The Clash - London Calling

[Drtrey3]

Regna, wow, I would NEVER have guessed that. But then, I do not have the versions you specify. I need to check what my vinyl rip at home scores, but I think I may be spending some money on one of those. Thanks for the tip! Trey

[fredhammersmith2]

Do someone having the 1999 remastering had a chance to compare?

[Garf]

"Power pop"??

 

You are joking, right?

 

Who is joking? Doesn't everyone have a Power Pop genre tag??

 

 

Kidding aside, I completely understand what what Drtrey was saying. I'd as soon call The Clash Punk as I would Power Pop. Rock, Pop, the labels are so broad in meaning, which also changes over the decades.

 

On a side note, wow, I never knew The Pogues has such terrible dynamic range, I used to like them, but now, I don't know..

 

Gary (anxiously awaiting Give 'Em Enough Rope)

[baddog]

Do someone having the 1999 remastering had a chance to compare?

 

Yes I have this as well as the HDT download. Don't have DR numbers to share though, sorry for that. The 1999 remaster sounds good, but to my ears, on my system, in my room, given the quality of the electricity at this hour, I prefer the HDT version. That being said, the volume levels were not perfectly matched, I knew which version was which, and the two tracks I used for comparison were Jimmy Jazz and The Guns of Brixton (prominent bass on both). Plus I just added a Quantum fuse to my system, so perhaps that is skewing the results. Sorry I cannot better describe why I subjectively prefer one to the other, I will try and do so tomorrow...

 

Haven't compared it to my vinyl copy yet...

 

p.s. and yes there is some degree of humor and irony sprinkled within here, but if the question was, would I recommend to a friend, I would say yes. A worthwhile download. Keep 'em coming. Though I could probably do without Combat Rock (just personal opinion)...and I am not disparaging anyone interested in DR values.

[regnaD kciN]

Yes I have this as well as the HDT download. Don't have DR numbers to share though, sorry for that.

 

According to the DR Darabase, the 1999 remaster is slightly more dynamic than the download, DR10 versus DR9. I doubt many listeners would be able to tell the difference.

[mwheelerk]

Just a side note to the download discussion. London Calling is probably in my all time top ten. I saw The Clash touring behind this album sometime in 1982. Aside from loving hearing much of this album live what stands out is the opening act. It was Kurtis Blow the first commercially successful rap artist. I can tell you this rock 'n' roller had no clue what he was hearing or seeing.

[regnaD kciN]

Just a side note to the download discussion. London Calling is probably in my all time top ten. I saw The Clash touring behind this album sometime in 1982. Aside from loving hearing much of this album live what stands out is the opening act. It was Kurtis Blow the first commercially successful rap artist. I can tell you this rock 'n' roller had no clue what he was hearing or seeing.

 

If it was '82, it wouldn't have been in support of that album. I know they spent the autumn of that year as opening act for The Who's (first) "farewell tour."

[rennq]

Exactly right. I have a hard time taking a guy who has a whopping 108 posts, of which over half are pure personal attacks and defenses from his own attacks, very seriously when he claims other members haven't established themselves enough to establish credibility with him.

 

He is doing the same in another thread right now. Some guys just can't help themselves.

 

Asking a simple question does not require credibility or thousands of posts. Telling others to part with their money as quickly as possible, ignore useful data, and trust biased feedback should require an enormous amount of credibility and any affiliations (if any) should be disclosed.

 

I simply asked a question. You were not obligated to answer, but the way you responded pretty much answered it.

 

You criticizing others behavior makes me laugh every time.

[rennq]

I know you know - but sometimes we write for the benefit of others as well.

 

But...

 

Not to get into a semantic argument... Oh, what the heck, why not... There is nothing subjective in the statement "Vinyl often gives artificially inflated DR ratings". It is a factual statement based on the way the clicks, pops and background noise *that isn't part of the original signal going into the recording system* distorts the measurements. The developers of DR algorithms have made design decisions based on clean, "ideal" signals, not signals distorted by specific recording and reproduction systems.

 

With digital the variation seems to be 1 value maybe 2 at most. How varied can the vinyl readings get?

[Julf]

With digital the variation seems to be 1 value maybe 2 at most.

 

variation between what and what?

 

How varied can the vinyl readings get?

 

How loud can a pop form a scratch on a vinyl disk get? Depends on what the clipping limit is of your front end.

[rennq]

Sorry, the DR numbers.

[Julf]

Sorry, the DR numbers.

 

Sure, but the DR number of what and what? The variations in DR between the post-1999 digital versions of "London Calling" seem to be small, but the pre-1999 ones are larger.

[mwheelerk]

If it was '82, it wouldn't have been in support of that album. I know they spent the autumn of that year as opening act for The Who's (first) "farewell tour."

 

Yes it would not have been specific to London Calling as by August 14, 1982 both Sandinista and Combat Rock were released but the show was dominated by London Calling.

[chriss71]

One is for sure, you can critize DR Values all over the way, but it is a fact, when my old CD have 13 that the new download with 9 is compressed... But this fact says nothing of how it sounds, only that it is more compressed as the old versions.

[cheezmo]

The early CD I just bought for $7 on eBay (Epic EGK 36328, and a BMG Direct copy) has a DR of 13 and sounds great to me, although someone put the seed in my ear that the bass may be a little weak so I'm wondering about that a little but with nothing to compare it too, it sounds great.

[cheezmo]

But this fact says nothing of how it sounds, only that it is more compressed as the old versions.

 

You just contradicted yourself. If it is more compressed, one aspect of how it sounds is "more compressed". People who don't like dynamic compression will consider that a negative regardless of its other redeeming qualities.

[chriss71]

You just contradicted yourself. If it is more compressed, one aspect of how it sounds is "more compressed".

 

Yep, you are right. Very difficult for me to say in english what I want to say... I mean, the fact that it is compressed, affects the sound, but if you like the sound better you will say, it sounds better.

[mwheelerk]

It is not always a simple case of less compression equals good and more compression equals bad. It is more typically when things are brought to the extreme (as defined by your personal tastes and ears) that the 'loudness' comes into play. It is very easy to consider that in some cases the mastering techniques used on one version of a title that has a DR9 might in fact supersede, be preferred by another mastered version with a DR13 (again based on your ears, impressions, preferences).

 

In this case my preference is the download with a tighter more focused sound with better bass than what I hear from the original CD which has a softer less focused sound to me.

[SammyU]

IMO, the benefits of 24-bits vs 16-bits far outweigh the benefits of DR 10 vs DR 9 (I have the HD Tracks version and the '99 CD. )

 

Also, IMO, the benefit of 24-bit over 16-bit increases dramatically with better DACs/equipment.

 

The HD Tracks versions aren't perfect, but are very good and I much prefer them to the '99 CDs for both 'London Calling' and 'Combat Rock.' I hope more 24-bit versions of the new remasters are released soon.

[Julf]

IMO, the benefits of 24-bits vs 16-bits far outweigh the benefits of DR 10 vs DR 9 (I have the HD Tracks version and the '99 CD. )

 

What, in your opinion, is the benefit of 24 bits over 16 bits?

[SammyU]

What, in your opinion, is the benefit of 24 bits over 16 bits?

 

On a good system (or in my case on a mediocre system with a good fiber-connected DAC), much better depth and sound stage. Less harshness. Better separation of instruments and vocals.

[Julf]

On a good system (or in my case on a mediocre system with a good fiber-connected DAC), much better depth and sound stage. Less harshness. Better separation of instruments and vocals.

 

And that is not just because of a better mastering for the 24 bit release?

[SammyU]

Even if the mastering is identical, the same recording in 16-bit will not sound near as good as in 24-bit, provided it is played on a system which can take advantage of the increased resolution.

 

To my ears and on my system, it is a very significant difference, all other things being equal.

 

Of course, when you are comparing different masterings and different resolutions, you are changing multiple variables. and all other things are therefore not equal.

[cheezmo]

IMO, the benefits of 24-bits vs 16-bits far outweigh the benefits of DR 10 vs DR 9 (I have the HD Tracks version and the '99 CD. )

 

It would be interesting to hear how you feel about DR13 (the original CD) vs. DR9.

[Julf]

Even if the mastering is identical, the same recording in 16-bit will not sound near as good as in 24-bit, provided it is played on a system which can take advantage of the increased resolution.

 

To my ears and on my system, it is a very significant difference, all other things being equal.

 

OK, wanted to check that you really were comparing the same mastering/recording, as my experience is that even on very resolving gear, I haven't yet found anyone who has been able to tell the difference between 24 and 16 bits in any of the double-blind ABX tests I have done.

 

Of course, when you are comparing different masterings and different resolutions, you are changing multiple variables. and all other things are therefore not equal.

 

Absolutely.