Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,049   Posts: 1,561,097   Online: 869
      
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 120
  1. #81
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,415
    Images
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    That's just too sweeping a generalization, even for APUG. Ever hear the first CD re-issue of Miles Davis Kind of Blue? Guess not, since the re-re-mastered version is incomparably better.
    I absolutely agree. My experience is that newer remasters sound better than digital has ever sounded. Just yesterday I listened to 'Steamin' with the Miles Davis Quintet', and it sounds truly 'organic', vivid, and full of dynamics that just aren't there even on the original vinyl. Digital noise levels are also extremely low, without a lot of the annoying high frequency white noise garbage that was so prevalent in 1980s and 1990s CDs.

    Some still do a poor job, but most reissues are amazing today, to the point that I don't really feel them lacking much compared to vinyl anymore. It's amazing how far 16 bit / 44.1 kHz digital audio has come (the format that CDs are still produced in).
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  2. #82
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I absolutely agree. My experience is that newer remasters sound better than digital has ever sounded. Just yesterday I listened to 'Steamin' with the Miles Davis Quintet', and it sounds truly 'organic', vivid, and full of dynamics that just aren't there even on the original vinyl. Digital noise levels are also extremely low, without a lot of the annoying high frequency white noise garbage that was so prevalent in 1980s and 1990s CDs.

    Some still do a poor job, but most reissues are amazing today, to the point that I don't really feel them lacking much compared to vinyl anymore. It's amazing how far 16 bit / 44.1 kHz digital audio has come (the format that CDs are still produced in).
    Huge improvements also in the latest issues of the CBS Miles/Gil Evans recordings(Sketches of Spain, Porgy and Bess, Miles Ahead). Earlier cd versions(and truly horrid "digitally re-mastered" LP re-issues)were overly-bright and bleached out.

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I absolutely agree. My experience is that newer remasters sound better than digital has ever sounded. Just yesterday I listened to 'Steamin' with the Miles Davis Quintet', and it sounds truly 'organic', vivid, and full of dynamics that just aren't there even on the original vinyl. Digital noise levels are also extremely low, without a lot of the annoying high frequency white noise garbage that was so prevalent in 1980s and 1990s CDs.

    Some still do a poor job, but most reissues are amazing today, to the point that I don't really feel them lacking much compared to vinyl anymore. It's amazing how far 16 bit / 44.1 kHz digital audio has come (the format that CDs are still produced in).
    Apparently I haven't heard any of the good remasters. Some of the recent ones I have/have heard are really annoying to listen to, I've lost a certain amount of high frequency hearing, but I don't like these.

  4. #84
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,415
    Images
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Apparently I haven't heard any of the good remasters. Some of the recent ones I have/have heard are really annoying to listen to, I've lost a certain amount of high frequency hearing, but I don't like these.
    I'm glad you have an opinion different than mine. We probably listen for different things, I gather.

    My listening is very heavily focused on the content of the music. With newer remasters I can hear bass lines clearer, the kick drum is a lot better separated from the bass guitar, high pitch sounds like cymbals don't sound like frying eggs in butter and void (thankfully) of digital white noise, sound stage is better defined with greater depth and width, placement of musicians within the sound stage is clearer and voices (especially female) sound a lot more natural, almost natural like a high end Grado cartridge. To me all this gives me a much clearer picture of the music served up to me, and I can access all of the components of the music much easier, so that Miles' trumpet shines a little bit more, and Mulligan's sax is easier to follow in the melodies as I enjoy the brilliant rhythm sections they surrounded themselves with.

    To me it goes on and on with remasters of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Paul Simon, Pink Floyd, Peter Gabriel, The Police, Bob Dylan, etc.

    Perhaps all of the extra detail and information available in modern remasters isn't a positive thing for you? I can certainly understand that viewpoint. Sometimes I wish I had a stereo that just smooths everything over so that bad recordings didn't sound so bad, as it would be a much more relaxed way of listening. I don't know. There are lots of differing opinions on what constitutes good, and I think our opinions can be different, and that will just make the discussion more exciting. I'm sure I can learn something from you here, and would appreciate to hear your account of what it is you find better/worse about new/old recordings/remasters.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I'm glad you have an opinion different than mine. We probably listen for different things, I gather.

    My listening is very heavily focused on the content of the music. With newer remasters I can hear bass lines clearer, the kick drum is a lot better separated from the bass guitar, high pitch sounds like cymbals don't sound like frying eggs in butter and void (thankfully) of digital white noise, sound stage is better defined with greater depth and width, placement of musicians within the sound stage is clearer and voices (especially female) sound a lot more natural, almost natural like a high end Grado cartridge. To me all this gives me a much clearer picture of the music served up to me, and I can access all of the components of the music much easier, so that Miles' trumpet shines a little bit more, and Mulligan's sax is easier to follow in the melodies as I enjoy the brilliant rhythm sections they surrounded themselves with.

    To me it goes on and on with remasters of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Paul Simon, Pink Floyd, Peter Gabriel, The Police, Bob Dylan, etc.

    Perhaps all of the extra detail and information available in modern remasters isn't a positive thing for you? I can certainly understand that viewpoint. Sometimes I wish I had a stereo that just smooths everything over so that bad recordings didn't sound so bad, as it would be a much more relaxed way of listening. I don't know. There are lots of differing opinions on what constitutes good, and I think our opinions can be different, and that will just make the discussion more exciting. I'm sure I can learn something from you here, and would appreciate to hear your account of what it is you find better/worse about new/old recordings/remasters.
    I think we listen for most of the same things, I even share your opinion of the Grado cartridges. I like to hear the imaging and signature of the hall, bass notes to be tight and well controlled, midranges to be well balanced; apparent without being too forward - since most information is in the mids. The highs should be well articulated and clean along with the transients. The system I use will reproduce a good recording of a guitar, saxophone, trumpet, or violin well enough that from the other rooms it sounds as if that instrument is being played; bass is extremely accurate and well damped, transients are clean. So I think my equipment is doing an adequate job of showing me what is on the program source. I'm pretty sure it has more to do with the discs I'm listening to, others have described it well - a flat harsh "mechanical" sounding reproduction with a faint noise floor.

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    I can't really hear a difference between AAC at 320 kbps and the original WAV files. Maybe I could if I really really tried, but it's small enough that it doesn't bother me. I'm not saying the difference isn't there, but it's like Thomas said earlier about him and Leica lenses - the difference is small enough to him not to really matter. I probably will convert my music collection from AAC to WAV just because hard drives are so cheap now, and it'd be nice to have uncompressed backups of my CDs. I CAN most definitely hear lower bit rate rips and uncompressed.

    I must say I enjoy my music collection a million times more now that those 11,000 songs are on my computer and not on CDs. I can listen to it on my phone while on the plane, or my PMCs while at my computer (headphones late at night), or streamed to my mediocre stereo while cleaning the apartment.

    I always viewed the audiophile stuff like this (similar to photography). There's a certain, relatively low level of quality where 99% of people can't tell the difference between that and the real junk. That's fine - they get to enjoy their music (and photography) with a lot less expense and worrying than we do Above that, there's the area of 'diminishing returns'. The gear IS better, but it gets pretty expensive. That's the area which I inhabit, i.e. everyone else is crazy but me. Where the cutoff of what is worth it to an individual is personal. That $2000 lens (or speaker) is probably 'better' than the $400 one. Will it make a difference? Probably not much of one. But it IS better. You can always buy something that is technically better, but at some point the diminishing returns thing really kicks and starts making things crazy expensive. This is also the region where even if you have a technically better system, if the content sucks, the experience sucks. Me playing a kazoo on an 8 kHz digital file is going to suck hard on a $10k audio system, just like an 8x10 contact print shot with a Schneider XXL lens is going to suck if the content is of the inside of a lens cap. A brilliant album sounds brilliant on $10 speakers, just like a brilliant shot on a Holga is brilliant. The content and artistry shines through. I would however prefer to listen to that brilliant album on a pair of $300 headphones over my iPhone buds.

    Then there's crazy land, outside the realm of science. I'm not sure what this is in photography. If it exists, it's not at the same level (or price) as it is in audio. Cable elevators, the ridiculously priced power cables, shit like that.

  7. #87
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Jersey .........formerly NYC.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    495
    You ever notice older people as they lose their hearing make up for it with larger ears?

  8. #88
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Haha if only it were so!

    So does excess nose hair have something to do with compensating for losing smell?
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  9. #89
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Jersey .........formerly NYC.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    495
    Well, I think the expression is that you know you're getting old when you have more hair in your ears and nose than you have on your head.

  10. #90
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by bdial View Post
    You mean the electrons don't know the difference?
    You know, there are a lot of times that I swear that they *DO* know the difference, and they're just laughing at us. I really wonder sometimes just who the hell is the observer in the equation.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin