The only Deep Purple track that I know is 'Smoke on the Water' which sounds a bit dull and muffled to me.
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.
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.
PC > AVI Neutron Five 2.1
Sony NWZ-A847 64GB Walkman > Westone UM3x
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.
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.
Brand Manager, Acoustic Energy Ltd.
"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!
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.
Main system: Mac Mini 2011 > HRT II+ DAC • Cyrus 2 & PSX • Cyrus tuner • MS 10i speakers [on loan]
Also cluttering-up the place: Thorens TD160 (no cart) • Marantz CD 63 mkII KI & PM66 KI • Technics SL-P777 • Nakamichi DR-1
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!
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.
AN-CDT One/ An-V/ AN-DAC 1 Signature / AN-Vx / Hitachi HA-5300 / AN-D / HHScott 172b
"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.
...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.
Onkyo TX-NR818 / Tannoy Revolution DC4 (bi-amped)
AVI Laboratory Series CD Player
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.
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.
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.
Source:- Naim CD5XS
Amp:- Naim Nait 5i-2
Speakers:- Neat Motive 3 on Partington Super Dreadnoughts
Speaker Cable:- NAC A5
Mains:- Wireworld Matrix Block + Music Works ReEntry
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).
Pretty ... and pretty proud of it
Indeed, rage is very impressive.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing