Playground for practical listening exercises

[Spannko]

Do not take too much notice of me Spannko. I like to be the odd one out! :-)

😉 😁

[Lego]

Excellent option as well Matt, great.

Thanks Vlado,
I think really musical SMPS are underrepresented in audio circles.

Matt

Have you compared a SMPS with a LPS Matt?

[beck]

No doubt I can easily live with cd only now with all I have done.

Link removed

What my old vinyl setup did better was to create a fuller and more organic sound in the room.

Link removed


My take is that my digital version is “skeletal” regarding the level of information being delivered to the listener compared to the vinyl version.

The cd used is a 2006 Sony BMG. I will be looking for an earlier version.

So why do I want an older version?

Older: removed

Newer: removed

[Tendaberry]

My take is that my digital version is “skeletal” regarding the level of information being delivered to the listener compared to the vinyl version.

The cd used is a 2006 Sony BMG. I will be looking for an earlier version.

So why do I want an older version?

Older: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ji2b1z1beoucn ... 9.mov?dl=0

Newer: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gmvic9uo8erce ... 7.mov?dl=0

I would definitely choose the older as well.

[beck]

The “older” is a “Nice Price” early Epic Sony cd (no year to be found) and the “newer” is a Sony/BMG 2006 cd.

The difference is telling. It is easy to hear that the “older” is nearer to the original analog master. It has a more human quality to it making for a more emotional listening experience.

[Spannko]

I think it’s fair to say that most remasters are worse than the original versions, but some remasters can be ok and some can be pretty good.

Paul Simon’s original Graceland CD was awful. In the mid 90’s it was remastered quite successfully, then destroyed again with the 25th anniversary edition!

Ultravox’s Vienna has just been remastered by Stephen Wilson, and I think he’s done a great job. The two remasters can be heard side by side on the deluxe edition. Other Stephen Wilson remasters haven’t been quite so successful.

So, as with most things in HiFi, there’s no reliable formula for picking out the good ones, other than listening and choosing the one we prefer.

[beck]

I agree Spannko. There are no clear rules to follow.

I am interested in the the difference and the change in sound from the “older” to the “newer” cd. It tells something about what can happen when (here I am guessing) multible digital processes are use to get to the end result.

[Spannko]

I agree Spannko. There are no clear rules to follow.

I am interested in the the difference and the change in sound from the “older” to the “newer” cd. It tells something about what can happen when (here I am guessing) multible digital processes are use to get to the end result.

Unfortunately, I think you’re right beck 😟 My guess is that older recordings, particularly if we go back to the late 1950’s, are better because the natural relationship between a notes fundamental and its harmonics are more likely to be maintained, due to the simplicity of the recording. Modern recordings can do this too, but they are few and far between, mainly because of the multi digital processes you describe, and how easy it is to “inharmonise” the music with a digital audio workstation.

One of my favourite albums is In The Dutch Mountains by the Nits and it just happens to be a very early 44k/16bit Sony digital recording. It was recorded live in a school sports hall, with practically no sound manipulation. If DAW’s had been available at the time, I’m sure there would have been a temptation to “improve” the sound, and I’m also pretty sure I wouldn’t be telling you about it today!

[V.A.MKD]

My take is that my digital version is “skeletal” regarding the level of information being delivered to the listener compared to the vinyl version.

The cd used is a 2006 Sony BMG. I will be looking for an earlier version.

So why do I want an older version?

Older: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ji2b1z1beoucn ... 9.mov?dl=0

Newer: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gmvic9uo8erce ... 7.mov?dl=0

I would definitely choose the older as well.

Yes, +1 and agree with discussion ...

[tokenbrit]

I found both 'listening exercises' easier than most that we've heard here ;)

For me vinyl > CD, and older > newer :)

TL;DR
As to the whys & wherefores of the LP sounding musically much better than the CD - it's not close, even after all the tweaks you've made to your CD player - or the older CD similarly making the new one sound tuneless & lifeless, it's tough to say, technically... It can't be down to remastering if some remasters successfully preserve the tune, and it shouldn't be due to the digital process(es), otherwise there wouldn't be any good remasters, would there? It feels to me that it's down to the recording engineer/producer, and the priority of the remastering project: music or money. Are they just knocking out a release where someone lost (or couldn't be bothered to find) the previous files to do a new production run of a CD, so they're reprocessing from whatever they can find, or is there genuine intent & skill (& availability of quality masters) to make something sound better without killing the tune? Most consumers aren't going to compare; few will know, hear, or care that the music died, as long as there's pie :/

[beck]

I’m glad it was easy for you tokenbrit :-) and it is interesting that listening in the room the immediate impression can easily make someone believe that the newer version sounds better.

It is actually the recordings that makes the opposite obvious.

I guess the 2006 Sony/BMG versions are to be avoided! :-)

[Spannko]

I found both 'listening exercises' easier than most that we've heard here ;)

For me vinyl > CD, and older > newer :)

TL;DR
As to the whys & wherefores of the LP sounding musically much better than the CD - it's not close, even after all the tweaks you've made to your CD player - or the older CD similarly making the new one sound tuneless & lifeless, it's tough to say, technically... It can't be down to remastering if some remasters successfully preserve the tune, and it shouldn't be due to the digital process(es), otherwise there wouldn't be any good remasters, would there? It feels to me that it's down to the recording engineer/producer, and the priority of the remastering project: music or money. Are they just knocking out a release where someone lost (or couldn't be bothered to find) the previous files to do a new production run of a CD, so they're reprocessing from whatever they can find, or is there genuine intent & skill (& availability of quality masters) to make something sound better without killing the tune? Most consumers aren't going to compare; few will know, hear, or care that the music died, as long as there's pie :/

Sadly, I think you’re right too, tokenbrit 😟

[FairPlayMotty]

The quality of mastering is format and date of release agnostic imho. Record companies have made mistakes and cut corners since they first existed.

Vinyl lathe cutting heads are higher quality now than they've ever been. The digital tools available to make CDs are far better than they were in the early 80s. I've owned hundreds of original version CDs that were terrible. The pick of the crop was the original version of Sometimes Late at Night by Carole Bayer Sager. Left channel recorded to left and right.

Technology improves apace. The best use of that technology is inconsistent at best.

[beck]

I really like that it is possible for me to complain about (need more dense sound) something and then after some frantic work on the setup can move the sound in the direction I want. :-)

Before: link removed

After: link removed

[tokenbrit]

I really like that it is possible for me to complain about (need more dense sound) something and then after some frantic work on the setup can move the sound in the direction I want. :-)

Before: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nv7gvjltxbrbu ... 4.mov?dl=0

After: https://www.dropbox.com/s/64qeckkggeja6 ... 4.mov?dl=0

I hear the denser sound, but feel that After has lost some of the music that was there Before

[beck]

I agree but going through my cd collection “after” is so much more what I have been missing. The finer details may reappear after a time of settling.
The “before” clip has a fairy dust quality to it that is quite endearing. It suits the track well. :-)

[tokenbrit]

Full-figured fairy dust for the best of both: magic & muscle? ;)

[lejonklou]

I really like that it is possible for me to complain about (need more dense sound) something and then after some frantic work on the setup can move the sound in the direction I want. :-)

Before: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nv7gvjltxbrbu ... 4.mov?dl=0

After: https://www.dropbox.com/s/64qeckkggeja6 ... 4.mov?dl=0

I prefer Before and by a big margin.

After has a compressed quality in the sound, which I don't really mind, but musically there's a fake quality to the notes and the singing that puts me off.

[beck]

Well, as you are often right Fredrik :-), it could be a sign that I only have one way to go to find full satisfaction: back to vinyl..............

[lejonklou]

There will soon be another way that leads to full satisfaction. :)

[Spannko]

I prefer before too. It’s very pleasant and reminds me of an old cuddly, musical radiogram (that’s a good thing in my book!) After sounds more modern and impressive sounding, but it’s lost the musicality of “before”.

[u252agz]

I really like that it is possible for me to complain about (need more dense sound) something and then after some frantic work on the setup can move the sound in the direction I want. :-)

Before: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nv7gvjltxbrbu ... 4.mov?dl=0

After: https://www.dropbox.com/s/64qeckkggeja6 ... 4.mov?dl=0

I prefer Before and by a big margin.

After has a compressed quality in the sound, which I don't really mind, but musically there's a fake quality to the notes and the singing that puts me off.

I agree - much prefer before.

[Charlie1]

I have a slight preference for after. I can relax a bit more and enjoy the music.

Perhaps there is another way that Fredrik mentions.

[beck]

I have a slight preference for after. I can relax a bit more and enjoy the music.

Perhaps there is another way that Fredrik mentions.

I thought he meant Källa! :-)

[Eli7]

Hi Beck, I listened to the clips on the Ipad yesterday. I prefer the before clip. The music comes across wonderfully.
In the After clip, the music makes no sense to me, it is meaningless.