| cjv998 |
Basically, I'm looking into picking up some classic rock music (I have a bit of a list started further down, and I'm definitely open to suggestions). I have a stereo system, and I can play CD's, so I'm limited there. Basically, here's my question: what should I be getting if I want good audio quality from a CD? Are the "best of" CD's terrible quality, as I am inclined to believe? Should I go for re-issues of the original studio albums? Is there a better option I'm missing, aside from LP's? (I realize being restricted to the CD format limits me in audio quality, but I'm not at a point where I can justify spending money on a good record player and some LP's.) Thanks!
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...
:D
(This was all motivated by searching the forums; I was looking for good-quality recordings; naturally, classic rock got mentioned, and well, here I am after a little more searching.) |
|
|
| hailteflon |
Here would be my quick fix for your situation. I also am sorely disappointed with digital.
Get a Technics quartz direct drive turntable and a Shure M97E cartridge. The M97 can be found for $70 on the web, somewhere.
Most remasters are digital, even though they fill your head with analog jargon and expectations. Almost all if not all Mobil Fidelity are digital. Nautilus, the whole crowd, are almost all digital. Columbia Half-Speeds are real analog. As are RCA half-speeds.
The majority of the "super-pressings" today are digital. They lie by doing the "side-step" in their ads.
The standard commercial issues are probably the best. They can be surprisingly good. If you are in a city with Half-Priced Books stores then you're all set.
Most standard reissues pressed after 1981 are digital, but they don't say it. They aren't remasters, but they are cut with a digital delay-line at the cutter head. They STINK.
No record cleaning machine? use Windex. Let it sit on them for a couple minutes and run water over them. Tilt the record right and you will keep water off of the label. Then dry them with a white t-shirt.
Happy Hunting, Mark |
|
|
| OzMikeH |
Amazon currently has a special. EVERYTHING by led zep boxed set for about $75.
12 or 13 albums roughly.
Buy some jewel cases to put the CDs in straight away. the boxed set packaging scratches the disks. |
|
|
| dnsey |
| quote: | | Get a Technics quartz direct drive turntable and a Shure M97E cartridge. |
I agree (or a similar setup, anyway!)
It will open the way to a collection of all the music you've ever wanted in the original versions and quality, provided you have a little patience to track down LPs in good condition. |
|
|
| 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 (especially compression and re-EQ), which is NOT a good assumption, the fundamental problem arises- the source material. Sometimes a second, third, or even fourth generation tape is used. Clearly, there will be significant and audible degradation.
If all the stars align, a first gen tape is used, the tape is not ratty and been stored well (not always or even usually the case) and the engineer sets levels properly and does little else, the next layer of problem is the master tape itself. Old tapes are plain and simple not stable. Over the years, bad things happen including shedding particles, peeling coatings, dried up lubricants, embrittled base stock, and (worst of all) self-demagnetization. The last causes the transients to smear out along the tape as each set of domains slowly affects its neighbors and leads to a very characteristic dull, flat sound.
A good mastering engineer will have some tricks to try to compensate for deteriorated tape and can produce an acceptable result. But no matter his skill and good intentions, it will not be the same as using a freshly-made tape for mastering. It's analogous to a fine chef, who can make an acceptable dish from old meat and wilted vegetables, but it will not be a vibrant and excellent dish, just palatable. |
|
|
| Conrad Hoffman |
Sy has posted a very coherent reply on the issue. I've come to the conclusion that "remasters" are variable at best, and on some it seems like the engineer had never heard the original album. The remaster of Laura Nyro, Eli and the 13th Confession, is devoid of bass and almost unlistenable, yet the reviews on Amazon rave about the sound quality. The only hope is for me to copy it with re-equalization.
There are many CDs that are as good as the LPs, but no good guidelines to predict which ones. LPs have their own set of problems, but if they were little played, and you wash them, you'll be rewarded. I use a cheap Sony PS-T33 direct drive table and an Ortofon OM30, but you can probably do better with a decent belt drive unit. Back when I bought the cartridge, they were reasonable. Recently I priced a new stylus and nearly fainted. More than I paid for the turntable and cartridge when they were new.
If you don't have or want to build a record cleaner, try to get a record cleaning brush- can one still get Watts products? Use the published mix of isopropyl alcohol, water, and a drop of wetting agent. I recently had to clean some records at my parents house, and didn't have a record cleaning brush. A big artists brush has pointed bristles that work rather well, though it's more work to get around all the grooves. Work on a clean cotton bath towel and dry with same. Try not to wreck the labels when cleaning.
What you get obviously depends on your tastes. Being over 50, my nostalgia rock collection includes Airplane, Starship, Kinks, Deep Purple, Pink Floyd, Kraftwerk, Pretenders, Police, Renaissance, Procol Harem (sp?), Dire Straits, AC/DC, Cheap Trick, Pat Benetar, Quarterflash, and a few hundred others. Don't forget folk/rock/country, if you like that sort of thing. IMO, some Arlo Guthrie, Michelle Shocked, Gordon Lightfoot, and Nitty Gritty Dirtband are good to have around. Don't forget Dylan and Paul Simon. If the above list makes you gag, no doubt there will be other recommendations! |
|
|
| OzMikeH |
If you're a fan of AC/DC you should have a listen to The Angels.
Some of my favourites are Shadow Boxer, No Secrets and any live version of Am I Ever Going To See Your Face Again with the traditional crowd response. Their later Beyond Salvation album was more sophisticated but seemed too polished. It lacks the raw pub rock energy the earlier albums had (circa 1977).
ACDC's last good album was Back in Black. I would not bother with the rest of post 1980 ACDC.
CD versions of ACDC I've heard are pretty good, CDs are easier to play at the correct volume without feedback. |
|
|
| cjv998 |
It sounds like the majority of remasters are bad enough that I shouldn't even mess with them, and I really should look into picking up a record player, as the CD format is out of the question here, correct? That's a shame. I read a little on that during my searching, but hoped it wasn't the case. Hmm, my dad had an old record player that I hope is in the basement somewhere, maybe I can get that from him (if I remember correctly, it was a Technics, but I could be wrong). That would save me a significant amount of money, but I'd still need a new cartridge, and some cleaning supplies. He may even have records around still. I assume those will still be playable.
In fact, after looking at some pictures, I swear it was a Technics SL-Q2 that my dad had. I'll have to ask him later today. |
|
|
| TheRealDaverz |
| quote: | Originally posted by OzMikeH
If you're a fan of AC/DC you should have a listen to The Angels. |
They were called Angel City in the U.S. |
|
|
| cjv998 |
| My dad said I can have his old record player, but it needs a new needle (it's been sitting in the basement for almost 10 years now, so who knows if anything else is wrong with it). He said he remembers spending a hefty amount on the cartridge, so as long as it's still good, I should be able just replace the needle, right? He still has all his records too. Where are good places to get old LPs? Is buying them online usually advisable, or would I be better off going to a used music store, or what? |
|
|
| Irakli |
Hi cjv,
Unless you have quite high-end stereo system, the quality of CD recording is secondary. I agree that there are some very bad masters there (first issue LZ CD's come in mind), but in most cases the quality is adequate. Exeptions are the recordings of modern rock bands. These recordings are so compressed that you can't listen them on home stereo. They sound great in the car though, so that's where I listen to them (e.g. Fratellis, Franz Ferdinand).
I think bad recording of good music is better than flawless recording of bad music. Just start collecting what you like.
:) |
|
|
| Conrad Hoffman |
| Old turntables tend to have the lubricants gum up, causing automatic arms to not hit the right spot, fail to lift, and various other troubles. You just have to try it and see how it works. IMO, there were a lot of things that were common knowledge regarding caring for and playing LPs, that you should study up on. Alas, I don't know of any specific sites for that, but a search should turn up something. Both new and old LPs benefit from cleaning, but you have to do it right so as not to degrade the album further. It's bad practice to play an LP twice in a row. You want a light tracking cartridge, but setting the force even slightly to low is far worse than slightly too heavy. And on and on! |
|
|
| cactuscowboy |
| Forget the CDs, get a decent turntable and spin some vinyl! There's plenty of Classic Rock available out there. Make a habit of going to lots of yard sales (ALWAYS ask for records & old stereo equipment) and thrift shops. I've bought CD reissues of some of my LPs and have been sorely disappointed with **** ranging from a copy of a poor vinyl original complete with pops and clicks to subpar demo and live versions of the original songs. |
|
|
| davidlzimmer |
| quote: | | No record cleaning machine? use Windex. Let it sit on them for a couple minutes and run water over them. Tilt the record right and you will keep water off of the label. Then dry them with a white t-shirt. |
I've used this method but beware! Dilute the Windex. Don't let the windex dry. Use distilled water if possible. I put it in a spray bottle to get some flushing action. When drying, use the cloth in a blotting motion. NEVER in a wiping motion. Best to let time do most of the work. Make sure the vynil is completely dry before playing.
Another tool I've found useful is, holding your eyes and a flash lite in plane with the surface. You will be amazed at the specks of dust and scum it reviles! A Swiffer is handy to get the dust. Rewashing should eventually get the scum.
Insect and clean before and after each playing, if practical and invest in static free sleeves.
It sounds like a lot of work, but you will be rewarded.
Cheers! |
|
|
| Conrad Hoffman |
| Actually, never let anything dry on a record. It has to be absorbed out of the grooves by a something like the old Diskwasher or similar gadget. I use an old Watts record cleaning brush with the alcohol solution, followed by a vigorous rinse, pat the surface dry with a clean cotton towel, then dry the grooves with the Diskwasher brush. Carbon fiber brush just before playing. |
|
|
| davidlzimmer |
Conrad.
While I agree with you, please explain "dishwasher brush". Not sure of what you are talking about.
Thanks, |
|
|
| DigitalJunkie |
Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs did a re-master of some Pink Floyd stuff,I have one of the albums around here,somewhere. (I don't recall which one though.)
Another one I like,Is the Fleetwood Mac Greatest Hits album..Its a "regular" CD,but I think it was mastered off of the original 4-track tapes,it sounds quite good,IMO. |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" .. Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs did a re-master of some Pink Floyd stuff ..."
EMI / Capital released a SACD "remaster" of Floyd's "Dark Side of dthe Moon" that sounds significantly better than the CD = a totally different sound and, IMOP, as good as the vinyl :eek:
I am in constant search mode for DVD-A and SACD of the ol' hippy / '60s & '70s stuff. Some of us geezers like it! ... I'm real partial to the ClassicRecords.com 's methodology of conversion to DVD-A (and I have charge accounts at Classicrecords.com and elusivedisc.com to prove it).
Original to this thread: " what should I be getting if I want good audio quality from a CD? ..."
I just love that 24 bit DVD-A and 24 bit DVD-Video sound, so that lets CDs out and as Bob Dylan says: "CDs suck" ... |
|
|
| Conrad Hoffman |
| David- I'm getting old, so everything I know is obsolete! Discwasher (with a c) made a nice record brush with highly directional fabric in a wood handle. The handle was hollow to store a bottle of their special record cleaning fluid. You'd wet the leading edge, circle the record, then rotate the brush back slightly to let the dry part pick up any liquid and debris. One day I was in the audio shop and asked for a Discwasher, but accidentally said something else. I don't think the laughter stopped for several hours. There was also the Watts line of cleaning supplies- the Dustbug, Preener, and washing brush. No idea if any of this stuff is still available. I just got a carbon fiber brush, and that's a nice addition to the arsenal. |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... the Fleetwood Mac Greatest Hits album..Its a "regular" CD ..."
Rumor has it ... "Rumors" and several older vinyl releases are being "remastered" to DVD-A with still photos by EMI ... ala that great George Martin / Beatles "Love" DVD-A disc methodology ... ;) |
|
|
| FastEddy |
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%202008
(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 ... :cool: ) |
|
|
| davidlzimmer |
Conrad,
Thanks for the reply. I'm glad I ask! Not noticing the spelling, I was about to tear apart my wifes favorite kitchen appliance to look for one of those brushes! :D |
|
|
| Conrad Hoffman |
| 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. |
|
|
| Brett |
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! |
|
|
| Conrad Hoffman |
| 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! |
|
|
| Brett |
| quote: | Originally posted by Conrad Hoffman
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. |
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.
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. |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" .. 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? :confused:
(Brett: have you seen these? http://alembic.stores.yahoo.net/f2btubepreamp.html ... got an opinion?) |
|
|
| Conrad Hoffman |
| 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. |
|
|
| Brett |
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..
I have the circuit somewhere if you want it.| quote: | Originally posted by Conrad Hoffman
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. |
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.
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. :) |
|
|
| Conrad Hoffman |
| 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! |
|
|
| handbent |
| ive always been a fan of some guns and roses |
|
|
| mustik |
| quote: | Originally posted by cjv998
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...
:D
|
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? |
|
|
| OzMikeH |
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. |
|
|
| FastEddy |
| I believe my next purchase will be the Pulse DVD = Pink's last concert plus the dark side concert ... apparently it has decent sound and a good video presentation ... (Anyone know?) |
|
|
| OzMikeH |
The Pulse CD lasted 2 days before I got to that damn flashing LED.
If you get it let me know if it's any good. |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" The Pulse CD lasted 2 days before I got to that damn flashing LED. If you get it let me know if it's any good. ..."
?? Flashing LED ??
I only got the Pulse DVD two disc set. (I don't buy ordinary CDs anymore unless they are the SACD type.) :confused: |
|
|
| OzMikeH |
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. :) |
|
|
| head_spaz |
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. |
|
|
| Brett |
| quote: | Originally posted by head_spaz
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. |
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.
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. |
|
|
| davidlzimmer |
I agree with BOTH of you.
While a great performance can be enjoyed on any system, it is very disappointing to build a great sounding system only to find some of your favorites sound like ****.
It makes you wonder what the engineer had in mind. I am spinning "Who are you" (the original LP) right now also, and I must say it sounds very thin. If it weren't for the outstanding cymbal work, I wouldn't even listen to it.
It just seems to me that a good recording played on a good system should make you feel as if you are there. There meaning like 20 feet from a small jazz combo to, up in the balcony for a rock concert. It is certainly done on many recordings.
Many of us build good systems to enjoy that aspect. To listen to a recording that merely is a remembrance of the original sound can be disappointing.
I think it's perfectly normal and good to critique a recording. But I don't go to the trouble to remix the poor sounding ones. I just don't listen to them as much. |
|
|
| Conrad Hoffman |
| Head_spaz, since Diamonds and Rust is something I like a lot and use to test system changes, I bit the bullet and downloaded your file in spite of my dial up connection. It sounds about the same as mine, with maybe slightly more midrange. JB's voice is a bit fuller than I'm used to, but that's easily the difference in cartridges or processing preferences, or even the mat under the record- I'm talking very subtle differences here. I never would have suspected mats make much difference, but that's what I'm fooling with right now. This is also one of too few albums that sound good on the CD as well. |
|
|
| FastEddy |
head_spaz, davidlzimmer, Brett, Conrad Hoffman, et al :
I for one would like to discover / hear a 24bit version of the Joan Baez piece for comparison's sake with the vinyl and head_spaz' 16bit download (above).
I just got a new TT setup = newest Rega P3 w/ cartridge, Bottlehead tube phono pre-amp ... plus an M-Audio FireWire, 24bit/96k, ADC / DAC. ... but my old JB vinyl may not be up to the task. (I swear the old cassette tape I have of Diamonds & Rust is almost as good, but it has been years, so memory may be failing here.)
I will endeavor to build a 24bit version myself, but I would still appreciate a "bench mark" to compare the results ... and a source for a high quality vinyl record if anyone knows of one. :smash:
(Found it: http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo...umber=EUROU3233 ... :cool: ) |
|
|
| davidlzimmer |
| My first step would be a thorough cleaning of the Vinyl. It can do wonders for old wax. |
|
|
| sbrads |
| The Who's LP recording quality was always a bit 'unflattering' shall we say, wrong engineers and equipment I guess EXCEPT for one glorious exception:- Live at Leeds. This album rocks on CD, the first issue around 1995, the 25th anniversary edition with 14 tracks. Easily beats my purchased on day of release 1970 perfect condition vinyl played on a Sondek/Ittok + Audio Technica AT5 moving coil. The drums whack you in the chest, lead guitar sings with such purity of tone, I can hear every JE bass note twanging away, there's 3D space, your THERE. |
|
|
| ma_coule |
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
I believe my next purchase will be the Pulse DVD = Pink's last concert plus the dark side concert ... apparently it has decent sound and a good video presentation ... (Anyone know?) |
Not only decent & good - even great!
BTW: In the year 1994 I took part on PF last tour. It was terrific.
PULSE DVD (as a sort of documentary of the tour - London concert) is not only on the same level (at least to my opinion) but also technically one of the best music DVD's (as I've heard from the others).
Regards, |
|
|
| FastEddy |
ma-coule: " ... PULSE DVD (as a sort of documentary of the tour - London concert) is not only on the same level (at least to my opinion) but also technically one of the best music DVD's ..."
Just Got It!! ... and have played it several times: Right on! = some of the cuts are as good as it gets from a live concert on any DVD. The video / art director did a fine job and the sound comes across better than any Floyd CD renditions (IMOP), being 24bit/48K rather than the less dynamic 16bit CD stuff.
Agreed and Recommended = one of the better music DVDs, certainly one of the best Pink Floyd concert performances ;)
PULSE Trivia: The "blond" girl in the middle is Sam Brown. To really appreciate her talent, see the full "Concert for George" DVD in which she pops one to the top doing a very interesting version of a Harrison tune ... apparently a little too radical/riske' for the "theatrical release" or for the CD (The 24bit/48k / good stuff with all the tunes: http://www.amazon.com/Concert-Georg.../dp/B0000CEB4V/ ... BTW: another very good concert DVD) |
|
|
|
