Jump to content
IGNORED

This is why...this is a great hobby


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: RPi 3B+ running RoPieee to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: RPi 3B+ running RoPieee to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law

Link to post
Share on other sites

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! 

my blog

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

"I want to know why the musicians are on stage, not where". (John Farlowe)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ...

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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/

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> wi-fi to router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> USPCB -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: RPi 3B+ running RoPieee to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...