Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jud

  • Rank
    Señor Member

Recent Profile Visitors

27662 profile views
  1. I know for darn sure I can't hear .35-.50dB in the middle of other music, because I've tried test signals and distinguishing a .4dB change was extremely difficult for me, right on the edge of what I could (at least consciously) perceive. So take the following with a large degree of skepticism: The background (for example, bass) in the current H versions, as of 10 pm and a little later US Mountain time, seems elevated in respect to the vocals and the rest of the midrange, which now seem to be relatively a little reticent. No idea whether this subjective impression is accurate at all. (I note
  2. Amen. I've mentioned before a record collector friend years ago in Miami who would not open the shrink wrap on his albums since they would lose a tremendous amount of value as collectibles. This being Miami, humidity had penetrated tiny holes in the shrink wrap of nearly all the records and caused the cardboard inside to swell against the plastic, bending the cardboard and severely warping the records inside to the extent that they certainly must have been unplayable. But they were supposedly worth quite a bit of money as collectible "recordings." I didn't (still don't) see the
  3. As with "the former guy," I think the best indication of Larry Ho and Jarek's (lack of) competence and integrity is that the former hired the latter.
  4. I like the G version a lot. As @PeterSt likes to say, if you listen and say something like "The vocals really come through well," or "Great detail from the strings" - really, if any separate component calls attention to itself - then something is wrong. I didn't come away with an impression that a particular piece of the rendition was outstanding or diminished, just that the entire thing was very natural and musical, and compared to the raw versions, clearer. All quite subjective, of course, but that's what it sounds like to me.
  5. Absolutely, who would treat someone else like this? Leading him on with empty promises in service of the man who stole thousands from him? @bernardperu, that was a terrible thing you did to @stuck limo. Oh, wait...
  6. I happen to like IEMs, and Etymotic's top line offerings are very accurate without breaking the budget. But not many other folks are as into having those things stuck in their ears as I am, apparently. 😄
  7. This is very, very good (subjectively speaking of course) at this point, good enough that I would trust measurements (if there are informative ones to be done) over my own hearing. So take this comment in that vein: I feel there may be either a bit missing at the top end of the human vocal range, or else something near that frequency is emphasized and so the very top end of the vocals feels a bit hidden, relatively speaking. I don't actually know whether that subjective feeling is accurate, whether I'm accustomed to some inaccurate overemphasized "air" in that range, or even whether I'm hear
  8. On further examination, "a much less compressed version for pressing discs" is inaccurate. The download appears to come from the DVD-A version, if DR Database is a reliable indication. The versions for other discs (CD or SACD in various flavors) look to have much better dynamic range.
  9. Though Qobuz is the only streaming service represented in DR Database for Gaucho (and I believe it would be a test of the downloaded file), there are two reports for HDTracks downloads that have pretty much the same heavily compressed dynamic range numbers. It looks like the label provided a compressed download version, versus the much less compressed version provided for pressing discs.
  10. Hi, I don't know if this has been brought up before (nothing came up in a search of the forum, but that search could well have missed something), but if the Qobuz folks could please have a look at this and let us know if there's anything to be done - talk to the label, perhaps? Here's the DR Database page for Steely Dan's Gaucho; please note where the Qobuz version comes in regarding dynamic range: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr/desc?artist=steely+dan&album=gaucho
  11. Very quick impressions: First, you did no harm to the glorious vocals, and perhaps even improved them a touch. Just listen to the two versions of The Sound of Silence, no comparison in terms of how much more I subjectively enjoy the decoded one. (Don't know if there's a difference in overall loudness - if so, that could be at least partially responsible.) Second, the problem with the bass has been ameliorated somewhat but not totally to my ears. On "Here Comes the Sun" (noting before I go any further the naturalness of the guitar and the lovely treatment of George's
  12. I will always remember reading his posts on an Oz DIY forum (really what he loved, I think) where he helped organize a group buy of PCBs, proceeds going to the costs of fighting the cancer of another member's child. He sent me one gratis years later, which is what started me looking up information on where it had come from and how to use it.
  13. @John Dyson First of all, Happy Easter! Thanks so much for your consideration of my reply, and your work on the bass. I have to say, with apologies, that it is difficult for me to tell on a casual listen that the new decoding is necessarily correct/better. It sounds to me as if the loudness of the instrument is more consistent over frequency, but I can't be certain. Just because of McCartney's bass line on "Here Comes the Sun" (intended to be in the background - therefore not emphasizing certain notes as part of the rhythm, as the bass does in Just One Look), it's easier for me
  • Create New...