Jaw dropping enhancements in sound quality

Ha Ha.

 

Don't worry, we vet all of Mikes postings before they are submitted.

 

SM, If my avatar was a photo of my willy you'd be totally humbled.
I'm far too modest to do that.

I can't remember the link but there's that infamous 'audiophiles documentary' one bloke saying something along these lines of a religious experience...." there is a point, a state, where there is just me and ze music-a connection-" now that's a confirmed audiophile nutcase using very familiar words(whatever floats his boat IMO but lets not have his type call US audiofools eh?)
BTW the only audiophile pressings I own are 2 shefield labs lps 'pressure cooker' and 'distinguished colleagues' bought for me by my late Dad when I was 18-bugger me they still sound so good (most of the music sucks tho'

 

currently listening to athlete - tourist which was held up earlier as a 'bad recording' sounds great on my current system - squeezebox->dax decade->b&o 5000 -> mission 700's. mpt sure what that means in the context of this thread but as i've also just enjoyed listening to annie lenox's medusa (imho a damn good recording) i'm of the opinion that 1) i have a damn good system and 2) b&o are sorely underrated just because they aren;t lashed up in a small hut on a trading estate in the fens by a beardy eccentric.

 

The danger is that you won't notice how wierd and wrong the Audio Note kit sounds.

OTOH if you 'upgrade' and the range of material you play narrows then you wasted your money.

Paul

 

Compare it to the previous album, Vehicles and Animals which is full of life and vibrancy. I was rather disappointed when I played it for the first time and found it was compressed to a pancake, although it doesn't clip too badly so it could be worse.

Perhaps half the problem is not that modern releases sound 'bad' but rather many set the bar too high with previous ones that were great recordings.

BareNaked Ladies is another that started off with brilliant recordings and as you progress through the albums they get worse and worse with heaps of compression.

 

Of course.

Assuming the CDs are mastered from the same recordings then you're probably right. The debate is whether it matters. Whether 'sound better' is significant.

Robert Johnson sang and played his guitar into a microphone on a number of occasions in the 30s. That's all we have. All the recordings, transcribed from discs, are worth listening to and are better on a better system. QED.

Paul

 

Well I didn't say I actually agreed with him ... just that he may have a point. Its one of those things where he may be right ..... or he may just be saying that to scam us over the inadequacies of his kit. or both may be true.

 

aye ... and sometimes its spot on.

 

you are too bored guys to get involved in such a senseless willy-waving. how old are you? for how long are you in this sport?

 

I'm not sure it is quite QED. There is a world of difference between old historic recordings like these or the old Woodie Guthrie songs I'm so fond of, or some of the early classical recordings mentioned which are only "poor" in the sense that the recording techniques and technology was primitive relative to what came later and a modern recording which has been slammed.

 

No there isn't - not in my experience anyway. Once again your perception seems skewed.

 

;
Normally not one to revel in schadenfreude, such hubris on the part of SM leaves me no option
Do you have any measurements /technical data to support your position?

 

top post - 100% mirrors my experiences.

more people need to listen to the music not the hifi when demming/comparing kit IMO.

cheers
Matt

 

Once again I claim there are no differences and others claim there are. Given that the vast majority of people don't seem to give a rat's about sound quality, I would say the balance of evidence is with me. It's therefore up to the Uncle to produce evidence of differences, not me.

 

Some recordings are not only mastered too hot causing digital clipping of the final mix-a very well documented 'nasty' widely understood to be far more objectionable than its analogue tape saturation counterpart but also the individual components within the multitrack are sometimes also maximised and clipped.
Now if you then apply radio friendly compression you have a particularly offensive sound that transends 'cd' harshness, this is a different animal altogether.
Now obviously there will still be elements within that recording that are ok and yes the whole thing could be tollerable if played low/moderate but the fault lies with the disc nowhere else-to suggest peoples systems must be shit is just part of the virus that infects ZG and is unneccessary.

 

Whatever. I'm sure you are right.

 

It's hard to demonstrate 'fault' when the action of making that disc is deliberate.

The assertion is that such a disc will be better on a better system rather than worse. This is hardly a virus more a subject for debate.

Paul

 

No, the assertion is that all discs sound good and if they don't your system is shit.
The virus reference is to the predisposition to slag other peoples gear/opinions as inferior.
You should know, you give and take enough of it

 

Well, if you have a system that makes half your discs unplayable so that you can't enjoy them? What's the point? I would say that that's a shit system, at least in terms of musical re-production....