This is why...this is a great hobby

[firedog]

Just put on "Abbey Road"(2019 remaster). This was my first album, back 51 years ago. I've for sure listened to it more than any other music in existence.

Sounds fantastic on my system. Can hear things better than ever - more detail, more clarity - even with my old ears.

My foot is tapping and I have a grin on my face.

[NOMBEDES]

Don't make them like that anymore!

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, NOMBEDES said:

Don't make them like that anymore!

 

Absolutely. There was a time when artists, audio engineers, and record labels seemed to know how to judge "good sound".

 

It's very sad how despite production technology improving, playback systems improving, so many artists these days - probably all in the popular music genre - have not been able to release albums with good sound in recent decades.

 

Despite all our audiophile debates and inordinate amounts of time spent on silly stuff like $$$$ cables, MQA, 24-bits, high samplerates, etc. I get the feeling that we simply have not been focusing enough on the importance of the recording/production quality itself. All the while, remasters have been released to the public typically with even worse sound and lower dynamic range than the originals. Notice how few words have been spent in the pages of Stereophile or TAS addressing the issue of poor dynamic range or actually being critical of inherently poor sonic quality in the albums these days.

 

If there is one thing audiophiles could do that is of benefit to all music lovers, it would be to make sure listeners, and the music industry are well aware of the concerns we have about what they release. I have a feeling that artists and the Industry these days are just thinking about the short term sales of albums, or creating hype for live performances (whenever those restart again).

 

Maybe one day they will take sound quality seriously to create a product with longevity done with skill and of enduring quality again. But I doubt that can happen without a groundswell of music lovers complaining online, Industry media publishing articles about this, streaming companies hearing from fans that they're streaming a poor mastering, and fans hounding their favourite artists about improving the sound of their recordings.

 

Imagine if all those product reviews hyping the sound quality of MQA instead took a snipe at poor remaster quality instead, reminding readers to actually fight a worthwhile battle instead of promulgating a scam. Alas, one can only dream... :-)

 

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Just put on "Abbey Road"(2019 remaster). This was my first album, back 51 years ago. I've for sure listened to it more than any other music in existence.

Sounds fantastic on my system. Can hear things better than ever - more detail, more clarity - even with my old ears.

My foot is tapping and I have a grin on my face.

 

You mean the LP and not the CDs or downloads?

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

Don't make them like that anymore!

 

It's a 2019 remaster. So they do make them like that.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Just put on "Abbey Road"(2019 remaster). This was my first album, back 51 years ago. I've for sure listened to it more than any other music in existence.

Sounds fantastic on my system. Can hear things better than ever - more detail, more clarity - even with my old ears.

My foot is tapping and I have a grin on my face.

Fantastic!

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Absolutely. There was a time when artists, audio engineers, and record labels seemed to know how to judge "good sound".

 

It's very sad how despite production technology improving, playback systems improving, so many artists these days - probably all in the popular music genre - have not been able to release albums with good sound in recent decades.

 

Despite all our audiophile debates and inordinate amounts of time spent on silly stuff like $$$$ cables, MQA, 24-bits, high samplerates, etc. I get the feeling that we simply have not been focusing enough on the importance of the recording/production quality itself. All the while, remasters have been released to the public typically with even worse sound and lower dynamic range than the originals. Notice how few words have been spent in the pages of Stereophile or TAS addressing the issue of poor dynamic range or actually being critical of inherently poor sonic quality in the albums these days.

 

If there is one thing audiophiles could do that is of benefit to all music lovers, it would be to make sure listeners, and the music industry are well aware of the concerns we have about what they release. I have a feeling that artists and the Industry these days are just thinking about the short term sales of albums, or creating hype for live performances (whenever those restart again).

 

Maybe one day they will take sound quality seriously to create a product with longevity done with skill and of enduring quality again. But I doubt that can happen without a groundswell of music lovers complaining online, Industry media publishing articles about this, streaming companies hearing from fans that they're streaming a poor mastering, and fans hounding their favourite artists about improving the sound of their recordings.

 

Imagine if all those product reviews hyping the sound quality of MQA instead took a snipe at poor remaster quality instead, reminding readers to actually fight a worthwhile battle instead of promulgating a scam. Alas, one can only dream... :-)

 

I agree @Archimago, but as audiophiles we tend to focus on that which is under our control. We can easily purchase the next audio widget hoping to get that extra 0.000001% improvement, but we have little to no influence on how the music is made. 

[Kimo]

It is a remix....

[firedog]

6 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

You mean the LP and not the CDs or downloads?

Sorry miswrote. The 2019 remix. Rip from the Bluray, which is the best sounding version of it. Sounds fantastic. 

[firedog]

8 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Absolutely. There was a time when artists, audio engineers, and record labels seemed to know how to judge "good sound".

 

It's very sad how despite production technology improving, playback systems improving, so many artists these days - probably all in the popular music genre - have not been able to release albums with good sound in recent decades.

 

Despite all our audiophile debates and inordinate amounts of time spent on silly stuff like $$$$ cables, MQA, 24-bits, high samplerates, etc. I get the feeling that we simply have not been focusing enough on the importance of the recording/production quality itself. All the while, remasters have been released to the public typically with even worse sound and lower dynamic range than the originals. Notice how few words have been spent in the pages of Stereophile or TAS addressing the issue of poor dynamic range or actually being critical of inherently poor sonic quality in the albums these days.

 

If there is one thing audiophiles could do that is of benefit to all music lovers, it would be to make sure listeners, and the music industry are well aware of the concerns we have about what they release. I have a feeling that artists and the Industry these days are just thinking about the short term sales of albums, or creating hype for live performances (whenever those restart again).

 

Maybe one day they will take sound quality seriously to create a product with longevity done with skill and of enduring quality again. But I doubt that can happen without a groundswell of music lovers complaining online, Industry media publishing articles about this, streaming companies hearing from fans that they're streaming a poor mastering, and fans hounding their favourite artists about improving the sound of their recordings.

 

Imagine if all those product reviews hyping the sound quality of MQA instead took a snipe at poor remaster quality instead, reminding readers to actually fight a worthwhile battle instead of promulgating a scam. Alas, one can only dream... :-)

 

I mostly agree with you, but  thinking the major labels will take SQ seriously is not realistic. There won't be a groudswell because only a tiny minority of even music lovers care. And those are mostly lovers of classical, jazz, and other acoustic musics that have little market impact. 

People interested in popular music are mostly happy with Spotify and mp3. Even many of my friends with good systems don't subscribe to Qobuz over Spotify b/c they don't hear a $5 a month value there. 

Most artists also don't care. They want pumped up sound, not dynamic range. For much of today's music that is understandable, and the competitive influence on other types of music to also sound "modern" and at least somewhat pumped up seems unavoidable. That's the sound they are actually after. 

 

The only place I think that audiophiles can have an impact is with audiophile/hi-res releases. That's an area where we have market influence, and we can demand that the audiophile releases not just be high samplerate versions of the volume compressed mp3 and CD versions. 

[Rexp]

8 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Absolutely. There was a time when artists, audio engineers, and record labels seemed to know how to judge "good sound".

 

It's very sad how despite production technology improving, playback systems improving, so many artists these days - probably all in the popular music genre - have not been able to release albums with good sound in recent decades.

 

Despite all our audiophile debates and inordinate amounts of time spent on silly stuff like $$$$ cables, MQA, 24-bits, high samplerates, etc. I get the feeling that we simply have not been focusing enough on the importance of the recording/production quality itself. All the while, remasters have been released to the public typically with even worse sound and lower dynamic range than the originals. Notice how few words have been spent in the pages of Stereophile or TAS addressing the issue of poor dynamic range or actually being critical of inherently poor sonic quality in the albums these days.

 

If there is one thing audiophiles could do that is of benefit to all music lovers, it would be to make sure listeners, and the music industry are well aware of the concerns we have about what they release. I have a feeling that artists and the Industry these days are just thinking about the short term sales of albums, or creating hype for live performances (whenever those restart again).

 

Maybe one day they will take sound quality seriously to create a product with longevity done with skill and of enduring quality again. But I doubt that can happen without a groundswell of music lovers complaining online, Industry media publishing articles about this, streaming companies hearing from fans that they're streaming a poor mastering, and fans hounding their favourite artists about improving the sound of their recordings.

 

Imagine if all those product reviews hyping the sound quality of MQA instead took a snipe at poor remaster quality instead, reminding readers to actually fight a worthwhile battle instead of promulgating a scam. Alas, one can only dream... :-)

 

Wow, I agree with you! Thats a first. Its all about the recording/mastering. 

[NOMBEDES]

21 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

It's a 2019 remaster. So they do make them like that.

 

Snark?

 

Sorry I did not make it clear that I was referring to the music, not necessarily the version.

[Summit]

Fantastic sound and foot tapping music is without question the goal for most of this hobby. At least I wholeheartedly agree with that!

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Fantastic sound is a bonus, but the pitfall is that some will often limit themselves to those recordings. You don't need "audiophile" quality to enjoy music. Where you choose to set the limit of what you consider to be "poor" quality is personal, I am not looking for arguments here. 

 

That being said, the real drama is when perfectly acceptable recordings are literally destroyed through remasterings.

 

The term "remastering"  is no guarantee for quality. Some labels seem to make a living producing low quality re-issues. My guess is that streaming/digital purchasing has enabled this, as these labels pay little royalties and don't have the expense of producing physical media (and obviously don't even bother with credits or liner notes). 

 

Streaming services are interested in increasing their catalog, and make no effort to weed out low quality. 

 

Qobuz's claim to be geared towards audiophiles, for example, is a complete fraud. If they want to live up to their claim, then they should have a real "editorial" policy, and stop offering/selling all this "crap". 

 

If you are going to complain about all this, then be consistent and don't subscribe to these services! 

[matthias]

39 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Fantastic sound is a bonus, but the pitfall is that some will often limit themselves to those recordings. You don't need "audiophile" quality to enjoy music. Where you choose to set the limit of what you consider to be "poor" quality is personal, I am not looking for arguments here. 

 

That being said, the real drama is when perfectly acceptable recordings are literally destroyed through remasterings.

 

The term "remastering"  is no guarantee for quality. Some labels seem to make a living producing low quality re-issues. My guess is that streaming/digital purchasing has enabled this, as these labels pay little royalties and don't have the expense of producing physical media (and obviously don't even bother with credits or liner notes). 

 

Streaming services are interested in increasing their catalog, and make no effort to weed out low quality. 

 

Qobuz's claim to be geared towards audiophiles, for example, is a complete fraud. If they want to live up to their claim, then they should have a real "editorial" policy, and stop offering/selling all this "crap". 

 

If you are going to complain about all this, then be consistent and don't subscribe to these services! 

 

Agree completely regarding "remastering",

but when I want to listen on Qobuz maybe to "Kind of Blue" I search for the original one, not remastered which is musically the best and at least for me satisfying.

 

Matt

[fas42]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

 

The term "remastering"  is no guarantee for quality. Some labels seem to make a living producing low quality re-issues. My guess is that streaming/digital purchasing has enabled this, as these labels pay little royalties and don't have the expense of producing physical media (and obviously don't even bother with credits or liner notes). 

 

 

 

I was just reminded here of some ABBA CD remasters I borrowed from the library - these were appalling, in terms of the damage done, as compared to the originals. It was all about the rhythm section now, and to me, quite unlistenable ...

[Jud]

4 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Qobuz's claim to be geared towards audiophiles, for example, is a complete fraud. If they want to live up to their claim, then they should have a real "editorial" policy, and stop offering/selling all this "crap".

 

That would depend on whether you were willing to pay for the necessary editorial staff time. Vanishingly few people would. What Qobuz does offer is sometimes one version of an album, but in other cases a variety of versions so you can decide for yourself which you like better. I've generally been very pleased with the price-selection balance offered, though of course you have every right to hold the contrary opinion.

 

On 1/12/2021 at 10:16 AM, Archimago said:

 

It's very sad how despite production technology improving, playback systems improving, so many artists these days - probably all in the popular music genre - have not been able to release albums with good sound in recent decades.

 

I can't disagree overall, since popular music recordings are incontrovertibly getting louder and less dynamic on average. But I don't lament the state of things overmuch. There is such a huge amount of product that it's not difficult for me to find well recorded music I enjoy. The streaming services certainly offer an opportunity to hear a greater variety than was ever possible in "the old days."

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

There is such a huge amount of product that it's not difficult for me to find well recorded music I enjoy. The streaming services certainly offer an opportunity to hear a greater variety than was ever possible in "the old days."

   Jud

 Are those who subscribe to these services in effect resulting in the paying of  "slave wages" to many artists , or don't most subscribers care ?
 This extract from the attached link worries me.

 

Regards

Alex

Quote

To put it in perspective, an artist would need roughly 400,000 streams to earn an amount comparable to the average monthly minimum wage.

https://www.planetarygroup.com/do-artists-get-paid-every-time-song-played-spotify/

[Rexp]

46 minutes ago, sandyk said:

   Jud

 Are those who subscribe to these services in effect resulting in the paying of  "slave wages" to many artists , or don't most subscribers care ?
 This extract from the attached link worries me.

 

Regards

Alex

https://www.planetarygroup.com/do-artists-get-paid-every-time-song-played-spotify/

Yes this is the problem, some Artists are better off using Youtube and Bandcamp. 

[Jud]

55 minutes ago, sandyk said:

   Jud

 Are those who subscribe to these services in effect resulting in the paying of  "slave wages" to many artists , or don't most subscribers care ?
 This extract from the attached link worries me.

 

Regards

Alex

https://www.planetarygroup.com/do-artists-get-paid-every-time-song-played-spotify/

 

Hey Alex 🙂 -

 

A very valid concern. I and others I know of wind up buying a fair amount of music, probably more than if I didn't have the service to alert me to the existence of a lot of it. I try to buy from artists' sites or Bandcamp if my preferred version is available, and I also buy from Qobuz because I like to support the service as well as artists.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

   Jud

 Are those who subscribe to these services in effect resulting in the paying of  "slave wages" to many artists , or don't most subscribers care ?
 This extract from the attached link worries me.

 

Regards

Alex

https://www.planetarygroup.com/do-artists-get-paid-every-time-song-played-spotify/

Artists signed contracts with record labels. The labels are the entities not paying artists. It has zero to do with streaming services. The labels dictated the terms to the streaming services and got everything they wanted. 

 

Bottom line: Don't sign a record deal then complain that streaming services aren't paying you. 

[firedog]

Agree with Chris and Jud. Stream, and buy a download or disc of the stuff you really like and listen to repeatedly. If you buy and also stream the same material, the artist gets the largest payout.