|
|
Post by macca on Jul 5, 2018 17:55:58 GMT
Still got his speakers facing the wrong way I see. Good to know some things never change. |
|
|
|
Post by nonuffin on Jul 5, 2018 18:38:24 GMT
I have the Spotify free version on the PC which I only use to check out new music. Have a pair of Edirol active speakers connected to the PC which are good enough for rough listening only. In a perverse way though doing that has saved me money too, by not buying some of the crap recommended by other forum members, because a quick whizz on Spotty tells me it's awful to listen to LOL
I don't ever plan to connect Spotify to my system because I am not keen on paying a monthly subscription forever and am content to buy a CD then the expenditure ends.
Soundwise too my Vincent CD player is much better sounding so there is no motivation at all to go down the streaming route.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 8, 2018 11:11:57 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 11:18:06 GMT
I can't be done with reading all that technical bollocks that proves 16/44 is perfect. While I doubt 24/192 has any real advantage over 24/96 I'm confident hi-res formats sound better for whatever reason. Whether files claimed to be 24/192 being offered for download sound better is another matter. Likely would have to be flat transfers from the master tape or a true 24/192 recording. Not much is. Many complain many hi-res downloads are just up samples of compressed digital sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 8, 2018 12:03:01 GMT
I can't be done with reading all that technical bollocks that proves 16/44 is perfect. While I doubt 24/192 has any real advantage over 24/96 I'm confident hi-res formats sound better for whatever reason. Whether files claimed to be 24/192 being offered for download sound better is another matter. Likely would have to be flat transfers from the master tape or a true 24/192 recording. Not much is. Many complain many hi-res downloads are just up samples of compressed digital sources. I learn a lot by reading, especially when trying it for myself can confirm what others have researched... Most commercial stuff once on CD and now added as a hi-res download or SA-CD and so on, it seems the masters have been looked at again and tweaked further. If that means that the so-called hi-res version is the better sounding then so be it. I still feel though that a fair understanding of the machinations going on behind it all in the industry (recording and playback) does help.
When I visited a chap with a good sounding pair of Cube 1's - and this pair did sound superb irrespective of the way the room was fed with the sound - he played a jazzy file of a straight CD rip and also the hi-res version. the difference in sound was so marked I'm convinced a lot of added eq was done, to the bass especially. If you could hear it so utterly clearly, it had to be altered, as we weren't talking of subtleties on this track.
As I've said countless times, I can NEVER *only* trust my ears because they change so regularly and even though they've been better in recent times, current hay fever has messed with the now ever-present Tinnitus! I appreciate others may be blessed with better and more consistent hearing and if you are - take care of your ears and don't abuse them...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 16:10:30 GMT
In my experience SACD at least has more bass or at least a fuller bass and there is a feeling of the sound being rather more expansive. Sort of easier on the ear and fuller. In the direction of good vinyl playback but not as much. Why that is so is not clear but suspect the extended frequencies we can't possibly hear have some influence has to what can be heard. Of course mastering differences and compression muddies the waters somewhat. A well mastered Cd and hi-res can be pretty close but hi-res sources that haven't been butchered seem more pleasing and involving to listen to. My moan about the technical article is I've heard it so often to back up the CD is perfect argument in mahy Hoffman forum threads. Usually in context of some vinyl v CD debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 8, 2018 17:28:06 GMT
In my experience SACD at least has more bass or at least a fuller bass and there is a feeling of the sound being rather more expansive. Sort of easier on the ear and fuller. In the direction of good vinyl playback but not as much. Why that is so is not clear but suspect the extended frequencies we can't possibly hear have some influence has to what can be heard. Of course mastering differences and compression muddies the waters somewhat. A well mastered Cd and hi-res can be pretty close but hi-res sources that haven't been butchered seem more pleasing and involving to listen to. My moan about the technical article is I've heard it so often to back up the CD is perfect argument in mahy Hoffman forum threads. Usually in context of some vinyl v CD debate. I wish I could sit down with you so you could demonstrate to me what you're saying. SA-CD players 'feature' hf noise over 20k judging by the reviews I've read and the tin-can resonances of many metal dome tweeters could be upset by this, even if it's at a lower level. I can say with some certainty that the recordings of established CD material can be tinkered with in hi-res or SA-CD masterings and a little extra at 40Hz can do wonders to make the sound a little meatier (Tony Hawkins ex-Decca told me he used to do this on his CD masterings and comparing his Camel CD's to the later ones transferred 'flat' kind of confirms this, as the earlier versions he did seem slightly beefier and less 'clinical.'
What's the CD player?
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 8, 2018 19:57:31 GMT
Like DSJR says they just EQ it a bit or at best do a remaster. It even tells you all about it in the little booklet that comes with it.
You could put that same re-master on a CD and it won't sound any different just because it's a CD and not an SACD or 'hi rez' download. It's nonsense.
It is worth reading the article and trying to at least get the gist of it. If you don't have at least a layman's idea of the technical side they will have your pants down time after time. You don't need to become a qualified EE, you just need to know enough so you don't get ripped off or taken in. This is an industry full of sharks looking to feed, don't kid yourselves about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 10:33:28 GMT
There is obviously no point in arguing with you digital 'experts'. Measurements aren't the whole story and how do you know what EQ was applied to different recordings? Assumptions? Decent CDs can sound as good as some SACD (just about, though there are plenty badly mastered SACDs) but listening tells me there are some advantages in terms of musical presentation. Rather in terms of vinyl presenting a more musical presentation to many people (and let's not get into that old chestnut). Try one of the King Crimson DVDA titles remastered by Steve Wilson and compare the DVDA and CD discs. Same mastering (I assume CD is a downsample from the DVDA). My current equipment is listed on Hoffman forum. CD playback isn't shabby currently with two alternate players (CXC/Beresford + Oppo 205 - read other peoples reviews of these on forums). Also have a couple old TEACs currently waiting repair or disposal. Subjectivity v objectivity argument I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 9, 2018 10:39:19 GMT
There is obviously no point in arguing with you digital 'experts'. Measurements aren't the whole story and how do you know what EQ was applied to different recordings? Assumptions? Decent CDs can sound as good as some SACD (just about, though there are plenty badly mastered SACDs) but listening tells me there are some advantages in terms of musical presentation. Rather in terms of vinyl presenting a more musical presentation to many people (and let's not get into that old chestnut). Try one of the King Crimson DVDA titles remastered by Steve Wilson and compare the DVDA and CD discs. Same mastering (I assume CD is a downsample from the DVDA). My current equipment is listed on Hoffman forum. CD playback isn't shabby currently with two alternate players (CXC/Beresford + Oppo 205 - read other peoples reviews of these on forums). Also have a couple old TEACs currently waiting repair or disposal. Subjectivity v objectivity argument I think. Sometimes these 'differences' are so marked they can only be done with extra eq addded. I say I don't trust my ears but if I can hear such a substantial difference - and I have on occasion - then it just HAS to be eq when the red book CD can sound all but identical to a master tape or file if levels are matched (been there, done it, so kind of set in stone for me- apologies). A famous audiophile recording/mastering chap muddied the water a while ago when going on about 16 bit red book losing reverb tails in good recordings. he was challenged on it after, as modern digital workstations don't do this (and the original A-D's didn't either), but it seems he had a hand in promoting hi-res as a format.
Whatever. It's the music that counts and I still play records, surely one of the lowest fidelity formats (the black plastic, not so much the hardware) we currently have  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 10:54:28 GMT
There is obviously no point in arguing with you digital 'experts'. Measurements aren't the whole story and how do you know what EQ was applied to different recordings? Assumptions? Decent CDs can sound as good as some SACD (just about, though there are plenty badly mastered SACDs) but listening tells me there are some advantages in terms of musical presentation. Rather in terms of vinyl presenting a more musical presentation to many people (and let's not get into that old chestnut). Try one of the King Crimson DVDA titles remastered by Steve Wilson and compare the DVDA and CD discs. Same mastering (I assume CD is a downsample from the DVDA). My current equipment is listed on Hoffman forum. CD playback isn't shabby currently with two alternate players (CXC/Beresford + Oppo 205 - read other peoples reviews of these on forums). Also have a couple old TEACs currently waiting repair or disposal. Subjectivity v objectivity argument I think. Sometimes these 'differences' are so marked they can only be done with extra eq addded. I say I don't trust my ears but if I can hear such a substantial difference - and I have on occasion - then it just HAS to be eq when the red book CD can sound all but identical to a master tape or file if levels are matched (been there, done it, so kind of set in stone for me- apologies). A famous audiophile recording/mastering chap muddied the water a while ago when going on about 16 bit red book losing reverb tails in good recordings. he was challenged on it after, as modern digital workstations don't do this (and the original A-D's didn't either), but it seems he had a hand in promoting hi-res as a format.
Whatever. It's the music that counts and I still play records, surely one of the lowest fidelity formats (the black plastic, not so much the hardware) we currently have I've not mentioned EQ differences as my perception of the improvements I hear are more to do with a more relaxed presentation and a higher, deeper, lower, wider soundstage. It's probably more presentational than EQ related. The recording seems to breath more. It's pretty subtle to many I think but maybe more than a cable change. IMO neither CD or hi-res has produced the same listener satisfaction as vinyl for me - a format that appears to deliver more than conventional thinking suggests (and I don't mean warmth). I do suggest try a 45 rpm from MFSL or AP - the plastic fuzzies are more up to the hardware capabilities I think. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 11:02:22 GMT
Ive heard beautiful recordings on both cd and vinyl but vinyl simply sounds superior imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 9, 2018 11:27:14 GMT
There are technical reasons why people prefer vinyl to digital.
There are no technical reasons to prefer 'hi-rez'. All it is doing is adding frequencies you physically cannot hear, and in most cases there is nothing at those frequencies except noise that will give you amplifier a hard time.
The King Crimson re-masters are a good example. Recorded on analogue tape, so they cannot be hi-rez by definition, as there is no signal above 21 KHz on the original recording.
If the cd issue sounds worse than the 'hi rez' then they are not the same mastering, even though they claim that it is. It is really as simple as that.
These people are being deliberately and brazenly dishonest with you because they want your money.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauld on Jul 9, 2018 11:36:46 GMT
I recently purchased a Raspberry Pi with Digi One and am using Volumio. So far it is not quite as detailed as the CXC transport, but it does sound easier on the ear, so in some ways I prefer. That is with FLAC files. If I use Applelossless (which the majority of my collection is unfortunately) it sounds bright and nasty  |
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Jul 9, 2018 12:47:40 GMT
Sometimes these 'differences' are so marked they can only be done with extra eq addded. I say I don't trust my ears but if I can hear such a substantial difference - and I have on occasion - then it just HAS to be eq when the red book CD can sound all but identical to a master tape or file if levels are matched (been there, done it, so kind of set in stone for me- apologies). A famous audiophile recording/mastering chap muddied the water a while ago when going on about 16 bit red book losing reverb tails in good recordings. he was challenged on it after, as modern digital workstations don't do this (and the original A-D's didn't either), but it seems he had a hand in promoting hi-res as a format.
Whatever. It's the music that counts and I still play records, surely one of the lowest fidelity formats (the black plastic, not so much the hardware) we currently have I've not mentioned EQ differences as my perception of the improvements I hear are more to do with a more relaxed presentation and a higher, deeper, lower, wider soundstage. It's probably more presentational than EQ related. The recording seems to breath more. It's pretty subtle to many I think but maybe more than a cable change. That's a fair summary of what I hear when listening to 24 bit files. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 9, 2018 13:15:40 GMT
Funny how no-one in the world can spot the more relaxed presentation and the wider and deeper soundstage when they don't know if it is hi-rez they are listening to.
Given there's no reason for there to be any difference, and given that no-one notices the difference without first being cued to hear them, would you not accept that the probabilities all point to the 'differences' being entirely imaginary?
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 9, 2018 13:15:41 GMT
Ok. Maybe I'm spoiled with my digital stuff but I haven't had a problem with 16 bit red book digital since the late 80's. I bet the better masters for the hi-res issues are different to the vanilla CD ones though. Have you lot ever burned a CD-R with downloaded hi-res files to confirm the CD isn't as good? Rupert, if you genuinely feel vinyl is better for you than digital, then I can't really argue that subjective opinion. 'Technically' though, I possibly could but am too tired of trying and couldn't demonstrate it either. If you use 3.5A's that could explain some of it, but if you still had the BC2's as you once told me in another time, place and identity, maybe we could meet halfway
I hope this forum is for discussion and gentle debates rather than trying to force the issue (in my case). I can't 'prove' what I'm saying or be proved totally wrong by demonstration at the highest level, so best I shut the hell up on this. In recent times the sound of my digital files on the PC (I only use Foobar to play them with the gain-riding switched off) and also the CD players, have never sounded better, despite the gear I used to own. I'm having a 'System 7' month and gradually working my way through their albums from 1990. I was marvelling at the stuff going on in the background and realising how much of Steve Hillage's guitar remains, despite him shedding his rock-guitar-hero status with this venture.
- Amazingly involving sound, and then I realised the Denon CD transport is *only* going into the cheapo Chinese DAC via optical connection and into the preamp with a short SSC interconnect, yet I can hear how the production has improved and become more 'organic' as the band's studio gear and software developed and changed and the 'colours' of some of the synth parts are clearer than ever.
Sorry if I'm not getting it. Too far away to attend bakeoffs in the midlands or up north (thanks for former invites chaps), but I really should get out more to hear what some of you are telling me. My cousin lived in Penkridge for thirty odd years too and I attended his daughters wedding and reception there, possibly at the weekend's bake-off location too, but he moved when his wife passed away a few years ago and is now as remote as I am...
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 9, 2018 13:17:16 GMT
Have you lot ever burned a CD-R with downloaded hi-res files to confirm the CD isn't as good? Of course they haven't otherwise they wouldn't be so sure of themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Jul 9, 2018 13:23:44 GMT
Funny how no-one in the world can spot the more relaxed presentation and the wider and deeper soundstage when they don't know if it is hi-rez they are listening to. Given there's no reason for there to be any difference, and given that no-one notices the difference without first being cued to hear them, would you not accept that the probabilities all point to the 'differences' being entirely imaginary? I think it's likely to do with tweaking / remastering. I have no problem accepting your suggestion that it is deliberate manipulation and opportunist marketing. I have no problem with the difference in what I hear being real or imaginary. We shall never know. |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 9, 2018 13:38:00 GMT
At day's end, if the hi-res release, or at the other end, the vinyl version, puts you more in touch with the musical message, then it really doesn't matter. FFS, could you imagine the likes of me as mastering engineer? I'd never get any work done, worrying that a db or two eq here or there is going to ruin the sound..... Having said that, some of the virgin 'manor' recordings from the mid 70's seemed pretty cack to me (Gong, Tangerine Dream) and it was great to hear the remastered former band's work (Angels Egg and You) done by my old friend's ex-Decca colleague (Pascal Byrne). The TeeDee releases (Rubycon especially) apparently do sound clearer/better on SA-CD as the remastering engineer looked again at the original transfers and suspect the muffled 3 - 5k region may have been lifted a little to bolster air/atmosphere and perceived clarity. Not sure if any of you like electronica in general, but the fairly recent Edgar Froese solo works box set 'sounds' great with less distortion than previously and these were done by Denis Blackham at Skye Mastering (Bilbo Boppa when he did a good vinyl cut) www.skyemastering.com/pictures.html |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,399
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jul 9, 2018 14:26:58 GMT
I like Electronica. I will grab a listen thanks,
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 9, 2018 14:38:29 GMT
Maroubra Bay still gives me goose-bumps, yet is actually very basic and dated really...
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,399
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jul 9, 2018 14:46:17 GMT
Maroubra Bay still gives me goose-bumps, yet is actually very basic and dated really... Never heard it but I do like it, definitely worth seeking out more for me, I tend to like more beat-oriented music, but I do like anything with a rich soundscape too. |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 9, 2018 18:08:12 GMT
Another good one recorded for listening on headphones. i dare say Omni's would give a very spacial effect. the cracking up on the aircraft flying overhead is 'fixed' in the box-set remaster and had been on all previous versions, so a recording artifact I reckon..
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,399
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jul 9, 2018 18:21:36 GMT
Another good one recorded for listening on headphones. i dare say Omni's would give a very spacial effect. the cracking up on the aircraft flying overhead is 'fixed' in the box-set remaster and had been on all previous versions, so a recording artifact I reckon.. I like this too. I look forward to hearing it on Omnis. |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 9, 2018 19:07:08 GMT
See, we're 'streaming' of a sort...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2018 16:46:20 GMT
I've not mentioned EQ differences as my perception of the improvements I hear are more to do with a more relaxed presentation and a higher, deeper, lower, wider soundstage. It's probably more presentational than EQ related. The recording seems to breath more. It's pretty subtle to many I think but maybe more than a cable change. That's a fair summary of what I hear when listening to 24 bit files. One thing that puzzles me in this whole debate is that the high res versions of older albums are very often also "Remastered". But, if you look on the DR database probably 90% of "Remasters" seem to have worse DRs than the originals (as do "Greatest Hits"). In my experience so far, "Remastering" is just another term for just turning up the volume (if possible I get the original versions of older CD recordings for this reason). It doesn't seem to fit what others say about the differences between 16 and 24 bit. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 14, 2018 18:43:13 GMT
Most people only listen in the car. So the re-masters get compressed so you can hear the quiet parts over the engine noise and road noise and the peaks don't overdrive or blow the crappy speakers and amp. It's all done for the lowest common denominator because that is 90% of the market.
Some re-masters are as good or better than the original though - spec wise anyway. Sony SBM remasters for example. DR Database is a good resource, I always have it bookmarked. It's not much use for vinyl but it is a useful guideline as to what version of a CD to look for.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 15, 2018 12:23:08 GMT
Also works if you are listening in headphones in a noisy environment.
I've heard a cd with no compression applied played back on a domestic system, and a reasonably competent one at that. It was a final mix pre-mastering. There was some deep synth bass on one track and I thought the speakers would explode, although disappointingly they didn't. So you've got to have some compression even on a proper rig otherwise you would be always having to turn up the quiet bits and turn down the crescendos. You can have too much dynamic range as well as too little, in other words.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 15, 2018 13:28:18 GMT
There's compression (apparently, a BBC research paper suggested we can take up to 10db of compression and not notice it - I'll have to find the link) and there' *gain riding* which i tolerate better. Many recording orchestras by the 70's were 'gain riding' all on their own to help the mixing and mastering engineer do their job more simply, and a first-vinyl cut of Kate Bush's Hounds of Love showed a master (Chris Blair) had done the first vinyl cut as there was no obvious compression over the CD, yet quiet bits were lifted in level and louder bits reduced slightly, the 'inner dynamics' of the music not touched.
So called 'good' playback systems seem to let you hear more into compressed recordings though.
|
|
