54 posts / 0 new
Last post
steve_1979's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 5 min ago
Joined: 14/07/2010 - 21:04
Posts: 3902
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

toyota man wrote:

MajorFubar wrote:

steve_1979 wrote:

The only Deep Purple track that I know is 'Smoke on the Water' which sounds a bit dull and muffled to me.

The rub is that with a lot of analogue recordings the quality varies depending on what album you listen to it on. With new music, everything's distributed digitally, so the quality remains reasonably constant, bar any mastering differences on compilations. But that didn't used to be the case. Umpteen copies of master tapes were made and distributed to pressing-plants and sister labels worldwide, and quite often, they all sounded different.

Using SOTW as as an example, I've heard it on Deepest Purple - The Very Best Of Deep Purple (bland), The Best Rock Anthems In The World...Ever! (pretty good) and Machine Head (very good). Plus there is a 1997 remaster available on Deepest Purple 30th Anniversary Edition which imo sounds the best of the lot.

Thanks for that imfo I will look out for the Deepest Purple 30th anniversary edition :cheers:

I think it's time I tried some of Deep Purple's other mucic. I'll give their 30th Anniversary Edition album a go first. Cheers MF. :grin:

Hi-Fi - Teufel DecoderStation 5 > AVI DM5

Head-Fi - Epiphany Acoustics EHP-O2Di > Sennheisser HD700

Portable - Sony NWZ-A847 > Westone UM3x

AEJim's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 23 hours ago
Joined: 17/11/2008 - 10:25
Posts: 907
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

MajorFubar wrote:

AEJim wrote:

Something worth looking at (listening to) for those into the Apple way of things is their " Mastered for iTunes" tracks. Had quite a few playing in the office recently and without exception all have sounded great. Full bodied yet clear and rhythmically tight with the Stones and Pink Floyd tracks I've heard. Nothing thin or harsh so far.

If there was an option of purchasing them as lossless ALACs then there might be more interest from people here. But as it stands, many people here don't like the idea of buying compressed lossy files.

 

Well some people might be more interested in better recording/mastering quality than the 256kBps AAC vs uncompressed file argument, you can't make a bad source file sound better no matter how huge and high bitrate you make it. In compressing it to 256kBps are you really losing so much that you'd notice in most circumstances (ie. listening to music, not the equipment)? Apple did their research on the matter and found 256kBps the point where the vast majority could hear no difference to uncompressed.

I've played those iTunes files through some pretty serious gear and everyone who's listened has enjoyed them and not found them lacking dynamics or detail. Those same people, myself included, enjoy them far more than some of the "Audiophile" SACD recordings we've got lying around which allege to be music but to most humans sound like someone playing single notes on an out-of-tune instrument. (I'm not saying all SACD's are like this - just so happens to be what we have in the office that's been given to us, in other words "Hi-Fi Show" music which we don't tend to play)

Some people worry far too much about bitrates when the quality of the recording has a far greater impact on sound quality. I had a system playing at CES a few years back and a Stereophile reviewer that came in loved the sound of the system, that was until I showed him that the source was a laptop and that particular track was 192kBps file, he then tried to backtrack and say how much better it would have been if it was uncompressed - had he not known he would have continued to enjoy it - expectation bias I guess. In his write up on the show he said he liked the sound and put it down to, wait for it - the amp. Coincidentally the most expensive part of the system. I've no idea how you discern an amp to be the best sounding part of a system without A/B testing...

In an ideal world all music would be recorded well, mastered well and available in all formats, sadly it's not an ideal world. Horses for courses! This thread was about rock music not sounding good - in most cases I'd put that down to recording or mastering quality and certainly not the bitrate of the file within reason.

 

BigH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 29/12/2012 - 12:31
Posts: 3578
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

"they'd tell you not only what music they used but also the exact album. I don't know if they do this now."

 

Can't see they do that anywhere, certainly not on the online reviews. Having looked at buying some cds of old LPs I have I was surprised at the lack of quality of some of them, some remasters are worse than the original cds apparently.

AEJim's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 23 hours ago
Joined: 17/11/2008 - 10:25
Posts: 907
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

BigH wrote:

"they'd tell you not only what music they used but also the exact album. I don't know if they do this now."

 

Can't see they do that anywhere, certainly not on the online reviews. Having looked at buying some cds of old LPs I have I was surprised at the lack of quality of some of them, some remasters are worse than the original cds apparently.

 

Usually some useful info here if they have the album you're after listed -  http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ generally speaking if it's got good dynamic range it's a good recording.

Coincidentally a lot of the old Hi-Fi demo favourites of yesteryear such as Dire Straits and Steely Dan do well! Even before people cared about all this DR stuff it still seems they could pick out the better recordings!

MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 03/03/2010 - 00:01
Posts: 3556
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

AEJim wrote:

MajorFubar wrote:

AEJim wrote:

Something worth looking at (listening to) for those into the Apple way of things is their " Mastered for iTunes" tracks. Had quite a few playing in the office recently and without exception all have sounded great. Full bodied yet clear and rhythmically tight with the Stones and Pink Floyd tracks I've heard. Nothing thin or harsh so far.

If there was an option of purchasing them as lossless ALACs then there might be more interest from people here. But as it stands, many people here don't like the idea of buying compressed lossy files.

 

Well some people might be more interested in better recording/mastering quality than the 256kBps AAC vs uncompressed file argument, you can't make a bad source file sound better no matter how huge and high bitrate you make it. 

Very true indeed, I don't dispute that.
AEJim's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 23 hours ago
Joined: 17/11/2008 - 10:25
Posts: 907
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

MajorFubar wrote:

AEJim wrote:

MajorFubar wrote:

AEJim wrote:

Something worth looking at (listening to) for those into the Apple way of things is their " Mastered for iTunes" tracks. Had quite a few playing in the office recently and without exception all have sounded great. Full bodied yet clear and rhythmically tight with the Stones and Pink Floyd tracks I've heard. Nothing thin or harsh so far.

If there was an option of purchasing them as lossless ALACs then there might be more interest from people here. But as it stands, many people here don't like the idea of buying compressed lossy files.

 

Well some people might be more interested in better recording/mastering quality than the 256kBps AAC vs uncompressed file argument, you can't make a bad source file sound better no matter how huge and high bitrate you make it. 

Very true indeed, I don't dispute that.

 

Yeah, sorry I came across a bit ranty there - didn't mean to and it certainly wasn't aimed at you, just after reading through a load of threads on here recently that people are more and more concerned with every little detail and minutia of music reproduction through their systems that the music seems forgotten somehow!

mantazu's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: 12/09/2012 - 12:11
Posts: 13
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

Hello FahadAhmed,

 

I have build my rock based stereo based on old/used equipment and sounds just right. Even more. I had Hitachi HA-5300 (paid 130Euro) integrated amplifier (or actually pre amp and amp in one box - with the cable connection in the back). I have connected good oldies HH Scotch 176B speakers (paid 130Euro too) - both from late 80's. At the moment my amplifier HA-5300 is working for my brother-in-law and I have upgraded to Hitachi HCA-8300 preamp (200Euro) and Nikko Alpha 130 power amp (160Euro) - wow. Just WOW. Rock rocks&roll! But guess what - my jazz records start sound very nice and clear too.

 

But you have to remember that your library and the source is very important to the system. Old good un-remastered CD have their own taste.

BigH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 29/12/2012 - 12:31
Posts: 3578
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

"Usually some useful info here if they have the album you're after listed -  http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ generally speaking if it's got good dynamic range it's a good recording."

 

Thanks for that link. Generally jazz recordings do quite well. Surprised the Mumford and sons 2012 Linn one does badly. 

 

As ssaid before it is very hard to know which version is good, there are many different pressings in different countries, that list only has a very small proportion of them. As for Rumours I would say my cd is pretty poor in fact one of the worst I own, can't find what year it was produced.

the record spot's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 13/10/2007 - 14:36
Posts: 9252
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

AEJim wrote:

...after reading through a load of threads on here recently that people are more and more concerned with every little detail and minutia of music reproduction through their systems that the music seems forgotten somehow!

 

You got that right Jim.   :clap:

Thompsonuxb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 19/02/2012 - 14:24
Posts: 944
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

the record spot wrote:

AEJim wrote:

...after reading through a load of threads on here recently that people are more and more concerned with every little detail and minutia of music reproduction through their systems that the music seems forgotten somehow!

 

You got that right Jim.   :clap:

 

 

This makes no sense, why would anyone spend hundreds and thousands of pounds on kit to enjoy their music then settle for it sounding rubbish just so they can say they 'listen to the music' - and whats wrong with enjoying the production quality of music anyway?

 

honestly the snobbery of some never ceases to suprise me.

BigH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 29/12/2012 - 12:31
Posts: 3578
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

I tend to agree with the last post, it is not about hearing every last detail it is about hearing the music, when the sound quality or even the cd production gets in the way thats what matters. If you are not bothered about the sound then why buy hifi anyway. 

Ambrose's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 19/02/2008 - 12:48
Posts: 333
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

steve_1979 wrote:

toyota man wrote:

MajorFubar wrote:

steve_1979 wrote:

The only Deep Purple track that I know is 'Smoke on the Water' which sounds a bit dull and muffled to me.

The rub is that with a lot of analogue recordings the quality varies depending on what album you listen to it on. With new music, everything's distributed digitally, so the quality remains reasonably constant, bar any mastering differences on compilations. But that didn't used to be the case. Umpteen copies of master tapes were made and distributed to pressing-plants and sister labels worldwide, and quite often, they all sounded different.

Using SOTW as as an example, I've heard it on Deepest Purple - The Very Best Of Deep Purple (bland), The Best Rock Anthems In The World...Ever! (pretty good) and Machine Head (very good). Plus there is a 1997 remaster available on Deepest Purple 30th Anniversary Edition which imo sounds the best of the lot.

Thanks for that imfo I will look out for the Deepest Purple 30th anniversary edition :cheers:

I think it's time I tried some of Deep Purple's other mucic. I'll give their 30th Anniversary Edition album a go first. Cheers MF. :grin:

Maybe not for the casual buyer but the MACHINE HEAD sacd is really rather good indeed! I only play CD version now, which is also very nice.

AEJim's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 23 hours ago
Joined: 17/11/2008 - 10:25
Posts: 907
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

Ambrose wrote:

Maybe not for the casual buyer but the MACHINE HEAD sacd is really rather good indeed! I only play CD version now, which is also very nice.

Some of the harder rock is surprisingly well produced, Pantera and Rage Against the Machine have some great sounding CD's too!

drummerman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 53 min ago
Joined: 18/01/2008 - 21:12
Posts: 5082
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

AEJim wrote:

Ambrose wrote:

Maybe not for the casual buyer but the MACHINE HEAD sacd is really rather good indeed! I only play CD version now, which is also very nice.

Some of the harder rock is surprisingly well produced, Pantera and Rage Against the Machine have some great sounding CD's too!

 

AEJim, I was following some of your contributions over at AVI forum. You should make the time to see Ashley and Martin. Both very nice folks even though some of their ranting about the hifi industry can be tiresome. I still think the ADM's would be better with a rear (not possible I know) or downward facing reflex port if one must be used and their use of Scanspeak units for the latest ADM's is admirable considering the relative low cost of their baby actives. In fact, I had a peak over at the Scanspeak site and their Dutch distributor and probably price up a self build soon (free drawings for cabinet build are available on their site).

regards

Ambrose's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 19/02/2008 - 12:48
Posts: 333
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

AEJim wrote:

Ambrose wrote:

Maybe not for the casual buyer but the MACHINE HEAD sacd is really rather good indeed! I only play CD version now, which is also very nice.

Some of the harder rock is surprisingly well produced, Pantera and Rage Against the Machine have some great sounding CD's too!

Indeed, rage is very impressive.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments