For the reverb, check out Steve Miller's "Living in the 20th Century". Otherwise, Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" has a broad dynamic range and lots of interesting bass synthesizer.
I have to agree with the Jane Monheit suggestion. The first minute or so of her a capella version of "Over the Rainbow" is amazing.
The whole album is excellant. (Jane Monheit )
Also, Eva Cassidy's "Eva by Heart" is, imho, one of the best examples of multi tracking ever!
Her vocals alone make it an almost super human effort.
Also, Eva Cassidy's "Eva by Heart" is, imho, one of the best examples of multi tracking ever!
Her vocals alone make it an almost super human effort.
Great choices so far, nice to see I've chosen some of the mentioned ones alredy.
Going out on a limb here...
I'm a live sound engineer, and a few others I use to test PA systems:
Ween - The Pod. Explosive dynamics, depth, and a broad soundstage.
Kraftwerk - Radioactivity. Old school recording, but nice analog effects. Good imaging.
Some of Paul Simons recordings have much space in them.
John Mclaughlin - Remember Shakti. Amazing dynamics. Superb live recording. Nice imaging. Watch out for the low end on the tabla...
Going out on a limb here...
I'm a live sound engineer, and a few others I use to test PA systems:
Ween - The Pod. Explosive dynamics, depth, and a broad soundstage.
Kraftwerk - Radioactivity. Old school recording, but nice analog effects. Good imaging.
Some of Paul Simons recordings have much space in them.
John Mclaughlin - Remember Shakti. Amazing dynamics. Superb live recording. Nice imaging. Watch out for the low end on the tabla...
Hi there.
Interesting to see that nobody brings up some nice classical pieces, for test purposes at least. 😉
When it comes to stage imaging, separation, pin pointing, dynamics traditional complex one mic recordings (e.g. Denon)
are my favourites.
Most of them are not much manipulated. The imaging is in general very natural, at the right size, height and depth. If your system is building up distortions, you'll not be able to hear the 3rd and fourth orchestra rows properly. If you listen to Jazz/Folk/Rock these effects are not that obvious. Classical music delivers the highest dynamic range. Your system has to play at low levels as it has to play at high levels during the same track. While doing that the stage shouldn't collapse.
When it comes to reverberation etc. you can easily get trapped by sound engineers that build-in echo and reverberations, just to supply some kind of "great recording illusion". Multi track peaces are a bit a gamble. You never now what's actually right. You would have to have the sound engineers system and himself to figure out what he regards to be OK.
Chesky Reference CDs are a good choice for testing.
Get yourself the Manger Reference CD. Beside classics, e.g. above mentioned one mic recordings, it delivers
also percussion, jazz references, folk etc at its best. I own a lot of
Samplers , Chesky, FIM, XRCDs etc. Nothing comes close to above.
Cheers
Interesting to see that nobody brings up some nice classical pieces, for test purposes at least. 😉
When it comes to stage imaging, separation, pin pointing, dynamics traditional complex one mic recordings (e.g. Denon)
are my favourites.
Most of them are not much manipulated. The imaging is in general very natural, at the right size, height and depth. If your system is building up distortions, you'll not be able to hear the 3rd and fourth orchestra rows properly. If you listen to Jazz/Folk/Rock these effects are not that obvious. Classical music delivers the highest dynamic range. Your system has to play at low levels as it has to play at high levels during the same track. While doing that the stage shouldn't collapse.
When it comes to reverberation etc. you can easily get trapped by sound engineers that build-in echo and reverberations, just to supply some kind of "great recording illusion". Multi track peaces are a bit a gamble. You never now what's actually right. You would have to have the sound engineers system and himself to figure out what he regards to be OK.
Chesky Reference CDs are a good choice for testing.
Get yourself the Manger Reference CD. Beside classics, e.g. above mentioned one mic recordings, it delivers
also percussion, jazz references, folk etc at its best. I own a lot of
Samplers , Chesky, FIM, XRCDs etc. Nothing comes close to above.
Cheers
Soundcheck,
"You would have to have the sound engineers system and himself to figure out what he regards to be OK."
This is very true. And is why, when I bult my system, I strived for results that would reproduce sound with accuraccy and without color.
One would assume that the engineer is using a simular playback system. We can only shoot for the best with what we can afford.
I also agree with your thoughts on multi-track peices. Multi-tracking is, by it's nature, signal processing. Usually, the less manipulation the better. With very few exceptions. Those exceptions that I have found are when the engineering was by the musicians themselves. Not a coincidence in my opinion.
I've been amazed by some mono recordings that I have heard on my system but, to me, the best recordings ever were late 50's and early 60's Jazz pieces. Probably before 4 track decks were available. The imaging is right left, up down, front and back, very much more natural than modern multi-track productions.
It's really only a coincidence that I haven't listened to any Classical lately. I had some Mozart that sounded fine on my cheap system but, sound very lifleless now that I have a very good system. I must say the same for many of the old stack of CDs of verious types of music. I think many of them were produced to sound good on a boom box. 😀
I am at the point , that I am confident that I own a very high definition system now, and if ,what I am playing, doesn't sound that great, it is due to the recording.
This is why these forums can really save a person a ton of money. I much preffer recordings recommended by the more serious listeners than those preffered by the public in general.
Thanks to all!
"You would have to have the sound engineers system and himself to figure out what he regards to be OK."
This is very true. And is why, when I bult my system, I strived for results that would reproduce sound with accuraccy and without color.
One would assume that the engineer is using a simular playback system. We can only shoot for the best with what we can afford.
I also agree with your thoughts on multi-track peices. Multi-tracking is, by it's nature, signal processing. Usually, the less manipulation the better. With very few exceptions. Those exceptions that I have found are when the engineering was by the musicians themselves. Not a coincidence in my opinion.
I've been amazed by some mono recordings that I have heard on my system but, to me, the best recordings ever were late 50's and early 60's Jazz pieces. Probably before 4 track decks were available. The imaging is right left, up down, front and back, very much more natural than modern multi-track productions.
It's really only a coincidence that I haven't listened to any Classical lately. I had some Mozart that sounded fine on my cheap system but, sound very lifleless now that I have a very good system. I must say the same for many of the old stack of CDs of verious types of music. I think many of them were produced to sound good on a boom box. 😀
I am at the point , that I am confident that I own a very high definition system now, and if ,what I am playing, doesn't sound that great, it is due to the recording.
This is why these forums can really save a person a ton of money. I much preffer recordings recommended by the more serious listeners than those preffered by the public in general.
Thanks to all!
soundcheck: " ... Interesting to see that nobody brings up some nice classical pieces, for test purposes at least. ..."
My favorite is the commonly available Boston Pops' 1812 Overture, various publishers, vinyl & CD ... one of the 4th of July version(s) with the cannons in the background ...
My favorite is the commonly available Boston Pops' 1812 Overture, various publishers, vinyl & CD ... one of the 4th of July version(s) with the cannons in the background ...
soundcheck: " ... Chesky Reference CDs are a good choice for testing. ..."
Dr. Chesky: " ... MP3s are taking over, but my DVD-A is going to turn things around. IÕm trying to save the world from bad audio - kids are listening to music on $6 plastic computer speakers - a fate worse than death! ..."
😀
soundcheck: " ... Get yourself the Manger Reference CD ..."
At http://www.manger-msw.com/en/inhalt.html there does not seem to be any links to the purchase of the "Manger Reference CD" How is this obtained??
😕
Dr. Chesky: " ... MP3s are taking over, but my DVD-A is going to turn things around. IÕm trying to save the world from bad audio - kids are listening to music on $6 plastic computer speakers - a fate worse than death! ..."
😀
soundcheck: " ... Get yourself the Manger Reference CD ..."
At http://www.manger-msw.com/en/inhalt.html there does not seem to be any links to the purchase of the "Manger Reference CD" How is this obtained??
😕
davidzimmer: " ... I think many of them were produced to sound good on a boom box. ..."
I have "discovered" DVD-A and SACD. I knew that vinyl had much broader dynamics than (overly compressed) CD. I specifically searched for a DVD-A player that had built in 24 bit/192k Burr Brown DAC and 5 channel outputs ... and found a cheap Mitsubishi (with no other redeeming qualities). Then I got a copy of Muddy Waters' "Folk Singer" on DVD-A, appreciating that Muddy was a master with the microphone ...
😀 😎 ...
http://classicrecords.com/catalog/store/detail.cfm?sku=HDAD-2008 ... a very old Muddy Waters and a very young Buddy Guy doing straight ahead two guitar blues ... and Muddy really demonstrates what can be done with and to a microphone = very broad dynamic range without trashing the mic's limits ... highly recommended.
I firmly believe that no one really knows anything about audio recording and reproduction systems if they don't pay attention to vinyl reproduction quality ... and now to DVD-A and to a lesser extent SACD.
A great way to compare ordinary CD quality and DVD-A ... check this out: http://www.amazon.com/Folk-Singer-Muddy-Waters/dp/B00000JNOJ/ ... Used cost is less than US$5 and that price is about right for at least a couple of listening sessions ... for comparison between what one quality oriented publisher can do that apparently, mainsteam CD publishers can not ... you will give this version away eventually, as there is no real comparison between CD "quality" and DVD-A or vinyl ... (I gave my CD copy to the local library.)
I have "discovered" DVD-A and SACD. I knew that vinyl had much broader dynamics than (overly compressed) CD. I specifically searched for a DVD-A player that had built in 24 bit/192k Burr Brown DAC and 5 channel outputs ... and found a cheap Mitsubishi (with no other redeeming qualities). Then I got a copy of Muddy Waters' "Folk Singer" on DVD-A, appreciating that Muddy was a master with the microphone ...
😀 😎 ...http://classicrecords.com/catalog/store/detail.cfm?sku=HDAD-2008 ... a very old Muddy Waters and a very young Buddy Guy doing straight ahead two guitar blues ... and Muddy really demonstrates what can be done with and to a microphone = very broad dynamic range without trashing the mic's limits ... highly recommended.
I firmly believe that no one really knows anything about audio recording and reproduction systems if they don't pay attention to vinyl reproduction quality ... and now to DVD-A and to a lesser extent SACD.
A great way to compare ordinary CD quality and DVD-A ... check this out: http://www.amazon.com/Folk-Singer-Muddy-Waters/dp/B00000JNOJ/ ... Used cost is less than US$5 and that price is about right for at least a couple of listening sessions ... for comparison between what one quality oriented publisher can do that apparently, mainsteam CD publishers can not ... you will give this version away eventually, as there is no real comparison between CD "quality" and DVD-A or vinyl ... (I gave my CD copy to the local library.)
Eddy.
Have you ever checked out the XRCD format?
I read a review saying that XRCD is supposed to sound better than SACD!
You might also like this discussion, about vinyl vs. digital: 😉
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=91780
Cheers
P.S. I'll check how to get the Manger-CD.
Have you ever checked out the XRCD format?
I read a review saying that XRCD is supposed to sound better than SACD!
You might also like this discussion, about vinyl vs. digital: 😉
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=91780
Cheers
P.S. I'll check how to get the Manger-CD.
" ... You might also like this discussion, about vinyl vs. digital: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...?threadid=91780 ..."
I know that vinyl can, under the right conditions and equipment mix, sound the best and have the most dynamic range ... but my experience, technically and listening wise, DVD-A comes as close to vinyl reproduction as modern A to D and D to A converters can manage.
" ... I read a review saying that XRCD is supposed to sound better than SACD! ..."
There is always some outfit trying to make the CD format better, but as the adages go, "garbage in = garbage out and you get no bread with one meatball"
You can't really improve on the basic 16-bit CD format. 16-bits is 16-bits = diminished headroom = reduced dynamics. This is root cause of Bob Dylan's complaints with Sony production engineers making a hashup of his latest CD ... overly compressed (in order to fit into the 16-bit CD format) leaving no dynamic headroom in relation to the studio 24-bit digital masters. The only way to reproduce 24-bit digital studio masters correctly is with a 24-bit reproduction format = 24-bit / 96k multi channel or 24-bit/192k encoded Dolby or THX (multi-channel) ... or vinyl.
As long as the musicians and studio engineers are using equipment like this to make the studio masters:
http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/FireWire1814-main.html
http://rolandus.com/products/productdetails.aspx?ObjectId=702&ParentId=114
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm ... " The Dynamic range is between 118 & 121 dB and the Mic pre equivalent noise floor is at -130 dB. " 😱
... the disc and record production should be as good the masters. Vinyl does this. easily. DVD-A does this, usually. SACD can do it, but seldom does. 16-bit CD can never reproduce 24-bit/96K stereo, let alone 24-bit/192k multi-channel (there just is not enough room on the CD disc for the full content ~= 10 pounds of content in a 2 pound bag = 5 gigabytes can't fit on a 1/2 gigabyte optical disc).
Music publishers are easily able to do either or both, CD and DVD-A without any increases in costs of manufacture ... and they could do both on the same disc (sideA = 24-bit DVD-A, sideB = 16-bit CD) with very little increase in production costs.
🙄
I know that vinyl can, under the right conditions and equipment mix, sound the best and have the most dynamic range ... but my experience, technically and listening wise, DVD-A comes as close to vinyl reproduction as modern A to D and D to A converters can manage.
" ... I read a review saying that XRCD is supposed to sound better than SACD! ..."
There is always some outfit trying to make the CD format better, but as the adages go, "garbage in = garbage out and you get no bread with one meatball"
You can't really improve on the basic 16-bit CD format. 16-bits is 16-bits = diminished headroom = reduced dynamics. This is root cause of Bob Dylan's complaints with Sony production engineers making a hashup of his latest CD ... overly compressed (in order to fit into the 16-bit CD format) leaving no dynamic headroom in relation to the studio 24-bit digital masters. The only way to reproduce 24-bit digital studio masters correctly is with a 24-bit reproduction format = 24-bit / 96k multi channel or 24-bit/192k encoded Dolby or THX (multi-channel) ... or vinyl.
As long as the musicians and studio engineers are using equipment like this to make the studio masters:
http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/FireWire1814-main.html
http://rolandus.com/products/productdetails.aspx?ObjectId=702&ParentId=114
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm ... " The Dynamic range is between 118 & 121 dB and the Mic pre equivalent noise floor is at -130 dB. " 😱
... the disc and record production should be as good the masters. Vinyl does this. easily. DVD-A does this, usually. SACD can do it, but seldom does. 16-bit CD can never reproduce 24-bit/96K stereo, let alone 24-bit/192k multi-channel (there just is not enough room on the CD disc for the full content ~= 10 pounds of content in a 2 pound bag = 5 gigabytes can't fit on a 1/2 gigabyte optical disc).
Music publishers are easily able to do either or both, CD and DVD-A without any increases in costs of manufacture ... and they could do both on the same disc (sideA = 24-bit DVD-A, sideB = 16-bit CD) with very little increase in production costs.
🙄
One thing to watch about DVD-A. As I understand it most releases come with surround tracks. I'm trying to find documented confirmation but I'm 99.99999% or more certain that surround formats uses a form of DSP based on the Head Related Transfer Function on the rear channels to create a more convincing impression of space. Similar to Q-Sound. When played back on any 2-channel player (I own in any case), those DSP'ed surround tracks are flat mixed back into the front channels. On movie surround tracks that's certainly the case, of the DVD-A discs I own my ear leads me to suspect the same.
End result, DVD-A playback over two channel systems potentially includes DSP-altered surround channels in the mix. That said, the best digital recordings I have are DVD-A. Also one of the worst (the Naxos Groff disc, shutter.) I would welcome a conversion to DVD-A.
End result, DVD-A playback over two channel systems potentially includes DSP-altered surround channels in the mix. That said, the best digital recordings I have are DVD-A. Also one of the worst (the Naxos Groff disc, shutter.) I would welcome a conversion to DVD-A.
rdf: " ... about DVD-A ... I'm trying to find documented confirmation but I'm 99.99999% or more certain that surround formats uses a form of DSP based on the Head Related Transfer Function on the rear channels to create a more convincing impression of space. Similar to Q-Sound. ..."
Press Release: " ... Classic 24/192 DVD-A discs will be Universal DVD discs in the sense that they will be designed to play on both DVD Audio and DVD Video players. This will involve filling the audio title set with 24/192 data and the video title set with 24/96 data. These discs will therefore also play on universal players that support SACD and DVD Video. The transfers will be done using a specially designed battery powered 24/192 Analog to Digital converter designed by Kevin Halverson of Muse Electronics from original master tapes mastered ..." From: http://www.classicrecords.com/newsletter/newsletter/newsletter.cfm?Article=94
Some record publishers, producers and reproducers actually try to duplicate the original studio masters in full DVD-A 24-bit/192k multichannel optical discs, seeking quality above all else ... without resorting to the mish mash of using the the various "quality" 16-bit compression and expansion (24 bit master to 16-bit CD digital back to "24-bit" DVD type disc). These mathamatical manipulations may seem like a good idea to cost cutting greedheads and middle management marketing types in the front offices of the likes of Sony, but they really will not cut it when the sophisticated customer discovers this ruse. Using big words to describe this outright fraud will not wash.
FYI to All: Sony and other major mass market publishers have been deliberately producing CD's with overly compressed content and distortion ... in order to make their (more expensive) SACD sound and DVD video tracks sound better. The most recent example is Bob Dylan's "Modern Times", available in two versions ( http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Times-Bob-Dylan/dp/B000GFLAI0/ and http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Times-Deluxe-Bonus-DVD/dp/B000GRTQSE ). The mass market CD is overtly distorted and obviously sounds compressed, yet the same tracks on the video DVD are much better, the difference being chiefly that the CD (44k, overly compressed) content and DVD (48k content) WITH significant improvements and remixing by the Sony production engineers. Sony is trying to cut their share out of the middle of the pie, leaving Dylan with nothing left to do but to compalin to the clueless media. Fortunately Dylan owns the rights to his studio masters and soon there should be a 24-bit (hopefully DVD-A) release of this very interesting album ...
Press Release: " ... Classic 24/192 DVD-A discs will be Universal DVD discs in the sense that they will be designed to play on both DVD Audio and DVD Video players. This will involve filling the audio title set with 24/192 data and the video title set with 24/96 data. These discs will therefore also play on universal players that support SACD and DVD Video. The transfers will be done using a specially designed battery powered 24/192 Analog to Digital converter designed by Kevin Halverson of Muse Electronics from original master tapes mastered ..." From: http://www.classicrecords.com/newsletter/newsletter/newsletter.cfm?Article=94
Some record publishers, producers and reproducers actually try to duplicate the original studio masters in full DVD-A 24-bit/192k multichannel optical discs, seeking quality above all else ... without resorting to the mish mash of using the the various "quality" 16-bit compression and expansion (24 bit master to 16-bit CD digital back to "24-bit" DVD type disc). These mathamatical manipulations may seem like a good idea to cost cutting greedheads and middle management marketing types in the front offices of the likes of Sony, but they really will not cut it when the sophisticated customer discovers this ruse. Using big words to describe this outright fraud will not wash.
FYI to All: Sony and other major mass market publishers have been deliberately producing CD's with overly compressed content and distortion ... in order to make their (more expensive) SACD sound and DVD video tracks sound better. The most recent example is Bob Dylan's "Modern Times", available in two versions ( http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Times-Bob-Dylan/dp/B000GFLAI0/ and http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Times-Deluxe-Bonus-DVD/dp/B000GRTQSE ). The mass market CD is overtly distorted and obviously sounds compressed, yet the same tracks on the video DVD are much better, the difference being chiefly that the CD (44k, overly compressed) content and DVD (48k content) WITH significant improvements and remixing by the Sony production engineers. Sony is trying to cut their share out of the middle of the pie, leaving Dylan with nothing left to do but to compalin to the clueless media. Fortunately Dylan owns the rights to his studio masters and soon there should be a 24-bit (hopefully DVD-A) release of this very interesting album ...
Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon
180 Gram version, new.
This is the best sounding one. There are a couple of websites that still have it in stock, many are sold out. You think the Japanese one was nice? Grab this if you can, while you can!
Talk about imaging delight...
You can hear weird sounds that do circles in front of you and dance around then run away. There are people that run from right to left, while also going toward you and away from you. It is just a blast to listen too.
180 Gram version, new.
This is the best sounding one. There are a couple of websites that still have it in stock, many are sold out. You think the Japanese one was nice? Grab this if you can, while you can!
Talk about imaging delight...
You can hear weird sounds that do circles in front of you and dance around then run away. There are people that run from right to left, while also going toward you and away from you. It is just a blast to listen too.
rdf: " ... One thing to watch about DVD-A. As I understand it most releases come with surround tracks. ..."
check this out: " ... The transfers will be done using a specially designed battery powered 24/192 Analog to Digital converter ..." http://www.classicrecords.com/newsletter/newsletter/newsletter.cfm?Article=88
... and these guys don't do "surround sound" or dolby unless the masters are made for such ... relying on the customers' equipment to add the various EQ / "expansion" or "decompression ... or not.
(I may have already submitted this link, but it should be repeated in any discussion about what some producers and reproducers do and others don't.)
😎
check this out: " ... The transfers will be done using a specially designed battery powered 24/192 Analog to Digital converter ..." http://www.classicrecords.com/newsletter/newsletter/newsletter.cfm?Article=88
... and these guys don't do "surround sound" or dolby unless the masters are made for such ... relying on the customers' equipment to add the various EQ / "expansion" or "decompression ... or not.
(I may have already submitted this link, but it should be repeated in any discussion about what some producers and reproducers do and others don't.)
😎
- Status
- Not open for further replies.