Sulphur on 5/9/2015 at 11:28
I recently listened to the SACD version of Dark Side of the Moon, and I have to say... I can't tell if it's better than a normal CD, but it sure as hell sounds as rich and full of timbre as knocking on a wooden cask of vintage Bordeaux. The nature of it such that I know what the SACD DSD format is for; I know it's supposed to be transparent to the master tapes, and I know it was meant as a replacement for them. I also know that DSD transfers can be victims of bad remastering jobs. But DSotM probably displays all those bullshit adjectives you'd see spilling forth from a mess of forum posts and audio format reviews - 'analogue warmth' and 'great dynamic range' and 'no artificially heightened treble'. I could also just be fucking deluding myself. I don't have the original CD at hand to do a comparison. Perceptions are always relative, but they're also always true for the person doing the perceiving.
What do you do when you're too self-aware? You spread your consciousness out a bit and absorb as much as you can to make an informed decision, yeah? Or, you can do what I did, which was ignore the matter completely and sample more of this shit like a fly getting dizzy from a sugar high of racing up and down the stripes of a fucking candy cane. Led Zeppelin I/II/III/IV remastered and encoded in 96/24. Fleetwood Mac. All of The Who. More Pink Floyd. Daft Punk. Dire Straits and Rolling Stones SACDs. Tubular goddamn BELLS.
I don't know if I got anything qualitatively better out of this binge, except several buckets' worth of an old dopamine rush that I thought I'd left behind since 12th grade.
Actually, that's a lie. I know what I got out of it. All it took was some old Fleetwood Mac albums to tell me something you probably already know: most current-day music albums have what is probably the worst sound mastering known to man. They're mixed with every instrument so loud and so close to clipping level that it is fucking obnoxious. I get tired listening to some modern day albums because they affect actual mental fatigue after prolonged listening -- and that's not just because the music is tepid. I know this is true, because I replayed all the poppy Fleetwood Mac albums from Rumours right down to freaking Tango in the Night three times in a row and nearly had to change my pants every other fifteen minutes from an overload of aural bliss.
Here's the funny part: the HD versions of most of this music? It's still dynamically crushed to hell and back and still capable of causing significant ear bleed. Have your 100mb 3-minute FLACs and enjoy them, but they're probably still victims of a supremely bad mastering job. There are exceptions, of course - Pink Floyd seems to have come out of this loudness war relatively unscathed. The CDs still sound wonderfully punchy. The recent Led Zep remasters are still clipped and crushed to a degree that the original releases weren't. Which means that if you want the best version of the old greats you have to source some... good ol' vinyl. Especially when it comes down to bands with production so slick it envelops the entire room - like Fleetwood Mac. And suddenly, I understand why hipsters are the way they are.
Anyway, TL;DR -- HD audio tracks aren't always all they're cut out to be, and vinyl's still great. Vacuum tube amps and LP player recs, anyone?
Briareos H on 5/9/2015 at 12:40
A few things I picked over the years, in ugly list format:
* When using the same master, HD audio is demonstrably undistinguishable from CD quality. High sampling rates can even, in certain cases, make things sound worse. As for higher resolution, 16-bit is already enough for the noise floor not to be dependent on the source but on the reproduction system so anything above it won't matter.
The use of higher bitrates and resolution is, however, perfectly justified during the mastering process, especially when chaining DSPs.
* Vinyl is great for collecting and for bringing physicality to music, not so much for high-fidelity audio reproduction. However, the reduced bandwidth (as compared to CD) isn't enough to make it sound bad and the medium-specific mastering some albums receive can even make things more interesting than their digital counterpart. It's especially true that, due to the loudness war, obtaining an older vinyl release can for some albums be preferable to buying a recent remaster, especially if it was remastered during the nineties.
* Speaking of the loudness war, the most recent batches of audio engineers are becoming acutely aware of it and slowly trying to counter it. Many new releases sound awesome, although of course, this is mostly not applicable to pop(ular) music.
* Vacuum tubes look great and feel great to use but all they do is add distortion to the signal they are amplifying. Most digital amps today are much better, and if you really want to get the 'tube sound' rather than the 'as it was mastered sound', well that's nothing a good EQ can't do.
* A word about formats. With recent encoders, 320 CBR and 220+ VBR MP3 is undistinguishable from uncompressed audio. FLAC however remains the obvious choice for archiving purposes as it stores bit-perfect audio when ripping the correct way.
As for recs, I'm using a Pro-Ject Debut III turntable which comes with an Ortofon OM-5E. It's an excellent entry-budget TT although changing RPMs can get annoying (you need to remove the platter and move the belt).
I'm going to have to change the cartridge soon as I think it took some damage when I moved, will probably get the Audio-Technica 95E or the Ortofon 2M Red.
Sulphur on 7/9/2015 at 06:45
All things I'd agree with. I'd still go with FLACs over MP3s if, for nothing else, the psychological comfort of it.
The reason I'm looking for a vacuum tube amp is because the speakers I'm using have a neutral, uncoloured sound, which is great for detail but not so much for warmth. There's merit to what you're saying with playing around with the EQ though, I'll have to see if that can help. I usually don't EQ audio because I like to bypass tone controls altogether and listen as close to the source as possible. Any recommendations for modern-day recordings that have good dynamics/production?
DaBeast on 7/9/2015 at 17:57
Quote Posted by Briareos H
A few things I picked over the years, in ugly list format:
Vinyl is great for collecting and for bringing physicality to music, not so much for high-fidelity audio reproduction..
Vinyl sounds more authentic, but you've probably be listening to CD's and MP3's and other mainstream formats to really appreciate it.
;)
faetal on 7/9/2015 at 18:54
Define "authentic".
Pyrian on 8/9/2015 at 03:56
"Like vinyl." Basically "Authentic vinyl". :cheeky:
I have the opposite problem. I can't tell the difference between most formats. I experimented with Ogg Vorbis (what Unity engine uses for sound) compression, and even with maximum compression and being told what to listen for, I can't distinguish any artifacts. :p
demagogue on 8/9/2015 at 04:38
Authentic I think would be listening to a genre the way it was listened to in its own time. That would be vinyl up until the 80s, then tapes, then cds, then a 5 min download for a seriously compressed 2 mb mp3, then web 2.0, history ended and authenticity doesn't mean anything anymore. Make up anything you want.
My window on this is getting the right sound recording on my keyboard. Suddenly the earphones I wear and the mix & settings, pre & post, makes a huge difference, although I might not notice just causally listening. I guess the lesson is, you really notice it when you have to do it yourself.
Gryzemuis on 8/9/2015 at 12:11
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I can't tell the difference between most formats. I experimented with Ogg Vorbis (what Unity engine uses for sound) compression, and even with maximum compression and being told what to listen for, I can't distinguish any artifacts. :p
You need a very good sound system to hear the differences in sound quality. But if you have one of those, then it becomes more obvious. If the sound system itself is sub-par, then the original quality matters a lot less.
Bunch of years ago, I wanted a good sound system. This was just before mp3s and the Internet changed everything. (I think it was 1999). A friend of a friend of mine was into hifi stuff. The three of us went to a little shop in a little city where they sold do-it-yourself kits for speakers. The shop had 3 rooms. And in each room was a sound-system with 10-12 sets of speakers connected to it. I brought a bunch of CDs. We listened to different music, while constantly switching speakers. In the end we found one set of speakers that clearly sounded better than all other sets. The friend of my friend built the speakers for me. (He even included some extra tricks, like using extra-thick internal cables, putting extra weight at the bottom, and filling the empty space with fiberglass.
We then went to another shop, that sold amps and cd-players. I brought my own speakers. It's not only about speakers and amps, also the combination is important. We hooked up my speakers to their system. And now we could switch between amps and cd-players, while listening via my speakers. Very convenient. This time it wasn't so clear for me. But my friend's friend had a clear favorite (after a few minutes already). I had to listen for an hour, but in the end I was also convinced those amps were the best. Whoohoo ! High-end sound system ! (In case you're curious, my amps and cd-player are from (
http://densen.dk/))
My system is nice, but it's far from top-end. But I must say, I don't think I've ever heard a system that sounds better than mine (except in shops). Tbh, I also think I've never heard a system that was more expensive than mine (except in shops).
I don't buy CDs anymore. I sometimes "collect" new music over the Internet. Always in flac. I don't bother with mp3s. I have old Creative speakers (+subwoofer) connected to my PC, and I listen to that most of the time. (My sound system is in my living room. My PC is in a separate room). When behind my PC (and not playing games), I usually listen to Internet-radio. At very low volume. Because of the low volume, the sound-quality isn't so important, I guess. (I usually listen to this: (
http://somafm.com/groovesalad/) Which is rather different than my old CD collection).
Last year I bought a set of new speakers for my computer. 200 Euros (from (
http://www.teufelaudio.co.uk/) here). Jezus, what a crappy sound ! Much worse than my old Creative Speakers. Even after fiddling with the equalizer in Win7. There was no low ! This made me realize how varying the quality of sound systems was. I didn't expect much for just 200 euros. But this sound was worth a negative value. I sent them back. I'm still using my Creatives. If I knew better speakers, I'd buy them. Unfortunately speakers can't be tested when buying at a webshop.
Now to my last point.
How to play flacs on my Densen sound system ?
You can't just attach a PC or mediaplayer to it. Because the D/A converters in almost all PC mother-boards, in sound-cards and in mediaplayers suck. Companies like B&O, Denson, etc. sell high-end media-players. But those are overpriced. Less flexible. Shitty UIs. Can't improve them. No thanks.
One idea I had was to build my own Linux-based media-PC. With digital sound output. And then buy a separate D/A-converter. You can buy standalone D/A converters in a price range from a few dozen to a few thousand euros. However, how do you operate the media-PC ? I don't want to turn on my TV-screen every time I play music. And using a mouse and/or keyboard for changing songs seems painful. I'd need to include a remote control, and software to read/listen to the remote control.
Then I read about Kodi. Used to be called XBMC. Runs on everything. Including running on Raspberry Pi. There are remote control apps for iPhone/iPad and Android. I happen to have an Android tablet. The Raspberry Pis are cheap. 35 Euro for the most powerful one. There are webshops where you order one with all extra utilities included, and software pre-installed. E.g. here: (
https://www.hifiberry.com/)
The hifiberry comes in two main flavours: a Raspberry Pi with a soundcard attached that does analog output. And a version with a soundcard attached that does only digital output. It was my idea to get one with digital output. And then add a high-end external D/A-converter. But for now, for testing purposes, I bought one with analog output.
It works. But it's not perfect.
The sound-quality isn't very good. Maybe because I use cheap cables between the hifiberry and my amp. But I guess the sound-quality of the analog output just isn't very good. Especially the low-frequency is bad. It's good enough to listen to flacs and see if I like the music. (But I can do that on my PC too). So I guess I'll have to buy the hifiberry with digital-output. I can always use the first hifiberry in my bedroom.
The second problem is the remote-control apps for Kodi on my tablet. I have all my flac files on my PC, organized in folders and sub-folders. You can play directly from those. But it's a pain. You can only play individual song by individual song. Not click a folder and say "play all songs in this folder". I tried 2 apps, both can't do it. You need to create "playlist" and jump through a few more hoops. I don't like that. There's also some buffering issues with Kodi, which sometimes causes slight stuttering. (I think I need to tweak Kodi or OpenElec (the Linux variant on the hifiberry)). The damn Raspberries don't have an off/on switch, so I need to find a solution for that too. (You can switch off the RPi via the remote, but you can't switch it back on).
So my question: anyone got suggestions how I can do this better ? Play flac files that are on my PC, and get them to my analog-only amp, with decent sound-quality ? In a convenient way ?
heywood on 8/9/2015 at 16:52
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Any recommendations for modern-day recordings that have good dynamics/production?
What kind of music are you into? Can you narrow it down a little bit?
I’ve dabbled on and off with hi-res music, starting with SACDs, DVD-As, and DADs, and more recently hi-res downloads. You do have to be careful when comparing versions that the mastering is equal as it can be. I have a couple dozen albums where I'm able to compare hi-res to CD-res (16/44.1k) with the mastering about as equivalent as it can be, and the differences vary from small to vanishing. The differences I hear are usually most noticeable in the treble (particularly cymbals) and/or the spatial presentation: images being a little more 3D. And sometimes individual instruments are a little easier to pick out in good recordings of acoustic ensembles. But we’re talking small differences here that only stand out when you’re listening intently on a well-setup stereo system.
The quality of the recording and mastering tends to have a much bigger influence on the sound quality, and the quality has varied up and down over the years through various trends. I think it peaked in the album rock years of the 1970s and then in the early 1990s before the loudness wars really took off. Much of the 1980s suffered from dense mixes of not so great sounding electronic instruments (interesting music but not great sound) and sub-par analog to digital converter tech. And pretty much every mainstream release from 2000-2010 was ruined by over-compression, some of them with particularly nasty audible clipping. The loudness wars have abated somewhat over the last few years, but most recent releases are still over-compressed compared to what we had 20+ years ago.
For mainstream popular albums that have been remastered over and over and are available in hi-res, the hi-res download is not always the version to get. You really have to do your research because the quality of hi-res downloads is highly variable. Before I spend money on a hi-res download, I like to check for opinions on the band’s fan forums and sites like Steve Hoffman forums, and Google to see if someone has done a dynamic range analysis and/or spectral analysis. Often, you can do better with an earlier release that predated the loudness wars, or if you don’t mind over-paying for a must-have title, there may be a Japanese import or boutique “audiophile” label release that’s better.
I’m not a vinyl guy so I can’t really help with TT recs. The vinyl rituals don’t really do it for me. I vastly prefer the convenience of having my music library on a NAS, streaming it all around the house, and using a tablet or phone as a controller. And having my library integrated with services like Tidal, and listening to internet radio. Not to mention that I never had a vinyl collection to begin with; as a kid I acquired cassettes. But I have a few friends and relatives that have always been vinyl die-hards and I can’t deny that a good pressing in good condition often beats digital. One reason for that is that you can’t get away with brick-walling an LP like you can a CD (you can’t brick-wall a SACD either BTW). Another reason is that because vinyl was relegated to an audiophile niche product for many years, the amount of care put into a vinyl LP release seems to be greater on average. Even Daft Punk’s Random Access Memories is a bit better and more dynamic on vinyl, not due to the format but the production.
Similarly, I really enjoy a lot of the hi-res silver discs I purchased back in the early 2000s because they were generally well produced to show off the new formats which was in contrast to the CDs that were coming out around the same time. The 2003 remaster of DSoTM is a good example. The SACD sounds really good but the remastered CD is crushed to hell.
As for tube amps, I’ve never owned one but I’ve heard a lot. Synergy is most important. So many speakers are low-medium sensitivity, <8 ohms impedance, and designed for maximum bass extension within a given cabinet size. Using a tube amp with this type of speaker is usually a recipe for bloated and somewhat muddy bass and rolled-off treble (to my ears anyway, some people like it). I’ve also heard some speakers that don’t really shine unless driven by the right kind of tube amp. But it seems like speakers which synergize best with tube amps tend to excel at one thing or one type of music at the expense of others. I listen to a pretty wide range of music so I like a stereo that is more versatile. The tube amps that have most impressed me are also prohibitively expensive. And hot running.
On the other hand, I think tubes perform very well in low power, line level applications. You might consider a hybrid integrated amp where the preamp section is tubes and the power amp section is solid state. Unison Research makes some nice ones that I’ve heard a few times. Or a separate tube pre-amp with solid state power amp, although if that’s in your price range then I shouldn’t be giving suggestions because you probably know more about the hobby than I do. :)
Muzman on 8/9/2015 at 17:18
Thought this might have been about Neil Young's snake oil thing - whatever it's called, Ponyo or something. It seems to be making some people rich however.
This kind of is like that, but not quite so 'alt-med' about it.
It's debatable all this stuff can really produce superior or even audible difference so long as its moving electrons down a couple of wires the same old way to the same old sorts of speakers or headphones. But if it prompts them to really do a nice remaster from scratch, not for vinyl, not for tape or radio, but the nerdiest most spatially obsessed listening crowd who expect to hear that difference, then that's probably going to have a nice effect one way or another. So that's probably good on the whole.
