@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: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.
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.
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.
... 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
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.
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.
For me there are two major factors in favor of Tidal: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.
Then, I can't see the point of posting it on ASR as there are no useful controlled subjective test results for wider benefit.