Rocky Road

From Classic Rock to Progessive to hip hop to today's hot new tunes!

Return to Rocky Road

Beatles Box Sets- White Album- LETDOWN.............

68.3.132.52
Posted on October 28, 2009 at 18:45:32
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 Sometimes, I wonder if we're all victim to marketing hype.........

The new Box Sets might indeed be of superior sonic quality to the released CDs as a whole....... But after doing a three-way comparison with the 1987-released Parlophone White Album, at least with this particular album, both Box Set versions are a major disappointment.

I initially played the 1987 release (which was in stereo) of several songs, including "Piggies", which I thought was the sonic marvel of the album.

I then sampled the same tracks from the Stereo Box Set version, and it was "loudness wars" rearing its ugly head. The SBS version was I'd say a good 5 dB "louder" than the 1987 disc. The bottom end was somewhat more apparent, but the front-to-back depth and *transparency* of the 1987 version was totally gone. On the positive side, the low-level ambience seemed improved, but I think it was due to reduced dynamics. The music simply didn't "breathe" like with the 1987 recording.

The Mono Set version wasn't much better. The record level was somewhere between the two stereo versions. The top end had more of the clarity of the 1987 version, but it sounded somewhat "dead" compared to the 1987 release. There was dynamic compression relative to the 1987 version, but not as objectionable.

This is the only other Beatles release I currently have on CD..... I'd compare others, but based on this sampling, the purported sound quality of the Box Sets might be overblown.

Many people might be surprised by my findings here, but I think you really shouldn't be. I do think the art/science of recording has regressed over the past decade. And this is only yet another example.

So much for technology.


RE: Beatles Box Sets- White Album- LETDOWN............., posted on November 15, 2009 at 08:13:51
jimmycj
Audiophile

Posts: 1042
Joined: December 6, 2004
 I'd like to hear the difference between this new white album compared to that limited edition cd that came out 10 or so yrs ago.
Anybody out there that has done a comparison?

Oh the irony!, posted on October 29, 2009 at 18:27:26
Mastergill
Audiophile

Posts: 68
Joined: August 6, 2005
Contributor
  Since: February 5, 2008
 With your Prism DA-2 you should get the closest to the original master tapes one can be!

Seriously, these remasters are a reference about how an anolog to digital transfert should be done. I have very few rock/pop CDs that sound so 'analogish', so rich, so full, so 3 dimensional...It's a masterpiece!

There's no compression, the digital transfert is hotter but the dynamics are not squashed.

I gonna be straight, anyone who find no improvement should have they ears checked and/or find a better stereo. This is not a matter of taste here.

RE: Oh the irony!, posted on October 29, 2009 at 21:20:00
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "Seriously, these remasters are a reference about how an anolog to digital transfert should be done."

Not if the sole target medium is CD and the A/D sample rate is 192 kHz....... As stated in the link.

IMO, the 24/192 mastering standard has compromised CD sound quality. Since the conversion is "asynchronous". It has compromised CD playback as well.

A visual analogy would be if you had a 1280x1024 flat panel monitor screen, and increased the Windows video resolution to 1600x1200. You'd notice that in spite of the greater video resolution, the lines become jagged or fuzzy and the characters become less readable. This is a visual depiction of the effect of asynchronous sample-rate conversion.


RE: Oh the irony!, posted on October 30, 2009 at 02:20:58
Squonk
Audiophile

Posts: 1682
Location: Indianapolis
Joined: August 17, 2005
 So, in other words, you are waiting for the SACD releases? I can understand that, however, to my ears, the CD remasters sound so much better than the '87 debuts. Even though the dynamics were limited, I can't hear it. If you do and it bugs the piss out of you then I guess you're just going to have to wait for the SACD releases. ;)
Photobucket
RE: Oh the irony!, posted on October 30, 2009 at 23:27:32
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "So, in other words, you are waiting for the SACD releases?"

SACD wouldn't apply here. 24/192 is DVD-A. For SACD, the mastering would have to be "Direct Stream Digital" (DSD) format. (For CDs, DSD is more-desirable than 24/192 because the conversion is synchronous.)


RE: Oh the irony!, posted on October 31, 2009 at 03:47:54
Squonk
Audiophile

Posts: 1682
Location: Indianapolis
Joined: August 17, 2005
 Well, there ya go. Looks like you might have a very long wait however. Good luck.
Photobucket
RE: Oh the irony!, posted on November 2, 2009 at 17:44:00
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 I wouldn't be waiting personally. I don't like high-rez because I find it fatiguing to listen to......

I was only saying that 24/192 mastering is not ideal for CDs, and found it really strange that it was being utilized for a CD-only effort.


RE: Oh the irony!, posted on October 30, 2009 at 03:38:34
astralnavigator
Audiophile

Posts: 579
Location: North York, Ontario
Joined: June 28, 2009
 He'll be waiting a long time for SACD releases. As in - never.

RE: Oh the irony!, posted on October 29, 2009 at 19:31:33
Squonk
Audiophile

Posts: 1682
Location: Indianapolis
Joined: August 17, 2005
 I agree. I don't understand why some people are complaining the remasters are compressed when they clearly are not:






Here is a song that was compressed:



As you can see, obviously, it was compressed, otherwise, it would be nothing but distortion.







Photobucket
RE: Oh the irony!, posted on October 29, 2009 at 21:40:30
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 I agree. I don't understand why some people are complaining the remasters are compressed when they clearly are not:



Unless the signal is blatantly clipped or blatantly undermodulated, one cannot "clearly" assess the sonics or compression of a waveform by just looking at it....... A non-clipped waveform does not necessarily mean it was not compressed. (It might have been compressed or limited during an intermediate process. I also question whether the second waveform isn't clipped at all.)

Limiting is a means of reducing hard clipping, to enable a higher average volume level. A form of compression. And an abused tool in the so-called "loudness wars". And as documented in the link, the Stereo Box Set does have some limiting applied. (It plays roughly 3 dB louder than the Mono Set.)


RE: Oh the irony!, posted on October 30, 2009 at 02:08:33
Squonk
Audiophile

Posts: 1682
Location: Indianapolis
Joined: August 17, 2005
 What I don't understand is it looks like all they had to do was turn up the level a bit. No limiting needed. If you look at the '87 graph, I believe the recording level was too low. So, why did they need to use any limiting at all? Anyway, I posted the third graph just to show a more typical scenario of what we complain about a lot in here. Actually, I started checking some of my music when you mentioned some of the HOT recordings & sure enough. I don't understand how they keep the distortion out because when I look at a hot recording like this it looks like nothing BUT distortion. But, I don't completely understand the whole process of compressing to make a scorching hot recording. I just know, as a drummer, I sure as HELL wouldn't want anything I played on to be mastered in this manner. Drums/percussion suffer the most from this idiotic practice.
Photobucket
RE: Beatles Box Sets- White Album- LETDOWN............., posted on October 29, 2009 at 11:58:10
13th Duke of Wymbourne
Audiophile

Posts: 573
Location: Orange Co., Ca
Joined: September 19, 2001
 Todd,

I've been going back and forward between the '87 & '09 White Albums for ages and can't make up my mind. They are so different that I can't pronounce one the winner. There is a coherence and ease in the vocals in the '87 version that seems missing from the '09 but it is somewhat tonally bland. Sibilence is more noticeable on the remaster - it is there on the '87 but doesn't draw attention to itself.
I prefer the tonality and drive on the remaster, it is more fun but the sound starts to fall apart at higher volumes (normalizing the level difference between the discs, which is certainly less than 5dB, IMO).

So, my head says '87 but my heart says remaster. The bottom line is that I'be been listening to a lot more Beatles since 09/09.

Cheers
13DoW

Hard Day's Night, posted on October 29, 2009 at 12:45:41
FenderLover
Audiophile

Posts: 3313
Joined: July 31, 2007
Contributor
  Since: May 17, 2009
 Mono 2009 re-master: Song "I'll Cry Instead" reproduces the tone of the semi-hollow Casino much better than the earlier re-mastered CD. And the acoustic guitar work ("And I Love Her") sounds much cleaner and more realistic than the earlier CD. Very close to the MFSL vinyl IMHO.

RE: Hard Day's Night, posted on November 14, 2009 at 10:55:52
kotms
Audiophile

Posts: 45
Joined: February 18, 2009
 Yeah, and MFSL, I suppose, is the pinnacle of Beatles LP sound? They are severely EQd upwards, with hollow mids, and genearally sound worse than even a regular Parlophone Blue Box. They command high prices, because most people do not have high rez phono systems, nor good ears. But even MFSL LPs sound better than new Stereo boxset. Making old music sound "hot" and bright is the oldest trick in the hat, and this box is no exception. Compressed, with pumped-up upper mids and highs - great for a mediocre system to push everything through. Mono boxset sounds much better, even included there old stereo mixes sound allright, but still not a real cigar. Listen to "Love" DVD, it provides a mere glimpse at the quality of masters at hand. The same "Love" CD in that very same package sounds like crap, and is very close in it's sonics to Stereo Boxset. I second Todd on his critisizm. It shouldn't have taken that many years, and effort, and hupla to bring out yet another mediocre Beatles re-issue.

"Drive My Car", posted on October 30, 2009 at 23:38:00
FenderLover
Audiophile

Posts: 3313
Joined: July 31, 2007
Contributor
  Since: May 17, 2009
 Just listened to the 2009 remaster of this tune. One can hear the classic Mullard EL84/Vox AC30 tone, in the lead riffs. Highly compressed, "nasal" tone, with sharp bite on top of each note. Really sounds like the Vox, live. Similar to early Stones songs where Keith ran his Telecaster through ae Vox 30. Kinda cool.

Moved to Rocky??, posted on October 29, 2009 at 10:51:52
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 If the focus was on the Beatles' music itself, I can see why it would be moved here. But the focus here is comparing sonics of different releases of the same albums, which happen to be music of the Beatles.

I guess had this been the exact same discussion of a classical release, it would have been moved to Music..........


RE: Unrelated White Album question, posted on October 29, 2009 at 07:49:02
elflow
Audiophile

Posts: 203
Location: Indiana
Joined: November 1, 2005
 Hi,
The early White Albums (vinyl) carried a serial number on the cardboard album cover, Later albums did not have the serial number. Does anyone know how many or how long the White Albums were numbered???

Thanks in advance for any imput.

RE: Beatles Box Sets- White Album- LETDOWN............., posted on October 29, 2009 at 07:10:28
Zatoichi
Audiophile

Posts: 12
Location: NY
Joined: February 14, 2005
 It sounds like they were remixed differently so it's hard to make a comparison as the process makes some parts of the mix more prominent than others. Nevertheless, I prefer the latest mono but the top end and mid range have no air.

Think I'll stick with the status quo..., posted on October 29, 2009 at 05:36:59
pretzel_logic
Audiophile

Posts: 1874
Location: NE Illinois
Joined: October 30, 2002
Contributor
  Since: February 10, 2009
 I have the BC-13 blue box and from what I've heard the CD's are probably no better. If the mono titles were available separately I might try a couple. For me and other vinyl guys a release of the mono titles on LP would be the ultimate but that won't happen I'm sure.

BP

Status Quo better than the Beatles, surely not! (nt), posted on October 29, 2009 at 11:48:11
13th Duke of Wymbourne
Audiophile

Posts: 573
Location: Orange Co., Ca
Joined: September 19, 2001
 nt

Todd....sell your CD player!, posted on October 29, 2009 at 03:11:28
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 8445
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 How many years is it Todd that you have been complaining about CD recordings and playback? If I felt the way you did, I'd have bought a turntable-rig and phono amp a long time ago and saved the ink.

I agree with most of what you say, but i stuck to CDs and just bought a more-analog sounding digital rig.
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
What Should I Buy?, posted on October 29, 2009 at 11:19:12
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 By the way, I did the track comparisons on the main system rig, which had the Paradox/JVC 1050 transport and Prism DA-2 DAC............... I then listened to the ripped tracks on my computer, and my opinion is exactly the same.


Audio Note, of course, posted on October 30, 2009 at 01:54:56
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 8445
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 But you'll have to sell your house, cars, wife and kids first.
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
You prefer the '87 CDs over the '09 remasters?, posted on October 29, 2009 at 01:52:12
Squonk
Audiophile

Posts: 1682
Location: Indianapolis
Joined: August 17, 2005


SWOOSH! That is the sound of your credibility going right down the toilet. I don't think I will ever need to click on any of your posts in the future.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Photobucket
Just the White Album............, posted on October 29, 2009 at 01:55:00
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 I have not heard the others, so I have no opinion. For all I know, the White Album might be an exception, rather than the rule.


And a Question...................., posted on October 29, 2009 at 02:02:25
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 This is for informational purposes only....... There is no right or wrong answer to this question.

Did you listen to the three tracks I posted? (Post titled "Three Tracks")...... Do you think the 1987 Parlophone track sounds worse than the other two? (If you want more tracks to compare, I'd be happy to supply them.)

People do like different kinds of sound, and different systems might result in different perceptions of the same recording. We should respect such differences of opinion.


And also, posted on October 29, 2009 at 02:29:16
Squonk
Audiophile

Posts: 1682
Location: Indianapolis
Joined: August 17, 2005
 Yes, you are right, I am wrong. Just because it sounds better on my system, doesn't mean it will sound the same on someone else's stereo.
Photobucket
RE: And also, posted on October 29, 2009 at 02:46:45
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "Yes, you are right, I am wrong."

We might both be right........ I might also be wrong..... Opinions are opinions. Differences of opinion don't necessarily imply "wrong".

"Just because it sounds better on my system, doesn't mean it will sound the same on someone else's stereo."

Bingo............ Same goes for my perspectives on my system.

When I stated the letdown, it was from *my* perspective....... If I goofed up, I forgot to say, "Your mileage may vary."


For what it's worth, posted on November 2, 2009 at 10:12:14
jfz
Audiophile

Posts: 305
Joined: July 21, 2004
 Good for you for expressing your opinion (which, of course, is just *my* opinion!). Another of my *opinions* is that your post potentially furthers or fosters discussion in which we all might learn something. Unfortunately, what I learn too often is how nasty some people can be; and that they don't necessarily read posts carefully.

ok, posted on October 29, 2009 at 02:15:49
Squonk
Audiophile

Posts: 1682
Location: Indianapolis
Joined: August 17, 2005
 I am downloading them now, I will let you know in a few.
Photobucket
RE: Just the White Album............, posted on October 29, 2009 at 02:01:41
Squonk
Audiophile

Posts: 1682
Location: Indianapolis
Joined: August 17, 2005
 Oh come on Todd. BTW, I apologize for the abrasiveness of my initial reaction above. I was in shock. You actually prefer the sterile, lifeless '87 White Album CD release over the '09 remaster? I just simply refuse to believe that. I think you really need to spend more time comparing before you give us your 'final answer'.
Photobucket
RE: Just the White Album............, posted on October 29, 2009 at 02:11:42
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "You actually prefer the sterile, lifeless '87 White Album CD release over the '09 remaster?"

I'm afraid so...... Listen to the three tracks...... I really want to know if your opinion is the same for this particular instance.

I'm also starting to wonder if what I think is the 1987 release might instead be some "oddball" release that hasn't been publicized......... My copy of the White Album sounded good enough to recommend it sonically in the past.............


RE: Just the White Album............, posted on October 29, 2009 at 02:24:48
Squonk
Audiophile

Posts: 1682
Location: Indianapolis
Joined: August 17, 2005
 OMG, I most CERTAINLY prefer the '09 version. On my system the '09 has much more body, and life. The '87 comparably sounds sterile (my best description, I'm not a professional reviewer). However, I will say the difference isn't as prevalent as it is on other songs of theirs. Yes indeed, compare more songs or more CDs. Don't give up on us. lol
Photobucket
RE: Just the White Album............, posted on October 29, 2009 at 02:39:36
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "OMG, I most CERTAINLY prefer the '09 version. On my system the '09 has much more body, and life. The '87 comparably sounds sterile (my best description, I'm not a professional reviewer)."

Well, at least I can toss my "oddball release" comment out the window......... [-;

I have no problem that you prefer the recent version. Once again, this is just a case of hearing things differently. (To me the 1987 version sounds more transparent, cleaner, and "realistic". Just more plain "right".)

Also note that what I like in digital audio playback is a lot different from what most people like. (I prefer 1990s-vintage CD playback over what's marketed today.) It could also be an issue of synergy with one recording or the others.

What's strikes me as odd, and a little troubling, from my perspective, is I've never encountered so much disagreement over recordings back in the days of analog. There is apparently great discrepancy in the playback/perception realm amongst different listeners and systems. (What I thought were good recordings were more in concert with consensus back in the analog days. The only real disagreement was over Telarc LPs, which I personally think were some of the greatest recordings ever produced.) I sometimes wish I could visit and listen to what others are hearing. Or vice versa. (Although I will also admit on several occasions being in a room of people outwardly voicing unanimous opinion over sound quality, while I sit in silence thinking the opposite...... )


RE: Just the White Album............, posted on October 29, 2009 at 02:51:48
Squonk
Audiophile

Posts: 1682
Location: Indianapolis
Joined: August 17, 2005
 I snag up Telarc CDs everytime I can. While I generally prefer Reference Recordings, for the money (You can buy Telarcs for under 10 bucks round here), I think Telarcs are the best deal for the money. I think they sound GREAT! Also, speaking of '90s DACs, I still have my GDA-700 that I am STILL enjoying VERY much.
Photobucket
And the Beatles Box Sets wrestling match..., posted on October 28, 2009 at 21:40:04
musetap
Audiophile

Posts: 6376
Location: San Francisco
Joined: July 8, 2003
Contributor
  Since: January 28, 2004
 rolls out of Critics (having hit Rock, Music, Vinyl at various times and possibly other boards hearabouts too), back into General...

Beatlemania, what a gas!





“ Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination. ” -Michael McClure
Three Tracks................., posted on October 28, 2009 at 23:47:21
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 Here is "Piggies" from the three versions........ The only comment I have is "listen for yourself"........

I think what I'm hearing was obvious, but who knows........

In regard to the other responses, I guess everybody has a right to an opinion............

Mono Box Set Version
Stereo Box Set Version
Parlophone 1987 Version


I agree with your ranking..., posted on November 3, 2009 at 04:41:34
jfz
Audiophile

Posts: 305
Joined: July 21, 2004
 of these 3 tracks of Piggies you posted. I have not heard them in any other form, e.g., in my system with CDs, so I won't speculate what I would hear if I did.

RE: Beatles Box Sets- White Album- LETDOWN............., posted on October 28, 2009 at 20:00:42
Spendor Harbeth
Audiophile

Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast
Joined: May 15, 2009
 I think you are probably in the 1% who might come to those conclusions.

Very misguided, and quite frankly, an empty post that sounds uneducated.

You hear what you want to hear. Your brain is probably rebelling against the huge marketing campaign...which I admit has been ubiquitous and a bit annoying.

However, when the original cds were done, digital engineers were VERY VERY conservative with their levels. And the AD/DA converters of the time are vastly, I mean VASTLY infrerior to equipment today. Would you run your music server through a 1987 DAC?

After reading all the posts today about the Loudness Wars or raised levels, I compared almost all the new Beatle discs to half a dozen new cd releases by a variety of artists I bought recently, and they were no more than 75%, if that, of the output of any of those new discs.

So please, hear what you want to hear, but you should be aware that your experience is not accurate to the facts.

1987 DAC, posted on October 29, 2009 at 18:18:55
Jim Austin
Reviewer

Posts: 491
Location: Northern New England
Joined: November 8, 2007
 That's pretty much his preference, I think--right Todd? Is '87 about right?
http://www.jazz-etc.com
I have to agree with at least part of Spendor's post, posted on October 29, 2009 at 00:35:49
Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 4321
Joined: August 1, 2001
 >> And the AD/DA converters of the time are vastly, I mean VASTLY infrerior to equipment today. Would you run your music server through a 1987 DAC? <<

The only ADC's available back in 1987 were the 16-bit Sony's that were full of op-amps. In contrast, there are a half a dozen ADC's that completely blow the Sony's out of the water, starting with the Pacific Microsonics designed by Keith Johnson.

Saying that the 1987 transfer sounds better than the current transfer is akin to saying that a 1987 Sony preamp full of op-amps sounds better than a fully-discrete Spectral preamp designed by Keith Johnson.

That just doesn't make any sense. Plus they compared at least three different current top-of-the-line ADC's before picking the best sounding one. (I believe the winner was a Prism.)

Great insight, or a subtle shill?, posted on October 29, 2009 at 11:43:09
13th Duke of Wymbourne
Audiophile

Posts: 573
Location: Orange Co., Ca
Joined: September 19, 2001
 Charles,

the 1987 White Album has, IMHO, some advantages over the remaster so stating a preference is not unreasonable. But to state that it couldn't possibly be better because there were opamps in the A2D is unreasonable.

Your rejection of opamps and feedback is well known, and I'm not going to argue that it is not well founded, but to point to opamps as the route of all sonic ills seems a bit much. OTOH, discrete no-feedback circuitry is Ayre's unique selling point so is this all just a bit of subliminal advertising?

I expect the Prism A2D is an over-sampling type, ironic they use 100% feedback. Still, I expect it measures well:)

Regards
13DoW

Yes, taking Todd's comments seriously under the circumstances would be akin, posted on October 28, 2009 at 20:04:34
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 to taking anything you say about reproduction on vinyl seriously.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
RE: Yes, taking Todd's comments seriously under the circumstances would be akin, posted on October 28, 2009 at 20:17:13
Spendor Harbeth
Audiophile

Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast
Joined: May 15, 2009
 Man who fart in church sit in own pew.

Ancient Chinese Proverb.

Todd do you seriously believe anyone even remote familiar with your views could possibly be surprised?, posted on October 28, 2009 at 19:28:26
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 Your having knowledge of the recording being subject to dynamic range limiting is enough to lead any such person to be completely underwhelmed by your findings.

Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
You can't hear the compression on the remasters ? (nt), posted on November 2, 2009 at 10:02:04
jfz
Audiophile

Posts: 305
Joined: July 21, 2004
 .

That's Not My Call..........., posted on October 29, 2009 at 01:20:45
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "Your having knowledge of the recording being subject to dynamic range limiting is enough to lead any such person to be completely underwhelmed by your findings."

It's not knowledge...... It's documented.........

In addition, de-noising technology, which is often associated with re-mastering, was to be used, but subtly and sparingly. Eventually, less than five of the 525 minutes of Beatles music was subjected to this process. Finally, as is common with today’s music, overall limiting – to increase the volume level of the CD – has been used, but on the stereo versions only. However, it was unanimously agreed that because of the importance of The Beatles’ music, limiting would be used moderately, so as to retain the original dynamics of the recordings.

I only question whether the dynamics were really retained....... At least with the White Album, I'm afraid the answer is "no".


"It's not knowledge...... It's documented........." Huh? Care to provide a definition of "knowledge", posted on October 29, 2009 at 04:07:39
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 in your universe?


Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Why Are You So Fixated on "Knowledge?", posted on October 29, 2009 at 13:56:29
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 It's as if you think you'd otherwise be perceived as lacking it or something.............


RE: Why Are You So Fixated on "Knowledge?", posted on October 29, 2009 at 16:26:27
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 Christ you're a moron
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Another Issue............, posted on October 29, 2009 at 01:53:23
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 That same article states that the mastering was done at 24/192 from the original analog tape....... Now why in the Hell would an *asynchronous* rate be used for CD production, especially if no DVD-A version seems to be in the plans? (If DVD-A were part of the production, at least the producers could claim the mastering was optimized for DVD-A.)


RE: Beatles Box Sets- White Album- LETDOWN............., posted on October 28, 2009 at 19:16:07
cfraser
Audiophile

Posts: 2070
Location: Pickering, Ontario
Joined: April 30, 2000
 Is this the version of the White Album that came numbered? [Edit: I mean the version you prefer.] No manufacturing date on mine and I'm trying to compare. Not a huge Beatles fan, even though I "grew up" in their heyday, and this is easily my favorite such that I have it in numerous versions. BTW I do agree that many of the newer CD remasters of many artists are not nearly as deserving of the hype they get compared to the 80s/early-90s versions, before the "loudness wars". But if newer wasn't better, what could they sell?

RE: Beatles Box Sets- White Album- LETDOWN............., posted on October 29, 2009 at 00:01:32
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22055
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "But if newer wasn't better, what could they sell?"

Provided the marketers are honest with themselves, there would be a lot of frustration...... They don't *intend* to market inferior products, but I do think audio technology has become so convoluted in recent time, the only thing really done right today is in the analog domain (from vinyl playback to tube amplification)......

I do think since CD and DVD audio were intermingled in the processing and mastering, recordings started going downhill....... And IMO haven't recovered.


Page processed in 0.126 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]