I don't think I've seen that before. Looks like Porsche's part was to create a jacket for it 
.
LD Systems MAUI P900 by Porsche Design Studio – Monumental Clarity - YouTube
I couldn't find a real review, aside from a lot of add's. Looks like it is placed just above the Bose L1 product line.
Not that impressed with the wave guide part, unless we see some detailed information, I'd say it is a diffraction slot and not nearly as sophisticated as the line from Danley.
(which isn't acting as a true line, but more like a point source)
.LD Systems MAUI P900 by Porsche Design Studio – Monumental Clarity - YouTube
I couldn't find a real review, aside from a lot of add's. Looks like it is placed just above the Bose L1 product line.
Not that impressed with the wave guide part, unless we see some detailed information, I'd say it is a diffraction slot and not nearly as sophisticated as the line from Danley.
(which isn't acting as a true line, but more like a point source)
At one point it had crossed my mind. When I build my pair of arrays I was between jobs, and my mind wondered a few times toward a career in audio .
But to be able to produce something like this for the right price and be able to make enough money on it to support our family seemed near impossible to me. Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to (be able to) make a career out of it. It's just not in the cards. I could not fund something like that even if I wanted to. So basically I presented it here as open as I could, I did hold back my original design drawings because it sure was a dream at one point. Just not a very feasible one. It is a strange market, I'm guessing not an easy one for a new no name company to get into.
The logo was just for pride, I figured the setup I created deserved some kind of label after all the work I put in. The subwoofers are fully open source, for anyone to build their own set (should they be interested) and presented that way on my site.
So it's just a hobby, really... and I've tried to put into words my personal journey to achieve great sound. Sharing the ups and downs as honest as I can. Hopefully giving something back to a community that has been largely responsible for my audio education, to learn how this Stereo Audio miracle really works.
This thread currently has over 1.3 million views, so I guess I did come a long way to achieve that last bit!
. But to be able to produce something like this for the right price and be able to make enough money on it to support our family seemed near impossible to me. Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to (be able to) make a career out of it. It's just not in the cards. I could not fund something like that even if I wanted to. So basically I presented it here as open as I could, I did hold back my original design drawings because it sure was a dream at one point. Just not a very feasible one. It is a strange market, I'm guessing not an easy one for a new no name company to get into.
The logo was just for pride
, I figured the setup I created deserved some kind of label after all the work I put in. The subwoofers are fully open source, for anyone to build their own set (should they be interested) and presented that way on my site.So it's just a hobby, really... and I've tried to put into words my personal journey to achieve great sound. Sharing the ups and downs as honest as I can. Hopefully giving something back to a community that has been largely responsible for my audio education, to learn how this Stereo Audio miracle really works.
This thread currently has over 1.3 million views, so I guess I did come a long way to achieve that last bit!
Thanks for a selfless sharing of your journey. Your excellent presentation of the journey is quite interesting even to those of us that may lack the courage to attempt it. I may try a pair of 9 speaker columns (less elegant but borrowing from your design) for my home TV system to reduce floor space while improving performance. I already have a subwoofer but occasionally blow a BIC midrange speaker. It's also pleasing to have a system that differs from run-of-the-mill.
The Paraline principle in the SBH10 and 20 seems no better than the slotted waveguide in the LD MAUI P900, rather worse.
Many people are justly impressed by the Danley Synergy technology, but seem to forget the products are primarily designed for PA environments where high output and controlled directivity over large distances is paramount.
I've listened to SH50s and several other Danley products and while they work well for the intended application, I am healed of the desire to build a Danley clone myself. I seriously doubt you'd want to exchange your towers for a pair of SH-50s.
This does not alter the fact that certain features of the Synergy concept are indeed interesting for home applications.
The synergized coaxial woofers are an example.
Many people are justly impressed by the Danley Synergy technology, but seem to forget the products are primarily designed for PA environments where high output and controlled directivity over large distances is paramount.
I've listened to SH50s and several other Danley products and while they work well for the intended application, I am healed of the desire to build a Danley clone myself. I seriously doubt you'd want to exchange your towers for a pair of SH-50s.
This does not alter the fact that certain features of the Synergy concept are indeed interesting for home applications.
The synergized coaxial woofers are an example.
Last edited:
What would be worse? I didn't come across measurements of the P900. But it's easy to see the sections on that picture with numerous sharp bends. But I don't see how that creates equal path lengths, something that is present in the Paraline principle.
I do believe there's a lot more solid engineering in the Paraline as opposed to the Maui P900, but neither of them will be without problems when trying to shape the sound.
The SBH10/20 try to make it into a bent wave shape, not a true line. Pretty nifty.
Danley Sound Labs SBH10 - YouTube
Not the actual Paraline is shown in this video, but it does show the principles behind it. It won't be without problems due to its own geometry, but the Paraline throughput shape is kept very small for a reason, as Danley showed earlier, the wave shape will (start to) develop once there is enough room for it. It is a folded horn after all.
But it probably does have internal reflections etc. off of the sharp bends etc.
I.M.H.O. the DIY attempts cannot serve as a good example of the principles involved.
They do get loud, as does the MAUI P900. Will they be HiFi? I don't know. With 3D printers, one shouldn't have much of a problem re-creating the wave guide of the P900 for experiments. The Paraline will be much more complicated to do it justice.
I do believe there's a lot more solid engineering in the Paraline as opposed to the Maui P900, but neither of them will be without problems when trying to shape the sound.
The SBH10/20 try to make it into a bent wave shape, not a true line. Pretty nifty.
Danley Sound Labs SBH10 - YouTube
Not the actual Paraline is shown in this video, but it does show the principles behind it. It won't be without problems due to its own geometry, but the Paraline throughput shape is kept very small for a reason, as Danley showed earlier, the wave shape will (start to) develop once there is enough room for it. It is a folded horn after all.
But it probably does have internal reflections etc. off of the sharp bends etc.
I.M.H.O. the DIY attempts cannot serve as a good example of the principles involved.
They do get loud, as does the MAUI P900. Will they be HiFi? I don't know. With 3D printers, one shouldn't have much of a problem re-creating the wave guide of the P900 for experiments. The Paraline will be much more complicated to do it justice.
Last edited:
Brilliant technology is one thing, a pleasant listening experience is another and there are so many factors in between
I came across LD MAUI by coincidence and considered it interesting enough to post a few pics. The MAUI and Danley's SBH series reflect two different ways of getting around the inherent handicaps of the column speaker concept.
Acoustics is a complicated subject and it is very difficult, or more likely impossible, to play tricks on Mother Nature without penalties.
I think the beauty of your towers lies in the simplicity of the physical entities. There's some processing involved, but the actual sound is rendered through 25 identical drivers. Those drivers aren't perfect (no driver is), but there's no cross-over in the vocal range and no bending of waves through channels or slots. Just 25 full-range direct radiators.
Bateman started a thread about this topic and in the first post he nails it:
"My reference speakers are Vandersteen. They have a fairly flat frequency response and they're really well behaved in the phase domain.
The Danley speakers cost about 20X as much as the Vandersteens. You can find the latter on Craigslist for $300, easily.
On an excellent recording, the SH50s were breathtaking. For instance, you can turn the lights off and put on a track with a really great soundstage, and the SH50 is one of those speakers where the image is almost holographic. Where the center is so solid it sounds like you have a center channel, and you can almost get a sense of "front to back" depth. The dynamics are far beyond anything you would ever need in a home.
The Vandersteen can't reach those highs, the stage is never as well defined and the dynamic limits are nowhere near as high.
But here's the crazy part - on most recordings, the Vandersteen's image sounds bigger than the SH50.
This is particularly noticeable if you listen to crummy recordings. I basically listen to podcasts, EDM, some 80s music, and some punk rock. I don't listen to jazz, or orchestral, or classical.
My 'hunch' is that the much wider directivity of the Vandersteens is 'lighting up' the room in a way that the SH50s can't. Basically the Vandy's can't extract all the information in a really good recording the way that the SH50s can, but the Vandy's are also 'glossing over' the bad qualities of many recordings."
Your towers are likely to harbor qualities of both the SH50s and the VanderSteens
Years ago, Art Welter tested the Vifa TC09FD mounted on his Maltese horns:
"On 12/13/15 I did an A/B listening test between the TC9 and the (relatively) new Eminence N314T-8 (3" diaphragm 1.4" exit), both on my Maltese 13 x 13 degree conical horns. Although the N314T-8 had less HF distortion than any of the HF drivers previously tested, the TC9FD was cleaner sounding. The TC9FD has far more clean output capability in the 500 Hz range than any HF driver I've tested, though my listening test was using a steep crossover at around 900 Hz.
The TC9FD required more power than the compression driver, but I was amazed at the clarity at the high SPL levels I worked up to. I'm fairly used to the distortion level in speakers telling when to back off power, but the TC9FD gave almost no indication of distress until the voice coil melted the glue off the former and it "gaacked" out over about a 1 second period.
Prior to the TC9FD letting out the magic smoke, it had survived several songs averaging 120 dBA slow at one meter, with peaks of up to 126 dBA. The driver is only rated for 30 watts (IEC 2685, 6 dB crest factor pink noise) so considering the SPL, amazing that it lasted as long as it did, considering peak levels were well in excess of 200 watts."
The Vifa's may lack some refinement in the top octave, but I'm sure the breakup isn't particularly bothersome > paper cone breakup rarely is, especially at the upper limit of human hearing.
I came across LD MAUI by coincidence and considered it interesting enough to post a few pics. The MAUI and Danley's SBH series reflect two different ways of getting around the inherent handicaps of the column speaker concept.
Acoustics is a complicated subject and it is very difficult, or more likely impossible, to play tricks on Mother Nature without penalties.
I think the beauty of your towers lies in the simplicity of the physical entities. There's some processing involved, but the actual sound is rendered through 25 identical drivers. Those drivers aren't perfect (no driver is), but there's no cross-over in the vocal range and no bending of waves through channels or slots. Just 25 full-range direct radiators.
Bateman started a thread about this topic and in the first post he nails it:
"My reference speakers are Vandersteen. They have a fairly flat frequency response and they're really well behaved in the phase domain.
The Danley speakers cost about 20X as much as the Vandersteens. You can find the latter on Craigslist for $300, easily.
On an excellent recording, the SH50s were breathtaking. For instance, you can turn the lights off and put on a track with a really great soundstage, and the SH50 is one of those speakers where the image is almost holographic. Where the center is so solid it sounds like you have a center channel, and you can almost get a sense of "front to back" depth. The dynamics are far beyond anything you would ever need in a home.
The Vandersteen can't reach those highs, the stage is never as well defined and the dynamic limits are nowhere near as high.
But here's the crazy part - on most recordings, the Vandersteen's image sounds bigger than the SH50.
This is particularly noticeable if you listen to crummy recordings. I basically listen to podcasts, EDM, some 80s music, and some punk rock. I don't listen to jazz, or orchestral, or classical.
My 'hunch' is that the much wider directivity of the Vandersteens is 'lighting up' the room in a way that the SH50s can't. Basically the Vandy's can't extract all the information in a really good recording the way that the SH50s can, but the Vandy's are also 'glossing over' the bad qualities of many recordings."
Your towers are likely to harbor qualities of both the SH50s and the VanderSteens
Years ago, Art Welter tested the Vifa TC09FD mounted on his Maltese horns:
"On 12/13/15 I did an A/B listening test between the TC9 and the (relatively) new Eminence N314T-8 (3" diaphragm 1.4" exit), both on my Maltese 13 x 13 degree conical horns. Although the N314T-8 had less HF distortion than any of the HF drivers previously tested, the TC9FD was cleaner sounding. The TC9FD has far more clean output capability in the 500 Hz range than any HF driver I've tested, though my listening test was using a steep crossover at around 900 Hz.
The TC9FD required more power than the compression driver, but I was amazed at the clarity at the high SPL levels I worked up to. I'm fairly used to the distortion level in speakers telling when to back off power, but the TC9FD gave almost no indication of distress until the voice coil melted the glue off the former and it "gaacked" out over about a 1 second period.
Prior to the TC9FD letting out the magic smoke, it had survived several songs averaging 120 dBA slow at one meter, with peaks of up to 126 dBA. The driver is only rated for 30 watts (IEC 2685, 6 dB crest factor pink noise) so considering the SPL, amazing that it lasted as long as it did, considering peak levels were well in excess of 200 watts."
The Vifa's may lack some refinement in the top octave, but I'm sure the breakup isn't particularly bothersome > paper cone breakup rarely is, especially at the upper limit of human hearing.
Last edited:
I think you nailed it here... within the confounds of a room a line like this 25x TC9 has a good shot at excellence, maybe even more than the Maui 9000 or the Danley SBH10. It would fall behind on top output levels though. Especially on the top end.
I've shown a comparison between a single TC9 with floor/ceiling reflections and a line array under the same circumstances, the line array will have way less variation all through the bottom end and midrange, performing better than the SBH10 graphs show.
So if you don't need 130 dB, a line like this can do amazing things. It won't fall apart even up to 110 dB +, so it has the needed dynamics, the phase behavior will be excellent and it will bring that holographic imaging out on excellent songs.
I tried to go a step further by optimizing the room and adding the virtual ambience and linear phase mid/side EQ. Improving what was there through hiding the real room (with only 3 damping panels) and fighting some cross talk that will show up when you lack those early reflections. This will give you envelopment, dynamics, great tonality and imaging qualities, all in one. Not easy to get it all at once, but it's there if you work on it. During my first few years I had experienced all of those separately (at least once), trying to find the key ingredients that made it work to be able to get it all in one package. Slowly but surely unraveling the reasons for each to exist.
I can't tell yet if my frequency dependent shading on top will be a succes, but have high hopes. It requires 5dB less boost on top due to creating less interference. In theory it should be another improvement.
Improving the bottom end is way easier, and was only really needed for HT material. I do love having that bottom end go down way below 30Hz for the added feel. We hear with much more than our ears alone. That's why phase does matter to me.
I'm pretty sure the same results (or better) can be had with synergies or (big) horns, if one works on it to make it work with the room it is in and the specifics of what makes the Stereo illusion work. Creating that synergy between the room and speakers is key in my humble opinion.
But to make it truly convincing I believe you do need:
- dynamics (effortless sound)
- imaging qualities (matching left/right frequency response, preferably with phase tracking it)
- controlled reflections (within a room, you do need them to make the illusion work, especially for envelopment etc. but also for imaging)
- optimized tonality (which needs work with a lower than usual level of first reflections 0-15 ms)
Single full range (even with bottom end reinforcement) is not for me. I guess I'm locked inside the wrong part of the forum. The black sheep so to speak.
At least, that's it in a nutshell what I've been working on. You'd be surprised how enjoyable most recording can be if you get it close to being right. And how truly convincing the well recorded material can be! I don't like to blame recordings, even though I've found my share of disappointing records. The early digital recordings from the 80's come to mind. But also the dynamically crippled, that should be obvious. Though I was surprised how well some of that dynamic crippled material can image, making it at least partially fun to listen to.
The true fun begins with songs with a DR around 12 or above.
I've shown a comparison between a single TC9 with floor/ceiling reflections and a line array under the same circumstances, the line array will have way less variation all through the bottom end and midrange, performing better than the SBH10 graphs show.
So if you don't need 130 dB, a line like this can do amazing things. It won't fall apart even up to 110 dB +, so it has the needed dynamics, the phase behavior will be excellent and it will bring that holographic imaging out on excellent songs.
I tried to go a step further by optimizing the room and adding the virtual ambience and linear phase mid/side EQ. Improving what was there through hiding the real room (with only 3 damping panels) and fighting some cross talk that will show up when you lack those early reflections. This will give you envelopment, dynamics, great tonality and imaging qualities, all in one. Not easy to get it all at once, but it's there if you work on it. During my first few years I had experienced all of those separately (at least once), trying to find the key ingredients that made it work to be able to get it all in one package. Slowly but surely unraveling the reasons for each to exist.
I can't tell yet if my frequency dependent shading on top will be a succes, but have high hopes. It requires 5dB less boost on top due to creating less interference. In theory it should be another improvement.
Improving the bottom end is way easier, and was only really needed for HT material. I do love having that bottom end go down way below 30Hz for the added feel. We hear with much more than our ears alone. That's why phase does matter to me.
I'm pretty sure the same results (or better) can be had with synergies or (big) horns, if one works on it to make it work with the room it is in and the specifics of what makes the Stereo illusion work. Creating that synergy between the room and speakers is key in my humble opinion.
But to make it truly convincing I believe you do need:
- dynamics (effortless sound)
- imaging qualities (matching left/right frequency response, preferably with phase tracking it)
- controlled reflections (within a room, you do need them to make the illusion work, especially for envelopment etc. but also for imaging)
- optimized tonality (which needs work with a lower than usual level of first reflections 0-15 ms)
Single full range (even with bottom end reinforcement) is not for me
. I guess I'm locked inside the wrong part of the forum. The black sheep so to speak.At least, that's it in a nutshell what I've been working on. You'd be surprised how enjoyable most recording can be if you get it close to being right. And how truly convincing the well recorded material can be! I don't like to blame recordings, even though I've found my share of disappointing records. The early digital recordings from the 80's come to mind. But also the dynamically crippled, that should be obvious. Though I was surprised how well some of that dynamic crippled material can image, making it at least partially fun to listen to.
The true fun begins with songs with a DR around 12 or above.
Of course we agree on the importance of:
- dynamics
- imaging qualities
- controlled reflections
- optimized tonality
...and you are one of the few who have achieved these objectives (and more) with a relatively modest, but very sophisticated / well thought-out system.
As regards disappointing records... I find it amazing to learn how many people focus on the qualities of eg Beryllium. These are likely people who are either involved in music production themselves, or people who only listen to (often deadly boring) perfectly recorded music, or people who do not realize that the speed of sound through the diaphragm material is directly related to 'forgiveness' towards mediocre recordings.
- dynamics
- imaging qualities
- controlled reflections
- optimized tonality
...and you are one of the few who have achieved these objectives (and more) with a relatively modest, but very sophisticated / well thought-out system.
As regards disappointing records... I find it amazing to learn how many people focus on the qualities of eg Beryllium. These are likely people who are either involved in music production themselves, or people who only listen to (often deadly boring) perfectly recorded music, or people who do not realize that the speed of sound through the diaphragm material is directly related to 'forgiveness' towards mediocre recordings.
Last edited:
I can only speak for myself, but I did not enter this game to listen to perfect recordings. I build this system so I can enjoy the soundtrack of my life.
Be able to listen to the music I love.
For instance, I waited over a year to play Led Zeppelin. Because I wanted to be sure my system would be able to do it justice. Luckily we got the 2015 High Res remasters, because most CD's were badly mastered compared to the old vinyl. Now I know Led Zeppelin won't make it to the list of perfect recordings. Yet it can be very enjoyable.
I like how you can even hear the squeak of the drum peddle on 'Since I've Been Loving You' (imaging works well too) and they often did fun things like recording the drums in a big hall to get the right reverb.
But most of all, I've been enjoying the music from them since I was 12 years old. So it just has to sound good in my room or I'll have more work to do.
For some artists I found some Japanese CD's or SACD's that were better than the ones I had before. Not all pressings are the same.
Not that many remasters are better, but in the Led Zeppelin case they truly were an upgrade vs prior CD's.
Be able to listen to the music I love.
For instance, I waited over a year to play Led Zeppelin. Because I wanted to be sure my system would be able to do it justice. Luckily we got the 2015 High Res remasters, because most CD's were badly mastered compared to the old vinyl. Now I know Led Zeppelin won't make it to the list of perfect recordings. Yet it can be very enjoyable.
I like how you can even hear the squeak of the drum peddle on 'Since I've Been Loving You' (imaging works well too) and they often did fun things like recording the drums in a big hall to get the right reverb.
But most of all, I've been enjoying the music from them since I was 12 years old. So it just has to sound good in my room or I'll have more work to do.
For some artists I found some Japanese CD's or SACD's that were better than the ones I had before. Not all pressings are the same.
Not that many remasters are better, but in the Led Zeppelin case they truly were an upgrade vs prior CD's.
Last edited:
Funny that you mention Led Zeppelin, because some time ago I found out there's a huge debate among fans about which masters of specific recordings are of the highest quality. I compared about 20 releases of a couple of albums and it turned out that a few carefully digitized LPs sounded best, at least to my ears (and those of others). Among the selected releases were indeed a few Japanese SACD/DSDs, but they still didn't quite match the digitized vinyls.
It is nice to experience how the (in this case much needed) 'warmth' associated with vinyl can be preserved after digitization.
I believe the actual master tapes, used for the CD releases were different from the original vinyl masters.
It is nice to experience how the (in this case much needed) 'warmth' associated with vinyl can be preserved after digitization.
I believe the actual master tapes, used for the CD releases were different from the original vinyl masters.
Last edited:
I feel the 2015 remasters (High Res, I haven't listened to the CD versions) hit the mark for me. I did not try the vinyl to CD samples, and the Japanese SHCD versions (not SACD) were the best CD versions I had come across before that. While having their catalog in my collection on many CD's none ever came close to the vinyl before those High Res versions hit the market. I even have more than one vinyl version of every album as I tried to get the earliest pressings I could find. I'm crazy like that but have a cousin that goes way beyond me, he has over 10.000 vinyl albums, mostly from a few pressing companies or labels.
I've had the same experience with Van Halen, with the exception of the first album mastered by Steve Hoffman. The later remasters were better in quality (the High Res ones, as the final CD versions differ from it by a large margin) but not quite right in mastering. A comparison with the Steve Hoffman mastered first album showed why I felt that way. I never found any CD or High Res that truly matches it's vinyl version. Steve Hoffman's work on the first album comes close though.
Funny thing is that most Van Halen's CD pressings have a reversed polarity. We should not hear that, right? Or can we....
I have The Doors catalog done by Steve Hoffman as remasters and like those very much.
Growing up I also liked Whitesnake. No CD of their 1987 album ever sounded great. The older stuff is out there in OK shape, but the 1987 album was done digitally, and I fear there isn't any good version to be found on CD. The imaging of the drum parts especially is very disappointing. It doesn't even sound like a (real) drum that way.
Frank Zappa: the 2012 remasters sound very good! Generally Franks albums are a notch above the usual Rock music, recording wise.
I like the old Queen albums on Japanese SACD. I stopped listening to them when the Synths took over.
Just personal experience and preference here... having lots of vinyl memories can be hard at times. There are differences between the mastering of a CD and mastering for vinyl. If a mastering professional knows what he does, he will be able to get them close enough. Some of the first CD versions aren't that great and a lot of 80's work suffered from the early digital attempts i.m.h.o.
It is fun to find different pressings to find the gems out there. I refuse to turn knobs for every record I play. And I won't "remaster" them myself (lol).
Generally though, a quite lot of material is way above acceptable and fun to listen to. I get more critical, the more I like the music. I can't incorporate a record player all that easy and my other half probably doesn't want that massive collection being brought back from the attic anyway. But I do "get it" why some hang on to their favorite records. Overall I'm perfectly happy with the digital collection I've assembled through the years and only miss a few key recordings that could have been a little better.
I've had the same experience with Van Halen, with the exception of the first album mastered by Steve Hoffman. The later remasters were better in quality (the High Res ones, as the final CD versions differ from it by a large margin) but not quite right in mastering. A comparison with the Steve Hoffman mastered first album showed why I felt that way. I never found any CD or High Res that truly matches it's vinyl version. Steve Hoffman's work on the first album comes close though.
Funny thing is that most Van Halen's CD pressings have a reversed polarity. We should not hear that, right? Or can we....
I have The Doors catalog done by Steve Hoffman as remasters and like those very much.
Growing up I also liked Whitesnake. No CD of their 1987 album ever sounded great. The older stuff is out there in OK shape, but the 1987 album was done digitally, and I fear there isn't any good version to be found on CD. The imaging of the drum parts especially is very disappointing. It doesn't even sound like a (real) drum that way.
Frank Zappa: the 2012 remasters sound very good! Generally Franks albums are a notch above the usual Rock music, recording wise.
I like the old Queen albums on Japanese SACD. I stopped listening to them when the Synths took over.
Just personal experience and preference here... having lots of vinyl memories can be hard at times. There are differences between the mastering of a CD and mastering for vinyl. If a mastering professional knows what he does, he will be able to get them close enough. Some of the first CD versions aren't that great and a lot of 80's work suffered from the early digital attempts i.m.h.o.
It is fun to find different pressings to find the gems out there. I refuse to turn knobs for every record I play. And I won't "remaster" them myself (lol).
Generally though, a quite lot of material is way above acceptable and fun to listen to. I get more critical, the more I like the music. I can't incorporate a record player all that easy and my other half probably doesn't want that massive collection being brought back from the attic anyway. But I do "get it" why some hang on to their favorite records. Overall I'm perfectly happy with the digital collection I've assembled through the years and only miss a few key recordings that could have been a little better.
Last edited:
Try this one in High Res to compare. I still haven't got my arrays back in action, so it's only on headphones but I may know the High Res version a bit too well to make an honest comparison. I do 'feel' the High Res (the one in this post) sounds more open.
Last edited:
Let's make this even more interesting, Here's a link to the Japanese SHM-CD version.
I could also upload a regular CD version, but between these three, it's easy to hear differences in mastering/production already.
Disclaimer: I have uploaded these tracks as an informal study, not trying to breach any copyright rules. For educational purposes only.
I could also upload a regular CD version, but between these three, it's easy to hear differences in mastering/production already.
Disclaimer: I have uploaded these tracks as an informal study, not trying to breach any copyright rules. For educational purposes only.
Last edited:
Another Led Zeppelin fan here. I have several versions of the Presence Album. There is one version on vinyl that is sooooo good, very open and higher dynamic range. Others sound compressed in comparison.
Totally get what you are saying about different mastering and different versions. I refuse to remaster as well. All we can do is alter the tonal balance anyway. Some folks here do it, but I feel like I'm happy most of the time listening to what has been created. It's fun to listen to the differences. Will try your files and report back. 'Since I've been loving you' is one of my favorites anyway. Maybe we need a separate Led Zeppelin appreciation thread
Totally get what you are saying about different mastering and different versions. I refuse to remaster as well. All we can do is alter the tonal balance anyway. Some folks here do it, but I feel like I'm happy most of the time listening to what has been created. It's fun to listen to the differences. Will try your files and report back. 'Since I've been loving you' is one of my favorites anyway. Maybe we need a separate Led Zeppelin appreciation thread