Jean Michel Jarre - Equinoxe (Remastered) (Qobuz 24/96)

[dpstjp]

Same issue with loudness as Oxygene.

 

One question I have to ask is do electronic music and synthesizers is should I expect higher frequency sound in the way I do with an "analogue" instrument?

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

One question I have to ask is do electronic music and synthesizers is should I expect higher frequency sound in the way I do with an "analogue" instrument?

 

Yes, but not with this old stuff;

Just grab some "electronic" but better "ambient" music beyond ~2007 and you will most clearly hear the difference.

Better sampled sounds, higher bit depths, *and* the drive to produce the more squary tones (which is all about higher frequencies).

 

2c

Peter

 

[Julf]

"Yes, but not with this old stuff"

 

Depends on how old. Oxygene was recorded in the 70's, using analog synthesizers that actually have harmonics that go pretty high, wile the early digital stuff from the 80's has very limited sample depths and rates. So Jarre's synths (mainly VCS3 for the effects) should have had more HF stuff, but it was recorded on a 8-track unit that probably limits the HF available.

 

 

[Mark Powell]

I have the original vinyl release of Equinoxe. Not messed about with 'remastering'.

 

It is brilliant!

 

(Technics SL1200>Koetsu Red>SME IV>Cambridge Audio 640P)

 

[Synfreak]

not with this old stuff ... ?

 

You clearly miss the point ... again.

 

On JMJs early albums there where no "samplers" used ;-)

 

And analogue synthesizer do have lots of energy above 20khz.

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

I miss the point ? Well, I can imagine that you could read it like that, so let me point to my emphasis on the *and* below :

 

Better sampled sounds, higher bit depths, *and* the drive to produce the more squary tones (which is all about higher frequencies).

 

It's there for a reason.

But obviously the construction of my sentence wasn't correct.

 

What remains is the difference with the albums I referred to.

 

And really, I never said that JMJ's albums are no good or anything. Of course they are. This a sort of contrary to Vangelis's which IMHO are not much on par with what we want to listen to today. On my system etc. blahblah.

 

Edit : And to me more complete, I should have said : high frequency squary etc.

 

 

[Synfreak]

Peter,

 

please do yourself a favour and stop talking about things you don't have a clue of.

 

And, please stop promoting your "view" which almost always refers back to your "squarewave argumentation/theories".

 

It just is as much of off topic as it could get ... period!

 

[PeterSt]

Yea yea yea, thanks for the kind words - as always.

What is it that you are on my tail all the time ?

 

So you have some synths. Good. I have a couple too. You have a couple more. You win.

Says math.

 

I develop playback software. I am not aware you do.

Filtering applied is explit and designed by me. Why ? well, for the purpose you seem to disagree upon. Good. But let that be.

 

The whole thing anticipates the design, workout and eventually production of a D/A converter. All with the same strategy. Quite some work as well.

Maybe you design DACs too, but I am not aware of it.

 

I ever back stated that the best "instruments" to observe reality in sound are synths. Not sure how much - or why you can be against that, but I guess it is there were it started. Probably because I tried to reason out myself the why of it;

 

The probable fact that I possibly can't reason it out at all, doesn't prohibit the fact (for me, which still is a fact) that it is just so.

 

The also fact that something like the NOS1 doesn't carry any pre or post ringing, maybe tells you nothing much, but it does to me. It does when it is about the S word, synths excelling in that when they want.

 

Next it is a sheer fact that when we'd compare the modern electronic music - but of special type, by me named "ambient", that there's no comparison with any Equinoxes or Spirals or name it. Only Schulze ever back came close, on his Moog. Just saying.

 

My reasoning of why or how is not much important - but it is an observation that it is so. That it maybe needs a somewhat special playback chain is a sad thing, because now hard to compare amongst eachother.

And no, this chain does not allow for "electronic music" only, if it was you saying that at all (but it was in that same thread). It (but merely think software/DAC combination) explicitly allows for all because it is completely neutral.

 

Although it may be to deaf man's ears (but I'd hope we're on the same line anyway), what occurred to myself is this :

 

It was not even one year back when I had numerous of these "ambient" records. Let's call them "records" to be on the safe side, because "music" is tough for some. Something like 350 of them. Think in the realm of Psybient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psybient);

This one year back, I could find a handful of "working" albums amongst them. This is how they buzz in the 2D (sometimes 3D) space, and how the (clever) accurateness of them works out in air indeed. This is not only phase manipulation, but also the "sharpness" of the waves (ehm S word) and how they interact in air. But :

 

My DAC was subject to some improvements, as did the software. Suddenly now, not a handful of them workout, but almost all which are from 2008 and newer. Some do from 2007.

 

What this music can do through loudspeakers, I never found in something else, and then mainly referring to the older material. Again though, Schulze did (Contempory Works I volume 3 and 4). Even the "Blue Tech" sound is in there; maybe he invented it back then.

 

Now, what about being somewhat nice to me, and you bringing up some possibilities why these modern "recordings" sound so much better (contrary to the loudness war general stuff). If you don't perceive that, ok, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Come over - I have the idea you live close to me.

My idea was in the realm it never sees analogue anymore (and no outboard mixing), but that is just a guess (and could be moot to any arguments you may come up with).

 

Totally off topic in here; I know.

So here is a somewhat related linkt to this thread for those interested : http://www.jarrography.free.fr/jarre_studio.php

 

[Synfreak]

Peter, please stop promoting yourself!

 

Your writing just has nothing (!) to do with the subject that thread is about.

 

As always you refer back to YOUR software and to YOUR hardware ...

 

THAT IS SIMPLY ADVERTIZING, and I couldn't stand it anymore ... period

 

[manisandher]

Here's what the MFSL CD looks like - nice levels and frequencies right up to the 22.05KHz limit. I would have thought a true hirez from the original master tapes would be much better than that posted by the OP.

 

[And Synfreak, I really do think PeterSt knows a thing or two about synthesizers - he has three gorgeous analogue synths (can't remember the makes/models, but pretty much the best available, I'm sure) sitting in a room, along with a beautiful grand (maybe semi-grand) piano. In any event, he's certainly at the leading edge of playback software and DAC design, as is evidenced by his offerings.]

 

Mani.

 

[goldsdad]

"I would have thought a true hirez from the original master tapes would be much better than that posted by the OP."

 

Damn right it should be better. It's ridiculous that crap like that is being sold.

 

It could be an upsample from 44.1 kHz sample rate, or it could be an A to D hi-res transfer with a brickwall filter at 22 kHz. In the latter case, the end result will be much the same as an upsampled CD. Add to that the loudness war reduction in dynamics and you have a mockery of hi-res audio.

 

 

 

[Patrick Cleasby]

It should be noted that there is a new (replacement) batch of JMJ at Qobuz. 24/48 this time, including the digitally recorded Zoolook (presumably late other ones were too, but my interest falls off after that).

 

jean michel jarre dans les albums à télécharger en qualité CD (Lossless), HD 24 Bits

 

Makes me a bit grumpy as a 24/96 purchaser last time to buy again, but I'm tempted...

[CatManDo]

The 2015 hi-rez version of Equinoxe is terribly compressed (DR6):

 

Album details - Dynamic Range Database

[cheezmo]

A real shame these new remasters are compressed like that. I was looking to fill in a few holes in my JMJ collection but I guess I'll just keep an eye open for the old CDs.

[Musicophile]

A real shame these new remasters are compressed like that. I was looking to fill in a few holes in my JMJ collection but I guess I'll just keep an eye open for the old CDs.

You should. I have a CD rip of Equinoxe (not sure right now which year) which has a DR from 11-13. I'd assume that if I ever get to digitize my vinyl (in the basement) i'd get an even better result.

 

instead of putting stickers for "adult language" or any other nonsense, new releases like this should come with a "Warning, heavy compression" sticker.

[Patrick Cleasby]

Why aren't they getting it? There were enough complaints last time...

[CatManDo]

The 2015 hi-rez version of Equinoxe is terribly compressed (DR6):

 

Album details - Dynamic Range Database

 

Sorry, that info is actually for Oxygène

[med_designer]

Hey everyone -

 

I was introduced to Jean Michael Jarre in the early 80's, There was a local record/CD shop that had all kinds of cool stuff. The cat behind the counter called me over and we got talking about music and he handed me the CD for Oxygene and sent me home with it. If i liked it come back and pay him - otherwise bring back the CD. I have been a fan ever since. I happen to have the Mobile Fidelity versions of both Oxygene and Equinoxe and really like them both. The DR for Oxygene according to the TT Dynamic Range Meter is 10 for all tracks except Oxygene VI which is 11.

 

I have not ripped Equinoxe as I simply play the disc. I can measure it if any one is interested. Someone also mentioned Zoolook and a spot check of the tracks have a DR value of 12 - 14 from the original disc I purchased in the 80's.

 

Magnetic Fields - also an original disc from the 80's - has randomly measured DR values of 14 - 18 depending on track.

 

Rendez-Vous - DR 11 - 17 depending on track.

 

Personally I am finding I prefer some of these original pressing from the 80's. During the early years of CD it was not uncommon to use simply transfer the analog master or EQ'd lacquer master into a PCM1610 or PCM1630. While these converters are not great by today's standards, they were state of the are at the time. I simply find the level that is being put on new releases is exhausting, unnecessary, and I do not like listening to them.

 

Anyway JMJ is awesome. Check out Essentials & Rarities if you can. DR8 - 12. This is stuff he did while in music school.

[mwheelerk]

Here's what the MFSL CD looks like - nice levels and frequencies right up to the 22.05KHz limit. I would have thought a true hirez from the original master tapes would be much better than that posted by the OP.

 

[And Synfreak, I really do think PeterSt knows a thing or two about synthesizers - he has three gorgeous analogue synths (can't remember the makes/models, but pretty much the best available, I'm sure) sitting in a room, along with a beautiful grand (maybe semi-grand) piano. In any event, he's certainly at the leading edge of playback software and DAC design, as is evidenced by his offerings.]

 

Mani.

I suppose totally off topic but I just found the MFSL Oxygene this morning and I am about to give a first listen.

[junker]

In Roon, I can now tell in a heartbeat if something will sound compressed / limited by the waveform at the bottom. Whenever I see that then within a couple seconds I ca tell there is a problem and start to look for earlier versions before this type of de-mastering became the norm. I'd rather have inferior A-D than listen to a ProTools snuff movie.

 

Most recent example was when I looked at my 24/96 DVD rip of remastered Massive Attack - Blue Lines, and much prefer the original mastering from CD.