NEWBIE - Am I deaf ?

[Wombat]

You are entitled to perceive audio as you do, as am I. Going public with opinions is subject to scrutiny. That's what ASR is about.

I expect it. Some are uncomfortable about it.

 

[VintageFlanker]

Can you point the thread or post where I did so ?
Because I do not think I did.
But maybe something I wrote has been poorly expressed (english isn't my native tongue) and misunderstood...

@PenguinMusic. You guessed English was not my first language either... yours is more than fine, don't worry. To clear some misunderstanding here, I will switch to French:

En ce qui me concerne: Je ne pointais pas spécifiquement l'objet de ton thread, qui est sans doute légitime. Je passais par là et j'ai simplement tiqué sur le therme "musicalité".

En effet, comme dit plus haut, c'est parmis tous les qualificatifs subjectifs habituels, le plus flou et fourre-tout de tous. Même dans les descriptions subjectives (qui rassure-toi, sont autorisées ici, tant que ça ne part pas dans le n'importe quoi), il est impossible de lui donner un sens clair et crédible.

Concernant ton ressenti sur ASR. Oui, c'est un forum rempli de membres assez savants sur le plan technique et j'en convient, pas toujours des plus accueillant. Pourtant, il y a vraiment matière à apprendre ici. Crois-moi, j'ai eu le droit aux mêmes réactions assez arbitraires sur le plan de l'objectivité quand je me suis inscrit. Avec le recul, je comprends pourquoi et je ne le regrette pas.

Oui, l'approche de l'audio est différente ici de tout ce dont nous avons l'habitude de lire depuis des années. La transition, si elle doit se faire (et si on la souhaite) prend du temps et de la réflexion. En tout cas, malgré les obstacles, ne te prive pas de ce que tu pourrais apprendre ici.

Brotton line: Don't take it too personal, indeed.

 

[PenguinMusic]

@PenguinMusic. You guessed English was not my first language either... yours is more than fine, don't worry. To clear some misunderstanding here, I will switch to French:

En ce qui me concerne: Je ne pointais pas spécifiquement l'objet de ton thread, qui est sans doute légitime. Je passais par là et j'ai simplement tiqué sur le therme "musicalité".

En effet, comme dit plus haut, c'est parmis tous les qualificatifs subjectifs habituels, le plus flou et fourre-tout de tous. Même dans les descriptions subjectives (qui rassure-toi, sont autorisées ici, tant que ça ne part pas dans le n'importe quoi), il est impossible de lui donner un sens clair et crédible.

Concernant ton ressenti sur ASR. Oui, c'est un forum rempli de membres assez savants sur le plan technique et j'en convient, pas toujours des plus accueillant. Pourtant, il y a vraiment matière à apprendre ici. Crois-moi, j'ai eu le droit aux mêmes réactions assez arbitraires sur le plan de l'objectivité quand je me suis inscrit. Avec le recul, je comprends pourquoi et je ne le regrette pas.

Oui, l'approche de l'audio est différente ici de tout ce dont nous avons l'habitude de lire depuis des années. La transition, si elle doit se faire (et si on la souhaite) prend du temps et de la réflexion. En tout cas, malgré les obstacles, ne te prive pas de ce que tu pourrais apprendre ici.

Brotton line: Don't take it too personal, indeed.

Allow me to reply in PM

 

[graz_lag]

I've come across the 20-bit XRCD (by JVC) 20-years ago during my first trip to Kong Kong. That CD (Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms - Vertigo #5483572 Remastered) sounded much better than the original (non 20-bit) CD.
Since then, I've been keeping purchasing these XRCD's for the vast majority of my CD purchases, of which I have now a collection of abt. 150 discs of different genres except classical, for the 3 versions: XRCD, XRCD2, XRCD24.

@PenguinMusic - I'd like to invite you to buy one of these XRCD's, I am pretty sure you will be impressed by it's fabulous sound.

 

[PenguinMusic]

I've come across the 20-bit XRCD (by JVC) 20-years ago during my first trip to Kong Kong. That CD (Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms - Vertigo #5483572 Remastered) sounded much better than the original (non 20-bit) CD.
Since then, I've been keeping purchasing these XRCD's for the vast majority of my CD purchases, of which I have now a collection of abt. 150 discs of different genres except classical, for the 3 versions: XRCD, XRCD2, XRCD24.

@PenguinMusic - I'd like to invite you to buy one of these XRCD's, I am pretty sure you will be impressed by it's fabulous sound.

Hi,

Thanks for the info.

I know about those (look at my post #4 in this thread).

As I cannot explain why (even with those schemes that I don't understand and that may be rubbish to audio scientists) I will not dare to say that they sound lovely.








But I do love them

 

[graz_lag]

I've missed the closing comment in your #4 comment, sorry ... I was in fact trying to understand in it the sequence comparison of the The Wall album.
I'm confused as to which one you refer as the best among the 3 (or maybe 4) versions you've got ...

You wrote:
That "remaster" is VASTLY superior to the original recording.
And the original recording is 3 LIGHT YEARS superior to the ****** 2010 remaster !
Unfortunately, today, if you go to stream sites, the only version offered is that catastrophical remaster !

I'm so glad I found that 20th anniversary edition... that I bought "used".

 

[PenguinMusic]

Hi,

To my ears the 20th anniversary edition, remastered under the band's supervision (a remaster from 1997) sounds the best.
Here are the refrences I can give :
- C2K68519 (code on the sides of the CD)
- 7464-68519-2 (bar code)

I think there's one to sell on eBay for like 10 dollars at the moment

 

[graz_lag]

This one?

 

[PenguinMusic]

Hi,

Yes, that one exactly

You have it too ?

And... oh ! You're french too ?

 

[majingotan]

But does that make music more enjoyable to listen to because the "sound is better" ?
Or is music more enjoyable when you can "relive" the sensations you had in the concert hall ?

Both in my case because I pay far, far more attention to the sound if I'm at my chair/couch listening to music. If I'm at the venue, I pay more attention to the visual aspects that I see and that is now buried on my memory and played back when I'm listening on the chair with just the same or even larger sensations due to sound being better subjectively.

 

[PenguinMusic]

Both in my case because I pay far, far more attention to the sound if I'm at my chair/couch listening to music. If I'm at the venue, I pay more attention to the visual aspects that I see and that is now buried on my memory and played back when I'm listening on the chair with just the same or even larger sensations due to sound being better subjectively.

Hi,
I see.
That makes perfect sense

 

[graz_lag]

... As I cannot explain why (even with those schemes that I don't understand and that may be rubbish to audio scientists) I will not dare to say that they sound lovely.
But I do love them

Yeah, some might think the K2 thing is a marketing mumbo jumbo ... In some ways this may be true if some label is trying to ask you for a large sum of money but what these discs have as pros for them is the strong QC process from start to finish.
The engineers going thru the K2 process are - ultimately, taking care that the signal you hear is as pure as possible. All that is great but it doesn't mean the discs will automatically sound great. It all depends on the mastering and who mastered the stuff.
Ultimately, still RBCD but with better quality control throughout the entire process.

 

[Unclevanya]

I am a super fan of Pink Floyd "The Wall" (OK, I'm not that orignal !).
I have several editions of that CD : the original one, the "Remaster" that was made in 2010 or so and one "rare" 20th anniversary remaster "under the band's supervision" (whatever that means... but done in 1999 as the orignal was in 1979 I think).

That "remaster" is VASTLY superior to the original recording.
And the original recording is 3 LIGHT YEARS superior to the ****** 2010 remaster !
Unfortunately, today, if you go to stream sites, the only version offered is that catastrophical remaster !

Tidal has the 1979 original release for streaming.

 

[velasfloyd]

Hi

another super fan of pink floyd here

I know what you are talking about. 2011 remaster of the wall is a bad one.

I would say that the fact that you find some cds sounding better than another has nothing to do with the technology itself. Neither with the original master recording (assuming they all come from the same origin). I think the difference come from the mix, what the artist/engineer/producer wants for a specific release.

I guess the engineer has to decide what he wants to mix sound alike and what people will be listening with what tecnology. I dont think the 0,005% of the market, audiophiles, are taken so much in consideration. So most of the modern mix are not being created for a 600$ headphone, but more likely for a car, audiobar, cellphones, bluetooth, portable speakers and so on. And they have to work based on that. In resume: they want the cd to sound better in what people are using today. And thats the reason you may find most of the disks of the pasts sound better. Thats what I think

in the case of Pink floyd, you can take the case of the last discography remaster, 2011. Some of the disks sound better than the older ones, some I cant hear difference, and some are just better. But that has nothing to do with the band, the master recording, the physical disk, etc. It is just the remaster

I found that the first disks, like Saucerful of secrets or obscured by clouds are improved with 2011 remaster. Sadly, the most famous ones, the dark side of the moon and the wall, dont sound good. In Division bell I dont find any change, neither with the 24bits/192 Khz version.

 

[PenguinMusic]

Tidal has the 1979 original release for streaming.

Hi,

Thanks a lot for the info.
As I do not use TIDAL (no money, no real use... I have Qobuz) I wasn't aware of that.
But that is a good news : it means the original mix is still available somewhere

Regards.

 

[PenguinMusic]

Hi

another super fan of pink floyd here

I know what you are talking about. 2011 remaster of the wall is a bad one.

I would say that the fact that you find some cds sounding better than another has nothing to do with the technology itself. Neither with the original master recording (assuming they all come from the same origin). I think the difference come from the mix, what the artist/engineer/producer wants for a specific release.

I guess the engineer has to decide what he wants to mix sound alike and what people will be listening with what tecnology. I dont think the 0,005% of the market, audiophiles, are taken so much in consideration. So most of the modern mix are not being created for a 600$ headphone, but more likely for a car, audiobar, cellphones, bluetooth, portable speakers and so on. And they have to work based on that. In resume: they want the cd to sound better in what people are using today. And thats the reason you may find most of the disks of the pasts sound better. Thats what I think

in the case of Pink floyd, you can take the case of the last discography remaster, 2011. Some of the disks sound better than the older ones, some I cant hear difference, and some are just better. But that has nothing to do with the band, the master recording, the physical disk, etc. It is just the remaster

I found that the first disks, like Saucerful of secrets or obscured by clouds are improved with 2011 remaster. Sadly, the most famous ones, the dark side of the moon and the wall, dont sound good. In Division bell I dont find any change, neither with the 24bits/192 Khz version.

Hi,

Exactly what I thought.
So ANY CD can sound good, provided the engineer put enough time and efforts into it and do it to compliment good systems.
From what I understand in your post, most of them don't do that. Sadly...

I think there wa s atime when sound engineers could do that. I am afraid that time is now long over :-(

Regards.

 

[Unclevanya]

Hi,

Thanks a lot for the info.
As I do not use TIDAL (no money, no real use... I have Qobuz) I wasn't aware of that.
But that is a good news : it means the original mix is still available somewhere

Regards.

For me there are two major factors in favor of Tidal:

1) artist residuals are supposed to be 3x what Spotify pays and I like that given my friends who are musicians.

2) catalog size seems larger by all reporting metrics and I find nearly all the music I want.

3) owned by industry artists not labels

Less powerful reasons:

A) Search is more nuanced than qobuz by reviews.

B) family plan pricing is attractive.

That said they have had a few scandals touch the edges. Let's say I'm waiting to see. I may also pick up qobuz for a while. Does it support importing playlists?

Useful review/compare: https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/tidal-vs-qobuz

 

[Ivanovich]

Then, I can't see the point of posting it on ASR as there are no useful controlled subjective test results for wider benefit.

Or ...

maybe folks engage in a friendly manner, and he sticks around and learns a bit about how what we see in charts and graphs translates to his understanding of “musicality”

But I guess one could just carry on with trolling anyone who comes in with a subjective leaning orientation.

 

[Wombat]

Since when is providing valid information in reply trolling? Mmmm. I did say some are uncomfortable with it. Point proven, it seems.

Pushing unsupported subjective opinions is closer to trolling on ASR.

 

[Ivanovich]

The OP did not push any unsupported subjective opinions. As soon as he said “musicality” you jumped in like the objectivists’ Lone Ranger and start demanding proof and double blind tests and whatnot (yes, that’s hyperbole). That looks like trolling to me, subjectively, that is.

What he meant sound vs. musicality was clear to me and probably to most anyone not trying to argue and patronize someone without a PhD in audio science.

Whatever, you be you. I’m just a member.