Miles Davis Kind of Blue - How many more years you need?

[STC]

Kind of Blue was recorded more than 50 years ago using equipment that were far inferior than the current ones.

 

So how come we are still hearing improvements to the sound quality each time we discover a new amplifier, cable, pressing, HD, DAC or player?

 

There must be a limit somewhere. It cannot be improvement can go one infinitely as you would have discovered from the various reviews.

 

Any thoughts?

 

ST

[esldude]

I had the LP. I have an MFSL CD. Best version I have heard. So yeah limited to what is possible. It is so good what else could you expect?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[STC]

So it is normal for someone with a 10 year old CD to hear new details with each equipment upgrade?

[firedog]

I don't think it has much to do with the 50 year old age of the recording or the age of the CD.

 

By the late 50's there were very good recordings being made that contained lots of detail and low level information. Assuming the tapes are well preserved.

 

Modern mastering and equipment is lower noise, and digital studio technique has improved over the years, so it allows us to hear more of that detail if done properly.

Anytime you reduce the background noise in your setup you hear something that "wasn't there" before.

Obviously this can't go on forever.

 

I've got a DSD remaster and two 24/192 remasters of KOB (one mono, one stereo). That's in addition to the LP and two CD versions Don't plan on buying another one, even if I'm told it's the "greatest ever".

[STC]

I.........

.

Anytime you reduce the background noise in your setup you hear something that "wasn't there" before.

Obviously this can't go on forever.

 

.....".

 

How much more can you reduce? I thought mine was reduced to the point of null long time ago. The only background noise I get is the air conditioner noise.

 

I have read it many times about lower noise floor of the system. What should be low? Numbers printed in the specs or zero noise from the speakers?

 

The reason I ask this is I have seen reviewers using the same reference CD or LP year after years and still capable of hearing new details. I understand IF they were referring to a new remastered format but I am referring to new details being heard with a new speaker cable or amplifier of the same old format. Unless aging process reverses the decline in their hearing, I do not see how that can be possible.

 

I usually spend daily an hour listening to the mediocre sound of my car system. Whenever, I hear something I like I would play them in my system later that night. As expected, I would hear extra details that was never heard over the FM transmission in the car. However, when I listen to the FM radio again all those missing details were there. I just didn't notice them earlier but since I have heard them in a better system, I now can hear those missing details. It is hard to miss them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[semente]

Kind of Blue was recorded more than 50 years ago using equipment that were far inferior than the current ones.

 

So how come we are still hearing improvements to the sound quality each time we discover a new amplifier, cable, pressing, HD, DAC or player?

 

There must be a limit somewhere. It cannot be improvement can go one infinitely as you would have discovered from the various reviews.

 

Any thoughts?

 

ST

Start with higher-fidelity equipment and it'll require less effort to get there.

 

It's not a stellar recording, though, you can use more adequate recordings to evaluate performance.

 

R

[firedog]

How much more can you reduce? I thought mine was reduced to the point of null long time ago. The only background noise I get is the air conditioner noise.

 

I have read it many times about lower noise floor of the system. What should be low? Numbers printed in the specs or zero noise from the speakers?

 

The reason I ask this is I have seen reviewers using the same reference CD or LP year after years and still capable of hearing new details. I understand IF they were referring to a new remastered format but I am referring to new details being heard with a new speaker cable or amplifier of the same old format. Unless aging process reverses the decline in their hearing, I do not see how that can be possible.

 

I usually spend daily an hour listening to the mediocre sound of my car system. Whenever, I hear something I like I would play them in my system later that night. As expected, I would hear extra details that was never heard over the FM transmission in the car. However, when I listen to the FM radio again all those missing details were there. I just didn't notice them earlier but since I have heard them in a better system, I now can hear those missing details. It is hard to miss them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not about noise you can hear from your speakers. I also can't hear any, but just changed the PS of my mRendu and it's pretty clear the noise level in the playback went down. And yes, I think it means you can hear more (or better) what you've already heard many times.

[Pat Case]

Kind of Blue was recorded more than 50 years ago using equipment that were far inferior than the current ones.

 

So how come we are still hearing improvements to the sound quality each time we discover a new amplifier, cable, pressing, HD, DAC or player?

 

There must be a limit somewhere. It cannot be improvement can go one infinitely as you would have discovered from the various reviews.

 

Any thoughts?

 

ST

 

Back in the old days, when I was a teen, my brother and I would meet in the basement of a mutual friend. We were all fans of the Moody Blues and we'd endlessly listen to their albums. Let me tell you, without the aid of newly rendered versions, through an old console stereo, but with the aid of a certain organic perception enhancer, we'd hear, on almost every play, new instruments and voices, hitherto hidden from us. You can't tell me that I didn't hear the improvements!

 

Also, I think that confirmation bias plays some part. Reviewers (who are often sales personnel disguised as impartial observers) tell us that this is the next best thing. We want to, uncritically, believe the messaging because it confirms our desire for more and better. The confirmation bias simply shuts out the other possibilities such as the possibility that there may be an enhanced subjective enjoyment but not a physical improvement.

 

Often, when I listen to Kind of Blue, I enjoy it more than I ever, hitherto, have enjoyed it.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[semente]

I think that confirmation bias plays some part. Reviewers (who are often sales personnel disguised as impartial observers) tell us that this is the next best thing. We want to, uncritically, believe the messaging because it confirms our desire for more and better. The confirmation bias simply shuts out the other possibilities such as the possibility that there may be an enhanced subjective enjoyment but not a physical improvement.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

One good reason for ignoring reviews.

 

R

[STC]

Back in the old days, when I was a teen, my brother and I would meet in the basement of a mutual friend. We were all fans of the Moody Blues and we'd endlessly listen to their albums. Let me tell you, without the aid of newly rendered versions, through an old console stereo, but with the aid of a certain organic perception enhancer, we'd hear, on almost every play, new instruments and voices, hitherto hidden from us. You can't tell me that I didn't hear the improvements!

 

......[/url]

 

That too happened to me recently. It always happened when I added or changed something to the system.

 

The recent encounter was with amplifiers. I heard so many new details that wasn't there. After several weeks with the new Amp, I decided to sell the old Amp but not before giving it one last listening session.

 

It turned out that all the new details were also in the old Amp. They were as clear as the new new amplifier's. Either, my old Amp suddenly self improved or I was listening for improvements with the new amplifiers.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[STC]

, but with the aid of a certain organic perception enhancer,

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

 

]

 

Now I get it. [emoji51]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[esldude]

That too happened to me recently. It always happened when I added or changed something to the system.

 

The recent encounter was with amplifiers. I heard so many new details that wasn't there. After several weeks with the new Amp, I decided to sell the old Amp but not before giving it one last listening session.

 

It turned out that all the new details were also in the old Amp. They were as clear as the new new amplifier's. Either, my old Amp suddenly self improved or I was listening for improvements with the new amplifiers.

 

 

 

I think the listening for improvements explains it. I mean think about it. If each new amp reviewers hear lifts a veil, put you say 1% closer, then either old amps were such horrendous pieces of garbage 99.9% of the musical detail was missing or, it is a psychological effect of listening for new detail. Now you can get some old vintage amps to put lie to the idea the old rigs lost that much detail. Some maybe, but not what is usually imagined.

[astrotoy]

Earlier this year I purchased a large collection of 15ips 2 track tapes which were safety masters of the original master tapes, used in creating CD's, etc of the recordings. KOB was one of them, on 1/2" tape. The amount of low level detail and the holographic sense of the safety master is quite astounding. It is there. The only challenge in the CD and the different vinyl reissues is to try to capture as much of that as possible.

 

Larry

[STC]

Earlier this year I purchased a large collection of 15ips 2 track tapes which were safety masters of the original master tapes, used in creating CD's, etc of the recordings. KOB was one of them, on 1/2" tape. The amount of low level detail and the holographic sense of the safety master is quite astounding. It is there. The only challenge in the CD and the different vinyl reissues is to try to capture as much of that as possible.

 

Larry

 

Hi Larry, would you mind sharing the exact time frame where you could hear the extra details.

 

The only difference to my ears are usually the difference EQ settings and sometimes lower noise. I am unable to speak for KOB since I only got one version.

 

ST

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[STC]

I think the listening for improvements explains it. I mean think about it. If each new amp reviewers hear lifts a veil, put you say 1% closer, then either old amps were such horrendous pieces of garbage 99.9% of the musical detail was missing or, it is a psychological effect of listening for new detail. Now you can get some old vintage amps to put lie to the idea the old rigs lost that much detail. Some maybe, but not what is usually imagined.

 

I believe most of the so called improvements are nothing more than going in circles. My first so called high end encounter was Blue Sea Orchestra - Poetry of Seas. It was about 40 years ago with a cassette tape played in a National or Sansui HiFi system.

 

Now, the CD did not give the same pleasure that I had the first time listening to them. Did I hear extra details? I don't know.

 

The way the reviewers are describing the perpetual improvement to KOB or any other reference they use is like telling the honey they tasted 10 or 20 years ago, now taste sweater and continually getting sweater.

 

ST

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[firedog]

I think the listening for improvements explains it. I mean think about it. If each new amp reviewers hear lifts a veil, put you say 1% closer, then either old amps were such horrendous pieces of garbage 99.9% of the musical detail was missing or, it is a psychological effect of listening for new detail. Now you can get some old vintage amps to put lie to the idea the old rigs lost that much detail. Some maybe, but not what is usually imagined.

 

Not sure about that. I've shown several people who said mp3 is indistiguishable from Redbook what to listen for to hear the difference. Once they learn what the difference is, they can also hear it on subsequent listening.

 

Were the differences always there? Sure. But listening and actually hearing certain aspects and details is a learned skill. Till you learn to hear certain things, you "don't hear" them: in other words, your brain doesn't process the incoming sound to make you consciously aware of certain sounds until you teach it to. Afterwards you can consistently hear something that was "not there" before.

 

I think something similar can go on with new, better components. They make some detail etc of a recording EASIER to hear/differentiate. Once you know the detail (or whatever you want to call it) is there, you can hear it even on your older equipment.

But before the newer tech made gave you a "clearer window" into the source, the detail or aspect was slightly obscured - just enough that you didn't notice it - even though it was there all along.

[STC]

Not sure about that. I've shown several people who said mp3 is indistiguishable from Redbook what to listen for to hear the difference. Once they learn what the difference is, they can also hear it on subsequent listening.

 

Were the differences always there? Sure. But listening and actually hearing certain aspects and details is a learned skill. Till you learn to hear certain things, you "don't hear" them: in other words, your brain doesn't process the incoming sound to make you consciously aware of certain sounds until you teach it to. Afterwards you can consistently hear something that was "not there" before.

 

I think something similar can go on with new, better components. They make some detail etc of a recording EASIER to hear/differentiate. Once you know the detail (or whatever you want to call it) is there, you can hear it even on your older equipment.

But before the newer tech made gave you a "clearer window" into the source, the detail or aspect was slightly obscured - just enough that you didn't notice it - even though it was there all along.

 

You raised interesting points.

 

First, about the MP3. If I were to play a previously unknown track, could you confidently predict whether the track is MP3 or WAV? I am not asking for side by side comparison.

 

Second, have you considered it could well be expectation bias? If it was there before that means it's there. You just didn't pay enough attention to it.

 

ST

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[firedog]

You raised interesting points.

 

First, about the MP3. If I were to play a previously unknown track, could you confidently predict whether the track is MP3 or WAV? I am not asking for side by side comparison.

 

Second, have you considered it could well be expectation bias? If it was there before that means it's there. You just didn't pay enough attention to it.

 

ST

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

1. Picking mp3 from Redbook is sometimes easy, sometimes very difficult. It depends on the production of the music and the type of music:

 

If the music is heavily volume compressed, it becomes more difficult.

• With Acoustic instruments and more natural recordings in general (less overdubbing and electronic manipulation) its easier to tell the difference
  
• With heavily compressed, all electronic, and highly manipulated recordings it is difficult. The reason is the these types of instruments and recordings lack many of the features that mp3 tends to eliminate (more subtle aspects such as natural attack and decay, and natural high frequency sounds)
  

 

Previously unknown track: hard to answer. I'd guess on some I'd succeed, on others not. Partially related to above. If allowed to compare I'll get the vast majority right. I'm not sure why the question is at all relevant, though. Some high bit rate mp3s sound very close to Redbook, I'm not sure what NOT being able to tell whether they are Redbook or mp3 on first listen proves.

 

2. Not sure how expectation bias has anything to do with it. The same thing is true with visual arts. Someone with a trained eye notices all sorts of details and aspects of a painting that someone without training doesn't. Doesn't have anything to due with expectation bias. Has to do with training. Your brain processes all sensory material and presents it to you at a level it has been trained to. You can learn to notice more of what's around you with more knowledge and more training.

 

The above is pretty much true in all fields of endeavor. I used to be a farmer. I'll notice all sorts of things in an orchard or field that a non-farmer won't. They are there all the time, the untrained eye doesn't pick up on them, because the brain of that person hasn't trained itself to work at "high resolution" in that environment. Note that I'm not talking about interpreting what you see, I'm talking about actually noticing different existing physical phenomena and details, even though they right in front of you.

 

Other examples:

I've got a friend who's an entomologist. If I go for a walk with her when she is collecting specimens, she sees insects that I don't, even if we are both consciously looking for them. Sometimes she has to specifically point them out to me for me to even notice them (some are camouflaged, some aren't), even at close range. She's an experienced viewer, I'm not.

 

Another friend is a carpenter. He looks at woodworking and immediately notices details I don't. Once he points them out to me I see them, but I don't notice them before he showed me.

 

The same applies in audio. Experienced listeners hear more. Not because they have better hearing (in fact they may have worse), but because they've trained themselves to notice more. If you don't think this is true, go online to either the Philips or Harman International sites. Both have online listener training programs where you can train yourself to listen better - i.e., hear and differentiate more when you listen to music. At both sites an untrained or less well trained listener can train him/herself to improve ability to hear detail and subtle differences. After doing the course, you can "hear" things that were always there, but you couldn't hear them before.

[STC]

1. Picking mp3 from Redbook is sometimes easy, sometimes very difficult. It depends on the production of the music and the type of music: ......

.........................................................................................Previously unknown track: hard to answer. I'd guess on some I'd succeed, on others not. Partially related to above. If allowed to compare I'll get the vast majority right. I'm not sure why the question is at all relevant, though. Some high bit rate mp3s sound very close to Redbook, I'm not sure what NOT being able to tell whether they are Redbook or mp3 on first listen proves.

 

Exactly, it is extremely difficult to pick correctly. What matters is whether the sound is of good quality. After a certain level, without a reference you are blindsided.

 

Long time ago, when I was still having the Theta DAC, I tried to use PC to the DAC for playback. It wasn't as good as the sound from the Theta transport to DAC but it wasn't inferior either. It gave me confidence to venture further into computer based playback. Since, I was somewhat satisfied with the sound, I invited other "audiophiles" to give their opinion. Much to my disappointment, none of them even bothered to listen to one track completely. To their ears it sounded horrible. I then postponed the idea of migrating to PC and focused on my SACD player.

 

During one such demo, the same group of audiophiles were singing praises to the SACD sound. One visitor compared his SACD with my CD ( I do not have the SACD format for that particular album) and we all agreed that the SACD sounded better.

 

After a few day, when I was changing some setting in the SACD player, I discovered that I have accidentally set the player to read the CD layer only! We were listening to the CD layer of the SACD discs without realizing. I then went one step further and burned a MP3 copy of a SACD album (redbook layer) and on other listening sessions would slip it in without the visitors knowledge. None detected the inferior MP3's sound. The lesson I learned there was to take other's opinion of sound quality with a fistful of salt.

 

That also means if you are already having difficulties to identify whether the sound is coming from a MP3 version or WAV then it shows you already reached the threshold of your hearing acuity. I doubt you would hear extra details (which you would) due to the change in the equipment. Different characteristics may be possible. Better highs or tighter bass but not extra details.

 

 

 

2. Not sure how expectation bias has anything to do with it. The same thing is true with visual arts. Someone with a trained eye notices all sorts of details and aspects of a painting that someone without training doesn't. Doesn't have anything to due with expectation bias. Has to do with training. Your brain processes all sensory material and presents it to you at a level it has been trained to. You can learn to notice more of what's around you with more knowledge and more training.

Trained ears or eyes could pick-up details not discerning to the untrained persons. It would only takes minutes for the trained person to show the missing details or flaws to the untrained person and he could readily recognize them. Can you say the same thing about the perpetually improving KOB? Frankly, I am yet not to hear any extra details that's not audible even with a simple system.

[firedog]

Exactly, it is extremely difficult to pick correctly. What matters is whether the sound is of good quality. After a certain level, without a reference you are blindsided.

 

Long time ago, when I was still having the Theta DAC, I tried to use PC to the DAC for playback. It wasn't as good as the sound from the Theta transport to DAC but it wasn't inferior either. It gave me confidence to venture further into computer based playback. Since, I was somewhat satisfied with the sound, I invited other "audiophiles" to give their opinion. Much to my disappointment, none of them even bothered to listen to one track completely. To their ears it sounded horrible. I then postponed the idea of migrating to PC and focused on my SACD player.

 

During one such demo, the same group of audiophiles were singing praises to the SACD sound. One visitor compared his SACD with my CD ( I do not have the SACD format for that particular album) and we all agreed that the SACD sounded better.

 

After a few day, when I was changing some setting in the SACD player, I discovered that I have accidentally set the player to read the CD layer only! We were listening to the CD layer of the SACD discs without realizing. I then went one step further and burned a MP3 copy of a SACD album (redbook layer) and on other listening sessions would slip it in without the visitors knowledge. None detected the inferior MP3's sound. The lesson I learned there was to take other's opinion of sound quality with a fistful of salt.

 

That also means if you are already having difficulties to identify whether the sound is coming from a MP3 version or WAV then it shows you already reached the threshold of your hearing acuity. I doubt you would hear extra details (which you would) due to the change in the equipment. Different characteristics may be possible. Better highs or tighter bass but not extra details.

 

 

 

 

Trained ears or eyes could pick-up details not discerning to the untrained persons. It would only takes minutes for the trained person to show the missing details or flaws to the untrained person and he could readily recognize them. Can you say the same thing about the perpetually improving KOB? Frankly, I am yet not to hear any extra details that's not audible even with a simple system.

 

I think you have a bit of a semantic problem with the whole issue. If you get a better version of a recording or better equipment, you may more easily or more fully hear "the same" detail. That can get described as hearing more detail.

Sometimes you are actually hearing something you didn't hear before, sometimes you are more easily hearing something that you might have heard if you strained, or were listening very analytically and closely. Maybe "it was there", but you weren't aware of it b/c it took a special effort to hear it with previous version/equipment.

 

You somehow seem to think that invalidates the whole idea of a better remaster or better equipment. I don't. If can hear the existing detail more easily and in a more relaxed matter that is exactly one of the improvements I'm looking for with "better sounding" remasters or equipment. I don't see any contradiction, and I would definitely call such a change a better version or a better sounding piece of gear.

[STC]

I think you have a bit of a semantic problem with the whole issue. If you get a better version of a recording or better equipment, you may more easily or more fully hear "the same" detail. That can get described as hearing more detail.

Sometimes you are actually hearing something you didn't hear before, sometimes you are more easily hearing something that you might have heard if you strained, or were listening very analytically and closely. Maybe "it was there", but you weren't aware of it b/c it took a special effort to hear it with previous version/equipment.

 

You somehow seem to think that invalidates the whole idea of a better remaster or better equipment. I don't. If can hear the existing detail more easily and in a more relaxed matter that is exactly one of the improvements I'm looking for with "better sounding" remasters or equipment. I don't see any contradiction, and I would definitely call such a change a better version or a better sounding piece of gear.

 

I do not know why you think I got a bit of semantic problem. The issue is simply. All you have to do is to give one tiny portion where you hear extra details in your high end system and I will tell whether the same exist in my HP or Dell PC using a $20 earphones.

 

I am only interested in the so called extra details. One small portion of any tracks you may deem fit to show to my untrained ears.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[firedog]

I do not know why you think I got a bit of semantic problem. The issue is simply. All you have to do is to give one tiny portion where you hear extra details in your high end system and I will tell whether the same exist in my HP or Dell PC using a $20 earphones.

 

I am only interested in the so called extra details. One small portion of any tracks you may deem fit to show to my untrained ears.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Because as I tried to explain in my last post, I think what is often called "more detail" is actually "more easily heard" detail, and you seem to think that means the term/experience is pointless/non-existent. I disagree. Not a lot of sense in continuing to discuss it.

[astrotoy]

Hi Larry, would you mind sharing the exact time frame where you could hear the extra details.

 

The only difference to my ears are usually the difference EQ settings and sometimes lower noise. I am unable to speak for KOB since I only got one version.

 

ST

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

ST, For me it is listening to the whole thing, or any part. I think the best way to understand this is to listen to the tape. If you are in the SF Bay area or are visiting, I would be happy to play it for you. vs. your CD or LP.

 

Larry

[Snowmonkey]

Back in the old days, when I was a teen, my brother and I would meet in the basement of a mutual friend. We were all fans of the Moody Blues and we'd endlessly listen to their albums. Let me tell you, without the aid of newly rendered versions, through an old console stereo, but with the aid of a certain organic perception enhancer, we'd hear, on almost every play, new instruments and voices, hitherto hidden from us. You can't tell me that I didn't hear the improvements!

 

Ah, Visions of Paradise and Acapulco Gold. Takes me back...

[Ralf11]

One good reason for ignoring reviews.

 

R

 

what audiophiles really need is properly conducted reviews