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.

[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. 

[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.