|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.190.191.49
In Reply to: RE: Digital and difference in DACs posted by Crazy Dave on June 08, 2015 at 09:45:35
I have both new "Beatles Box Sets"..... The stereo version sounds horrid, the mono only somewhat better.....I also tried the Dr. Ebbetts Beatles CD set.... Generally an improvement over the new Box Sets, but most are not as good as the best early releases..... But if one wants to get a decent Beatles set without much picking and choosing, I'd recommend this set.
Even the early Beatles releases are a crapshoot.... One Parlophone copy might sounds boring and compressed, another will sound incredible..... (This could explain why there is so much disagreement over what releases sound better.) There are a lot of "flavors" of early releases.... (Different copies of the same album are stamped at different plants.) Finding a good one is hit and miss.
I don't find older versions to sound "blended" per se.... Some of the newer released stereo versions sound like the separation was "enhanced", in a bad sort of way.
Edits: 06/08/15Follow Ups:
I have some of the Dr. Ebbetts Beatles CDs and they are a lot of fun. They sound very good too. I have been a Beatles fans since I first saw them on Ed Sullivan. So I have quite a few pressings of their LPs, with even some bootlegs, and Mobile Fidelity Pressings. I have had pretty good luck with Parlophone but my German Apple White Album is my favorite White. I didn't buy the stereo Box, but managed to pick up a few of the new stereo mix individual albums at thrift stores. I didn't find them horrid, but they were different enough that I can comprehend why you did. There is a hifi quality about then, but I still find them interesting to listen to and will keep them in the collection. I have the Mono Box and the EP Box too. I am a Beatles collector so sound is not the only motivation.
Dave
I did a demonstration for someone, who thought the Box Sets were the best sounding releases on CD.... We chose a song at random, "Piggies" from the White Album..... He was used to the boxed sets, so we played both first, then the Parlophone.....
While the Parlophone copy was playing (a stereo mix, BTW), he was visibly stunned..... The improvement wasn't subtle, it was huge. (If I had to describe the difference, the Box Set track sounded like a "recording of a recording", relative to the Parlophone copy.)
I have the new stereo mix, the mono box and the older jewel-cased Parlophone White Album. I will give "Piggies" a try on all of them. Were you comparing the stereo or the mono box set?
Dave
"Were you comparing the stereo or the mono box set?"
Both....
I forgot that I uploaded the wav files for comparison. The differences are easily heard, but not as dramatic as playing the CDs themselves.
"The differences are easily heard, but not as dramatic as playing the CDs themselves."
This would imply that the CD mastering/pressing is partly responsible (other than remastering). This was one of the marketing reasons to promote Blu-Spec (BS!!!) CDs.....
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
All CDs are 16/44.... All the fancy mastering in the world can't get around that limitation.
And "asynchronous" mastering for CD, using 24/192 masters, IMO degrades the signal, relative to direct 16/44 A/D from the original analog.
"The differences are easily heard, but not as dramatic as playing the CDs themselves."
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: