings, effects pedals, and a bunch of other stuff I know nothing about, then tell me musicians don't worry about the nuances of their sound. Even rockers. Even rappers. Sure it can sound good as long as you can recognize it; the brain fills in a lot. But, it can sound even better in its entirety and with nothing added. And loud!
I have three dozen bass guitars (+2 electrics +1 acoustic + heaps of amps), so cut the lecture. I akso have a great teacher and I practice hours every day.Conrad Hoffman said:
I can play any rock on any of them, and if my performance is good enough, no one else will care what gear it was performed on. James Jamerson played many of the greatest lines in history on a crappy old P, with dead strings and an action that makes my hand hurt thinking about it. The gear is not the issue.
" .. Get over it; it's about the music stoopid! ... The gear is not the issue. ... "
Granted, Yes indeedy, Your Gear is certainly Not The Issue, and I'm sure your music is fantastic. I just wonder if you would want your listeners, fans, admirers to hear all of your output through a pair of tin cups and some string ... surely not.
And this is Conrads point I believe, not that your output should be dictated by us as listeners, as to the equipment used or strings plucked ... just that we, on the receiving end, would like to be able to hear all of the nuances and noise that you put out, without degradation by intermedary distortion or detraction or whatever.
... Please play the music and play it real fine ... and as the music goes round and round and it comes out here ... is it the same as the music you intended to make? ... or even close?
(Brett: have you seen these? http://alembic.stores.yahoo.net/f2btubepreamp.html ... got an opinion?)
Granted, Yes indeedy, Your Gear is certainly Not The Issue, and I'm sure your music is fantastic. I just wonder if you would want your listeners, fans, admirers to hear all of your output through a pair of tin cups and some string ... surely not.
And this is Conrads point I believe, not that your output should be dictated by us as listeners, as to the equipment used or strings plucked ... just that we, on the receiving end, would like to be able to hear all of the nuances and noise that you put out, without degradation by intermedary distortion or detraction or whatever.
... Please play the music and play it real fine ... and as the music goes round and round and it comes out here ... is it the same as the music you intended to make? ... or even close?
(Brett: have you seen these? http://alembic.stores.yahoo.net/f2btubepreamp.html ... got an opinion?)
Lecture? I think not; sorry if I gave the wrong tone. Regardless, if your music is contaminated by hum and noise or distortion that you didn't intend to be there, or if part of it is just plain missing, live or in my living room, my enjoyment of your performance won't be what it could be, any more than if some body behind me kept kicking the seat when I was trying to listen. Whether or not you think I should react that way doesn't change the reality of the matter. IMHO, it may be some sort of left brain right brain thing. My ineptness with musical instruments and more than reasonable skills with technical matters is probably not unrelated.
Yes, and I built a clone on the bench once. It's an old Fender Bassman or similar front end. It's simply a 12AX7 - passive tone stack - 12AX7 gain stage. It has too much gain IMO and isn't the sound I prefer, but lots of people love them, they hold their value well and sell quickly. It's an easy circuit to mess with and try other tubes etc..FastEddy said:
I have the circuit somewhere if you want it.
Apologies for that. At 2am and not being well, I came across short and ill tempered, which wan't my intent. More my usual blunt demeanor and not a little ironic.Conrad Hoffman said:
We also have very similar tastes in music going by the list you posted earlier.
Sitting on several fences here, my take is complex.
Audiophiles seem to love the sound as much as the music, and often more. At times I'm guilty of this too. However my personal reason for participating in this hobby is I like to build things, and amps and speakers are massively complex constructions and hard to get right. I like having high quality possessions, not for status, but because they're good, well designed and implemented, and building gets me that for low cost. Plus, I like to make things; that's my own personal mountain to climb. When I complete the speaker project I posted today, it should (fingers crossed) be the audio equivalent of a supercar, for the price of a family sedan. That's one of the nice things about the DIY aspect of this hobby, as well as all the nice people I've met. The retail high-end is awful, full of charlatans ans snake oil, and I hate that.
What I will say is, when I complete my speaker project, I doubt I'll enjoy the music played on it any more. I may be able to hear the nuances more clearly, but unless they can play, and play something good, it doesn't mean that I'm any more likely want to dance, sing along, laugh, cry or be gripped by the beauty of the work. The great moments I've had listening to music over the years have more often happened with a boombox, car stereo or a crappy PA as against a fine audio system.
As a (poor, talentless) muso, who lives with, hangs with and meets lots of other musos as well as fixing thier gear at times, I've discovered several things. They're often as bad worrying about the sound as audiophiles. But lots couldn't care less and make great 'soulfull' (can't think of a better word) music on cheap, poor Q gear. IME, the audio nuances of a certain piece are far, far less important to them than if you get the content, meaning or expression of the work. Many also rant about how they can tell the difference between different individual preamp tubes in a 5150 at high volumes, or that the 'tone' of a vintage Les Paul is maintained after putting it through 5 stompboxes and can tell which one has the maple top then too. And don't get me started about 'mojo'. Bollocks. There is just as much self delusion, myth and snake oil here as in hifi. And as little real care for the sonics as the majority of people, most of whom listen to music through boomboxes or low bit rate mp3's.
I've bought several reissue/remastered CDs of classic rock this last year. All of them I have on LP in early pristine pressings (I've been collecting LP's a long time) and on standard CD releases as well. As an example, I'll use Who's Next. I have a half dozen copies of this on CD, including the pressing Steve Hoffman apparently made using the original tape. It sounds OK, better than the standard Aussie pressing, but the version I reach for first is the remaster. I just like it better and it more clearly communicates the work to ME. But ultimately, a daggy old cassette of this album would be fine; I'd still have the pleasure of listening to a lot of music I love.
What I've posted has touched on what I wanted to say, but this sort of thing is far easier done over a couple of beers, where we can play the discs for each other and show exactly what's meant, rather than trying to convey it in text.
I need to rest and I'm going to put a few remasters in the CD changer that lives under my bed, plug in the cheap earbuds, and rock in my crib.
Brett, I do understand where you're coming from, and I say something similar on the photography forums I sometimes frequent. It goes something like, "stop worrying about how sharp the lens is and how many features the body has, and go make some [insert expletive here] decent images." Good music will force its way through a lot of junk, and still move the soul. Bad music (different for all of us) will be bad no matter how well it's reproduced. I probably am too sensitive to the perception of sound- a simple chord can sound so good to me, almost like the sensation of taste. The layers of a Bach organ piece are fascinating to me. OTOH, some rhythms are very difficult- a lot of highly regarded jazz is lost on me, as is much current music. Tonight I have to work on some electronic measurements for my day job, so I'll pop a CD in the computer and listen on my $14 speakers from Wal-Mart. It will probably be Nellie McKay to start with, and those speakers won't bother me a bit!
cjv998 said:
So far, I know I want:
Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall (if it isn't too pricey)
some Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, ELO, REO Speedwagon, The Who, the list goes on...
I have The Dark Side Of The Moon 1992 (1990?) CD, and it just sounds so great to me. Some may feel differently, but to me it's one of the best sounding records I have. Apparently the first cd release from 80s was made using a tape copy, but later they used master tapes. And then there's SACD and quadraphonic mix..
One great, classic album that comes to mind is Jeff Beck's Wired (admittely it's more like jazz than rock).
I've been hearing lot of positive things about the new Doors re-mixes. Anyone listened to them, what do you think?
I've been working my way though the American release of Led Zeppelin Complete Studio Recordings boxed set. 10 albums for $8 each is a bargain. I've been very happy with it so far.
Right now I'm 2 tracks into the 7th Disc, Physical Graffiti disc 1, and it's bloody awful. something wrong with the bass and vocals are distorted. I've heard better bootlegs!
Does anyone have a non-remastered copy of Physical Graffiti?
Have a listen to the vocals from 2:20 thru to 2:40 from The Rover (track 2) Is yours bad here too?
Sounds like the tape got chewed at 4:00 to 4:15 too.
Right now I'm 2 tracks into the 7th Disc, Physical Graffiti disc 1, and it's bloody awful. something wrong with the bass and vocals are distorted. I've heard better bootlegs!
Does anyone have a non-remastered copy of Physical Graffiti?
Have a listen to the vocals from 2:20 thru to 2:40 from The Rover (track 2) Is yours bad here too?
Sounds like the tape got chewed at 4:00 to 4:15 too.
The cd cover is one of those paper double fold out ones, it slips in a protective box that makes it too big to fit on a standard cd rack.
In the spine of the box is a flashing red LED, the box is deeper than a cd. in the back is a concealed AA or AAA battery (can't remember) that powers this flashing red LED. It takes at least 3 years for it to go flat.
The red flashing light is kind of cool for a little while, it soon starts getting annoying. Perhaps the idea was to help fans see it in the store through the smoky haze of their mind.
In the spine of the box is a flashing red LED, the box is deeper than a cd. in the back is a concealed AA or AAA battery (can't remember) that powers this flashing red LED. It takes at least 3 years for it to go flat.
The red flashing light is kind of cool for a little while, it soon starts getting annoying. Perhaps the idea was to help fans see it in the store through the smoky haze of their mind.
Max fidelity is always my goal, but it's not without drawbacks.
For instance, The Who, Who's Next, is one of favorites of all time.
But HF has improved to the point where the original defects are now readily apparent. The Who CD is so bad that I can't stand stand to listen to it anymore. The remastered CD is much improved, but it's still terrible, it shreds the ears.
I love the digital technology, if for no other reason than it ages well. My long term goal has been to digitize my vinyl collection, but that goal was hampered when my AKG cartridges got damaged during a cross country move.
The old import vinyl is so superior to the mass produced CDs they've been putting out. It doesn't seem fair to charge us for vinyl, cassttes, Cd's, Reissued Cds and now remastered CDs of the same exact content. That's why I have no sympathy for greedy record companies and their gestapo like DRM laws that protect THEM only.
Anyway, my point is, that well preserved vinyl might be a better source than the original, but worn and decayed master tapes that they're using to make these new releases.
I know my home brew remasters from old import vinyl sound much better than the remastered CDs coming off the production lines of the record insdustry.
Another topic that's rarely discussed, but a very effective tool for "extracting every ounce of sound quality" is sound editing software.
We seem to spend all our efforts building the perfect system, but recording venues are far too complex and variable for hardware to accomodate. If it were ever true that one size does not fit all, this is where it applies most.
My solution was to buy Sonic Foundry's Sound Forge software to edit the music to my taste.
EQ, Dynamics, channel seperation, glitch pop removal, hum redcuction, etc... all these things are now at my fingertips.
Of course I cannot work miracles if the source is really bad, but it's amzing what you can do to liven up some of those flat sounding oldies. I mean come on.... new tweeters only fix certain songs right?
The question is.... does it sound as good on your system, as it does mine?
sample joan baez diamonds and rust in wma.
Obviously, your mileage may vary. But in my house, she sounds she's standing RIGHT F-THERE singing in my ears.
Watch out for WMP's WOW and TruBass plugins that can get out hand.
Anyway, that's my two cents worth. Your change is in the mail.
I have one more Album I desperately need digitized, but can't see spending tons of money for a replacement stylus or cartridge that I'll rarely use anymore. Most of my collection has been digitized already, so the vinyl and TT won't be needed unless I get new vinyl, which is unlikely.
Anyone (with good hardware) want a digitizing project?
Mark Almond - The City - extremely rare, even on CD.
For instance, The Who, Who's Next, is one of favorites of all time.
But HF has improved to the point where the original defects are now readily apparent. The Who CD is so bad that I can't stand stand to listen to it anymore. The remastered CD is much improved, but it's still terrible, it shreds the ears.
I love the digital technology, if for no other reason than it ages well. My long term goal has been to digitize my vinyl collection, but that goal was hampered when my AKG cartridges got damaged during a cross country move.
The old import vinyl is so superior to the mass produced CDs they've been putting out. It doesn't seem fair to charge us for vinyl, cassttes, Cd's, Reissued Cds and now remastered CDs of the same exact content. That's why I have no sympathy for greedy record companies and their gestapo like DRM laws that protect THEM only.
Anyway, my point is, that well preserved vinyl might be a better source than the original, but worn and decayed master tapes that they're using to make these new releases.
I know my home brew remasters from old import vinyl sound much better than the remastered CDs coming off the production lines of the record insdustry.
Another topic that's rarely discussed, but a very effective tool for "extracting every ounce of sound quality" is sound editing software.
We seem to spend all our efforts building the perfect system, but recording venues are far too complex and variable for hardware to accomodate. If it were ever true that one size does not fit all, this is where it applies most.
My solution was to buy Sonic Foundry's Sound Forge software to edit the music to my taste.
EQ, Dynamics, channel seperation, glitch pop removal, hum redcuction, etc... all these things are now at my fingertips.
Of course I cannot work miracles if the source is really bad, but it's amzing what you can do to liven up some of those flat sounding oldies. I mean come on.... new tweeters only fix certain songs right?
The question is.... does it sound as good on your system, as it does mine?
sample joan baez diamonds and rust in wma.
Obviously, your mileage may vary. But in my house, she sounds she's standing RIGHT F-THERE singing in my ears.
Watch out for WMP's WOW and TruBass plugins that can get out hand.
Anyway, that's my two cents worth. Your change is in the mail.
I have one more Album I desperately need digitized, but can't see spending tons of money for a replacement stylus or cartridge that I'll rarely use anymore. Most of my collection has been digitized already, so the vinyl and TT won't be needed unless I get new vinyl, which is unlikely.
Anyone (with good hardware) want a digitizing project?
Mark Almond - The City - extremely rare, even on CD.
Then you're missing the point. It's not about the sound but about the music. Who's Next is one of my fave discs of all time, and if I had the choice of listening to it on a boombox, or not listening to it, but having an extremely high resolution system, the boombox would win. I've lived with both options, and would have the big horn system back in a second if I had the space, because even with the recording issues, the music is meant to be experienced.head_spaz said:
We had a birthday party in honour of Keith the other night. Really it was en excuse for a few of us musos to get together, drink, jam and play Who really loud and late. Sod the recorded quality, Keith and John aren't here any more and I want to hear one of the great drummers and the Bassist of the Millenium play.
I've used Who's Next as an example, but I could cite dozens of others I feel similarly about.
FWIW, I'm spinning the remaster of Who Are You as I type.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.