They can also run it through noise filters, that are meant to remove hum and hiss, but end up taking out more. Early Juthro Tull albums are good examples of no bests: the originals are just plain muddy, to the point of needing printed lyrics for This was and Benefit, but the Rhino remasters are borderline lifeless. I'd expect just not being good in the studio, were it not for hearing the pre-remasters.
Even worse, imagine trying to get someone interested today in either Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, or Ozzy Osbourne, today, without lending them anything. Black Sabbath is a roll of the die: the WB CDs sound fine, though could be done better (I appreciate that they didn't, given what has been done), but several remasters exist, all of which sound poor in comparison. I have two different Vol. 4 CDs, and three Paranoids. The WB ones, complete with hiss and occasional muddy vocals, are in another league. The difference doesn't require any special gear to hear, either, which is what's so puzzling about their creation and commercial acceptance. It's easy to tell them apart, including picking out the better one, with laptop speakers (I did just that experiment as unsighted listening of Vol 4, using my father, whose hearing is not so good, as the subject). Ozzy requires buying used, specifically the 1995 remasters, which were done right. Zep isn't quite so bad, but...
I accept some degree of mediocrity in sound quality with rock recordings, and performances, but sometimes I just shake my head at what gets done with the recordings.
These were two of my all-time favorite rock albums. The sound is indeed congested and not even vaguely dynamic or realistic. As a youngster trying to learn the songs for cover-band purposes, it was a more than bit of a strain for me to get all the details. The Island versions had a bit quieter surfaces compared to the Reprise, but the sound itself was just as poor.
thanks, I think - on a quick look I may have a problem with the translator's own "ancient voice"/writing style and then we get:
sounds like we missed a bullet as it were - thankfully we never get that on diyAudio or elsewhere on the net
Attachments
Last edited:
You are welcome.
This work deals with a specific subject, music structure. It’s not a philosophical treatise.
If you are interested, you can find a fine analysis in the notes of Alexander Ellis at the: “On the sensations of Tone” H. Helmholtz
https://archive.org/details/onsensationston00elligoog
Byzantine music, eastern liturgical chant and (to a great extent) western Gregorian chant are based on Aristoxenus work.
George
PS: Where is Brad?
This work deals with a specific subject, music structure. It’s not a philosophical treatise.
If you are interested, you can find a fine analysis in the notes of Alexander Ellis at the: “On the sensations of Tone” H. Helmholtz
https://archive.org/details/onsensationston00elligoog
Byzantine music, eastern liturgical chant and (to a great extent) western Gregorian chant are based on Aristoxenus work.
George
PS: Where is Brad?
Attachments
Jethro Tull's studio releases sound stellar compared to their live recordings, with truly dreadful sound and off key singing.
Last edited:
I am tube rolling a head-fi amp and swapped out the Chinese 6J1 with Mullard EF95's.
Better bass, more tonality, vocal and instrument harmonic completeness is greater.
Downside is that it has a slight sibilance issue and an elevated noise floor. Hiss often noticable.
Whilst listening to the great sound of this tube, it occurred to me that the preferences of many on this forum of those who think ''measurements are all that there is", were likely the prevailing attitudes when the opportunity for digital sound presented itself in ~1977.
Many here who argue that it is all measurements would be the types who are bothered by surface noise, clicks, scratches, pops, wow, flutter, and other noise and mechanical artifacts. They would have sought a solution to the things that they notice the most in audio, the things that bother them, things that many here mention today as reasons that vinyl or tubes are not for them.
Note that in that list these things are not a priority:
-Harmonic accuracy
-Tonal accuracy
-Soundstage
-Instrument body
-Realism
-3D presentation
-and so on
They sought a solution to what bothered them, what they focused on in audio. Accuracy, precision, low thd, low noise floor, no wow, no flutter, time accuracy, etc.
In fact to this day many here share these traits and the points crop up in arguments constantly when anyone dares to question the church of measurement.
I posit that many of these listeners are incapable of mentally setting aside an artifact such as the elevated noise floor of the Mullard EF95 vs. other quieter signal chain be it digital, solid state or other.
They lock in on the raised noise floor, cannot hear anything else, and immediately discard the sound as inferior because that is what they value and it can be measured.
Meanwhile other listeners appreciate the improved SQ in the other areas of the presentation and can set aside the raised noise floor, ignore it in favour of the positives that cannot currently be measured.
Better bass, more tonality, vocal and instrument harmonic completeness is greater.
Downside is that it has a slight sibilance issue and an elevated noise floor. Hiss often noticable.
Whilst listening to the great sound of this tube, it occurred to me that the preferences of many on this forum of those who think ''measurements are all that there is", were likely the prevailing attitudes when the opportunity for digital sound presented itself in ~1977.
Many here who argue that it is all measurements would be the types who are bothered by surface noise, clicks, scratches, pops, wow, flutter, and other noise and mechanical artifacts. They would have sought a solution to the things that they notice the most in audio, the things that bother them, things that many here mention today as reasons that vinyl or tubes are not for them.
Note that in that list these things are not a priority:
-Harmonic accuracy
-Tonal accuracy
-Soundstage
-Instrument body
-Realism
-3D presentation
-and so on
They sought a solution to what bothered them, what they focused on in audio. Accuracy, precision, low thd, low noise floor, no wow, no flutter, time accuracy, etc.
In fact to this day many here share these traits and the points crop up in arguments constantly when anyone dares to question the church of measurement.
I posit that many of these listeners are incapable of mentally setting aside an artifact such as the elevated noise floor of the Mullard EF95 vs. other quieter signal chain be it digital, solid state or other.
They lock in on the raised noise floor, cannot hear anything else, and immediately discard the sound as inferior because that is what they value and it can be measured.
Meanwhile other listeners appreciate the improved SQ in the other areas of the presentation and can set aside the raised noise floor, ignore it in favour of the positives that cannot currently be measured.
Maybe the compact disc, Red Book standard, and 44100/16 bit was a mistake. Certainly MP3's sound terrible compared to a FLAC conversion. Perhaps it would have been better to wait until ADC caught up to the SQ of vinyl as it seems to have done in the past few years.
Maybe the masterings as originally done for the vinyl were superior in many cases, and the analogue technology captured more of the performance.
A recent trend has many fans of unreleased vinyl converting it using modern ADC technology and when comparisons to the many CD masterings are done, the vinyl ADC rips are clearly superior.
When I listen to a conversion of vinyl playback it resembles what I heard on the original release, or on FM or AM radio, or on cassette, or on 8-track, as well as having more body and life to the performance compared to the 2D flat cut out on any CD.
This does not require fancy gear to hear, either. It is quite obvious.
This should not be if the CD was superior. It should not be possible to take any random pressing (not even 1st run, audiophile, or other specialty pressings), play it through an average turntable, convert it, and have this sound better than a direct from safety master to CD-DA conversion. The added level of an analogue chain, on in some cases 4-track 60 year old gear, should degrade the sound, but it does not. It's better than the CD.
Of course there will be the clicks, scratches, pops and needle/groove noise that is there on even the cleanest pressings, along with the better sounding music.
I'm pretty sure we can measure tubes / valves Miragem3i, it's just that we can't look at the THD spectral measurement and say "ok, it will sound exactly like x/y/z".
The measurement is usually discussed like "high" or "low", but someone that has collected 50 valves and likes them does not find the THD charts very useful.
One of the reasons for this is what first, fifth, seventh, ninth et cetera. harmonic "sounds like", another reason is the masking effect.
The measurement is usually discussed like "high" or "low", but someone that has collected 50 valves and likes them does not find the THD charts very useful.
One of the reasons for this is what first, fifth, seventh, ninth et cetera. harmonic "sounds like", another reason is the masking effect.
Again, this is a distortion artifact, from playback not working correctly. Everyone can "hear" vinyl misbehaving, it's taken for granted that it is a distortion ... and so does less than optimal digital playback have a signature distortion, it's just more insidious in its nature ...
Or, the distortion typical doesn't sound good, because we're used to it not being there 
. But, I was well into my 20s before I heard a tube amp, much of what I grew up listening to was recorded digitally from the start, and I have no problem with getting startled by the presentation of good recordings in an all SS chain (think I actually heard something somewhere nearby, that's in the recording, or hear right where the players should be), sometimes even with headphones. Such recordings are just rare.
Measurements matter, because you can't definitely and predicatively improve things without them. But, those properties you list have to matter, and more often than not, they don't. There was a brief window in the 90s when we got some good remasters, re-transfers, and well-made new albums, and then it started going downhill again. Instead of mastering a recording with the idea of it being a quality version, worthy of archival, it needs to be compressed, and bright, to grab attention, and be audible with earbuds in a loud environment, it seems (players should all have DRC, just like they all have some EQ, so we can all have what we want). It's the loudness war, that still hasn't died. Most recordings aren't mastered well, even if they're made well, live ones included. I doubt most of it's digital, or SS, as the cause (though lots of very early SS equipment was quite flawed), nearly so much as a cultural change over time that has followed the rise of both.
In some cases, the transfers to CD originally were pretty bad, which is part of why there's been remasters after remasters of some recordings. Any such albums will surely sound better with a quality old vinyl rip. Look at this way: if you can rip vinyl to FLAC, and it sounds good, the digital audio formats are not the problem.
There are whole sagas surrounding Black Sabbath remaster attempts, because just tracking down any decent quality tapes was hard, and the original CD transfers were not high quality. I prefer the WB, but I do appreciate the Sanctuary attempt at Paranoid. While some people do prefer it over the remasters, the original transfer of Led Zeppelin II was definitely not done well. Sometimes they would use vinyl masters and not look at what they were doing, giving poor RIAA conversions, or have very high noise levels. Sometimes it would be a low quality cassette master. Sometimes they, not having grokked digital, yet, would not worry about clipping, which is a really big deal. By the time that all got squared away, they were intentionally making recordings louder, and applying "smile" EQ curves. On the whole, it's a no-win situation, with occasional bright spots, and used Laser Light CDs to hoard (last time I went to my local Good Will, they had 7-10 of them, but I already had every single one).
. But, I was well into my 20s before I heard a tube amp, much of what I grew up listening to was recorded digitally from the start, and I have no problem with getting startled by the presentation of good recordings in an all SS chain (think I actually heard something somewhere nearby, that's in the recording, or hear right where the players should be), sometimes even with headphones. Such recordings are just rare.Measurements matter, because you can't definitely and predicatively improve things without them. But, those properties you list have to matter, and more often than not, they don't. There was a brief window in the 90s when we got some good remasters, re-transfers, and well-made new albums, and then it started going downhill again. Instead of mastering a recording with the idea of it being a quality version, worthy of archival, it needs to be compressed, and bright, to grab attention, and be audible with earbuds in a loud environment, it seems (players should all have DRC, just like they all have some EQ, so we can all have what we want). It's the loudness war, that still hasn't died. Most recordings aren't mastered well, even if they're made well, live ones included. I doubt most of it's digital, or SS, as the cause (though lots of very early SS equipment was quite flawed), nearly so much as a cultural change over time that has followed the rise of both.
In some cases, the transfers to CD originally were pretty bad, which is part of why there's been remasters after remasters of some recordings. Any such albums will surely sound better with a quality old vinyl rip. Look at this way: if you can rip vinyl to FLAC, and it sounds good, the digital audio formats are not the problem.
There are whole sagas surrounding Black Sabbath remaster attempts, because just tracking down any decent quality tapes was hard, and the original CD transfers were not high quality. I prefer the WB, but I do appreciate the Sanctuary attempt at Paranoid. While some people do prefer it over the remasters, the original transfer of Led Zeppelin II was definitely not done well. Sometimes they would use vinyl masters and not look at what they were doing, giving poor RIAA conversions, or have very high noise levels. Sometimes it would be a low quality cassette master. Sometimes they, not having grokked digital, yet, would not worry about clipping, which is a really big deal. By the time that all got squared away, they were intentionally making recordings louder, and applying "smile" EQ curves. On the whole, it's a no-win situation, with occasional bright spots, and used Laser Light CDs to hoard (last time I went to my local Good Will, they had 7-10 of them, but I already had every single one).
Some groups are just that way. They include some good live recordings as extras, and have cherry-picked some for certain releases (Isle of Wight comes to mind), but it only takes a quick trip to Youtube to see those were not their every-day performances, so I haven't sought any out.
Last edited:
Miragem3i,
Aside from the harmonic / overtone spectrum there is IMD, speed, phase as well of course.
Then there could perhaps be EMR - electro-mechanical resonance -, mA output, capacitance drive, conductivity, anything else which is "not measured".
I'm pretty sure THD / IMD and speed are the most vivid factors, aside from expectation effect, like, the surroundings, then there is focus.
If you eat a lobster in a fancy restaurant, or eat a lobster watching TV at home, maybe it will taste different. =)
I'm guessing most valve collectors will say it's "too complicated" to make a direct connection to the data, so let's "just listen".
At the same time sound is just electricity and air, along with our listening acuity, expectation effect and how we focus.
Valves must be really complicated because they have high harmonic / overtone spectrum though, THD, unlike op-amp's which is just comparing LME49720 versus LME49990. =)
Aside from the harmonic / overtone spectrum there is IMD, speed, phase as well of course.
Then there could perhaps be EMR - electro-mechanical resonance -, mA output, capacitance drive, conductivity, anything else which is "not measured".
I'm pretty sure THD / IMD and speed are the most vivid factors, aside from expectation effect, like, the surroundings, then there is focus.
If you eat a lobster in a fancy restaurant, or eat a lobster watching TV at home, maybe it will taste different. =)
I'm guessing most valve collectors will say it's "too complicated" to make a direct connection to the data, so let's "just listen".
At the same time sound is just electricity and air, along with our listening acuity, expectation effect and how we focus.
Valves must be really complicated because they have high harmonic / overtone spectrum though, THD, unlike op-amp's which is just comparing LME49720 versus LME49990. =)
I'm staggered, I must be living in a different universe ... I've never been particularly into Jethro Tull - enjoyed the 'famous' albums when they came out, but never bought one - anyway, out of curiosity, I went to YouTube and listened, am listening, to the This Was album, for the first time ever ... I'm an instant convert!! I can understand why this is a favourite album for people ...
But ... muddy, lifeless, undynamic, whaaa ... ?? Okay, decent levels of tape hiss but that's not a problem - some tremendous drumwork, plenty of all the good stuff, was running this with volume right up. Perhaps, the heavy use of cymbals in the drumming, and poor pressings conspired against good sound being heard ...
I'll be getting this album, quite a discovery ...
Vinyl, especially as they were great at pressing. The other records they did are excellent. There is the Cantata Domino which was well loved. Much organ music including Buxtehude.
Last edited:
I listened to ELP Tarkus on my Magneplanars via YouTube yesterday at No 11 on the volume control. None of that should work and it works fine. Also Vaughan Williams , March of the kitchen utensils. As I type Manuel de Fallla Three cornered hat, Spanish video of a concert in Madrid. It works great. Bobby Bloom Montego Bay got in there somewhere and also was excellent.
The DAC is the one in the Panasonic PVR which has internet access through it's remote control. It seems excellent. I do suspect MP3 compression is nicer to filter and sounds better than it should. What MP3 retains is transient speed. If it is to be criticized it is slightly less 3D than good CD. Other than that it is preferable. As many come from CD it is the information processing that is the question. Less is far more. What it doesn't have is electric blue treble of CD. Instead it has mush which is like a slightly dirty stylus. MP3 is like going to Burger King and finding the experience better than a stared restaurant.
Cantata Domino
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TsP0iWgZaQ
The DAC is the one in the Panasonic PVR which has internet access through it's remote control. It seems excellent. I do suspect MP3 compression is nicer to filter and sounds better than it should. What MP3 retains is transient speed. If it is to be criticized it is slightly less 3D than good CD. Other than that it is preferable. As many come from CD it is the information processing that is the question. Less is far more. What it doesn't have is electric blue treble of CD. Instead it has mush which is like a slightly dirty stylus. MP3 is like going to Burger King and finding the experience better than a stared restaurant.
Cantata Domino
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TsP0iWgZaQ
Last edited:
Just realised where the now-defunct German audio/TV brand name Ariston came from. Trivial, but still.
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.