Perfect sound forever?
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2767 Registered: Nov-05 | Got a cool $17000US ? If so you too can have almost perfect sound. http://www.avguide.com/review/tas-194-meridian-8082-reference-signature-cd-playe r?src=Playback Damn, I thought I had with theSaturn  |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11684 Registered: Feb-05 | Did you say perfect sound forever?!? http://www.enjoythemusic.com/superioraudio/ |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 14290 Registered: Dec-04 | Very little actually pisses me off, but the phrase 'perfect sound forever' does that. Stupid Sony for starting that. |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11691 Registered: Feb-05 | I'm not so sure about the very little pissing you off but bad on Sony just as well. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 3611 Registered: May-05 | Could "Perfect Sound Forever" have actually meant that the SQ doesn't degrade over time like in cassette and vinyl? CD's don't wear out, so to speak. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2769 Registered: Nov-05 | Poor Sony could have been simply misunderstood. Seriously, you could be right Stu - though it was most likely some advertising exec who came up with it. Who knows? |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11706 Registered: Feb-05 | I think that ma be right, Stu. However, it's been a lightning rod for ire ever since. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 14295 Registered: Dec-04 | Aye, ire. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14297 Registered: May-04 | . "CD's don't wear out, so to speak."" So to speak! My compost pile doesn't really end either, I just keep adding to it. If you begin with lower SQ, then, does it matter whether it lasts longer than another format with even lower quality? Listen to a 60 year old Living Presence LP compared to a new CD and make your decision. Compare the coherence and the dynamics of a 78 to a new pop recording and assess what you are hearing on both recordings. I'm not here to diss CD or any format that came after but CD's longevity is hardly a recommendation. I have fifty to sixty year old analog that sounds better than most CD's I've purchased and 70 year old analog that captivates. Analog open reel tape still tops every other format for SQ though LP beats it for longevity when handled properly. The average listener assumes pops, ticks and cracks are part of vinyl playback but most people who take care of their music collection know different. "Perfect sound forever" was meant to entice the lazy listener who heard nothing but pops and snaps from mishandled vinyl. That you could toss a CD in your car or let your dog get hair and snobber all over it was the appeal of the slogan. It had - and has - nothing to do with actual SQ. Since the beginning of audio the marketing has been aimed at convenience over fidelity. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 14297 Registered: Dec-04 | 3 min 28 sec JV, grab another slab... |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 14298 Registered: Dec-04 | Actually, cd was to replace casette tape. The CT had been run into the ground and was dead. DAT had been rumored (might still be) and DAT was supposed to be the interum step in release and sales strategy. Sony kinda stepped on some toes, likely still pisssy about the whole Beta/VHS thing. |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11712 Registered: Feb-05 | Nowhere on this thread did anyone say that CD's longevity is a recommendation. It's what it is, longevity. If you like CD's as I do it's a good thing if not, don't buy 'em. Very simple. BTW, I have 2516 titles on CD and 620 on DVD...many multiple discs, probably 5000 discs in all. Not a scratch on a single one. Whether vinyl records or CD's I always take care of my media and of my things in general. Can't afford to replace them. We were playing a DVD rented from Netflix tonight and it stopped running, all scratched up...I have no idea how folks even do that. For those who haven't found many CD's of good sound quality...sorry. I have a ton of great sounding discs. Of course I have put together a system that allows me to enjoy both good sounding ones and bad without having to run from the room. It's a system that was put together knowing that CD was my primary source and always will be, and that listening to music was the ultimate goal. Oh and I still have my records, love 'em. One day I will find a turntable that satisfies. For now I know they are here waiting...and that's a good thing! |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11713 Registered: Feb-05 | Forgot to mention that I agree with Jan relative to the the analog reel to reel, it's still the best sound I've heard. "If you begin with lower SQ, then, does it matter whether it lasts longer than another format with even lower quality? Listen to a 60 year old Living Presence LP compared to a new CD and make your decision. Compare the coherence and the dynamics of a 78 to a new pop recording and assess what you are hearing on both recordings. I'm not here to diss CD or any format that came after but CD's longevity is hardly a recommendation. I have fifty to sixty year old analog that sounds better than most CD's I've purchased and 70 year old analog that captivates. Analog open reel tape still tops every other format for SQ though LP beats it for longevity when handled properly." Well stated. I do however have a lot of beautiful sounding CD's and it's just a function of the type of music I enjoy is often well done on CD. I also have some very poor sounding records, still great music though... |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 726 Registered: Oct-07 | OK, I admit it. I'm one of those who ALWAYS had trouble keeping my vinyl perfect. I have ruined records on the first play. I even had a stack of vinyl liners to replace paper. Even that didn't help for long. Static Electricity drew dust to my records faster than I could clean it. I did some stupid stuff, and was never taught right. I even destroyed a disk and cartridge once, experimenting with Armor All. It works. Not a trace of surface noise, but some other downsides, as you can imagine. I still have the first CD I bought, (all 3, actually). The day I bought my CD player....I still have it, though not working, I bought 3 CDs. Blues Breakers.....Terrific 'garage sound'. 2001 Soundtrack....I wanted to hear this one bad. and I think.... SuperTramp...crime of century. Point is, NONE of my CDs has a single flaw on them. No dog chews or fingerprints. I use lens cleaning tissue from my camera bag and woe unto he who scratches a CD. Small scratches can be removed with SemiChrome polish, which is a submicron abrasive. IF I could handle vinyl to the same cleanliness standard, I'd be back into it in a heartbeat. I had an old Louis Armstrong recording advertised as a FFRR which claimed visible traces from 20 to 20k. A very excellent recording. And, for some reason I never had problems keeping it clean? |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 727 Registered: Oct-07 | Art, Want some r2r factory tapes? I know I have Miles Davis Live/Evil and others out there....somewhere. Also, a Tandberg 3000x in pretty rough shape. Want it? |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11719 Registered: Feb-05 | Factory tapes...oh yes...yes indeed! |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 451 Registered: Dec-06 | It's all about the care taken in how they record an album, isn't it? A lot of CD's sound terrible, but as Art said a lot sound absolutely stunning (especially well made albums created in the last ten or fifteen years). The fact that a lot of them sound bad isn't the medium's fault, it's the record companies and the way they choose to make albums sound. The "loudness wars" and all that. Perhaps the tide is turning, since I have heard some new rock albums that sound pretty darned good on CD. They are being produced on vinyl as well nowadays, but the vinyl I'm sure is almost always sourced from the mix created for CD. I like the bite that CD sound has, but I've been buying up vinyl the past few years and will get into it at some point. Maybe in the next year or two; a turntable is probably my next move. As for how people take care of their CDs and DVDs, it shocks me how scratched up some of these discs get. What the hell are these people doing to the things? Hold it by the edges and don't drag it across other surfaces. Even an idiot can manage that! |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 3613 Registered: May-05 | It isn't a matter of superior format IMO, its a matter of superior recording techniques. In some instances, very old vinyl stuff sounds way better than current CD releases in some ways. I think it has a lot to do with bare minimum processing and mixing. Some vioces sound downright spooky, images are surreal. But there's a good amount of tape hiss. I think digital did a very good job with quieting down recordings in the outside noise area. But I think it did it at the expense of a palpable presence. There are some excellent CDs that'll run circles around vinyl. I've heard a few Mapleshade recordings that sounded closer to the live performance than anything else I've heard. I just wish I liked their music! Like everything, its not the format or technology, its how its used. The companies are interested in sales (why shouldn't they be?), and the overwhelming majority of consumers are interested in convenience, not ultimate sound quality. |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 728 Registered: Oct-07 | I'll look. It's been quite a while since they have surfaced and it must wait until 'spring cleaning' when the garage gets torn apart. I also have a DBX compressor/expander with the DBX phono disk feature. I think it's better than early Dolby. Telarc disks anyone? I love 'em. |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11727 Registered: Feb-05 | Telarc Reference Recordings Chesky BIS Chandos Hyperion Dorian ECM Lot's of great labels, many still putting out great CD's. |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 453 Registered: Dec-06 | Stu, I think the record companies now need to realize that whoever is left still buying CDs (there aren't many of us!) are people that are very likely doing so because they want good sound quality. I don't believe in illegal downloading, but when I buy a CD that sounds like garbage I ask myself, why shouldn't I? Why should I pay for a poor quality product when it wouldn't take them any more effort to make a good quality product? These labels should be putting out CDs that sound good on high end as well as low end systems. I'm buying a pair of Mapleshade stands for my RS5's. I didn't even think that a floorstander might be too short! I made some quick wood stands for the time being, they do the job but they don't look great and don't have that fit and finish. I was thinking of buying a Mapleshade CD or two at the same time. I'll have to listen to some of their samples, but I expect I'm not going to like the music all that much. Hopefully I can find at least one CD though. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 14300 Registered: Dec-04 | All very good labels, Art. Which one carries Nine Inch Nails?  |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11730 Registered: Feb-05 | None, thank God. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 14302 Registered: Dec-04 | hehehe |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14298 Registered: May-04 | . "Like everything, its not the format or technology, its how its used." I'd argue it is the format and the technology simply because they determine how the format is used. You literally cannot treat digital files and analog recordings in the same fashion. Bad recordings are bad recordings no matter the format but the format can and often times will dictate the care being taken in production and in useage. Analog is in certain ways more fragile than digital, requiring more attention throughout the process, suffering more from multiple manipulations. And yet in most ways analog is far more robust and stands up better to mild nudges in a certain direction. Certainly the Achille's Heel of digital is its failure to survive the occasional +3dB levels which result from live performers reacting to the situation they find themself in which then encourages even more dynamic compression and safer choices all around, choice which can be BandAid'd later in the process with more digital techniques. Digital has largely made people on both the maker and user side sloppy, lazy and complacent to good sound quality while at the same time opening doors to creativity that could not be accomplished with analog. "I think digital did a very good job with quieting down recordings in the outside noise area." That's quite debatable but any answer provided will never be accepted by the faithful for either religion. Digital survives by injecting dither into the signal - the intentional addition of a noise floor, without its existence digital simply cannot function - and the value of "the least significant bit" where signal stops and noise begins along with "the most significant bit" where just the music stops. Every digital recording must adhere to those additions and restrictions. Jitter, early on identified by acute listeners and audiophile designers as deterimental to sound quality, is ignored as a necesary evil of the digital process by the "perfect sound" every generation pro audio crowd. Making improvements around intentional and unavoidable compromises is called jerry-rigging in most industries, however it is poo-poo'd when mentioned by music lovers familar with the sound of live performers performing. Only new digital formats have shown any real promise in creating a renewed interest in high quality over high production numbers but the new formats have largely been unsuccessful - RIP SACD and HDCD. We hang on to a format that has less real processing power than did an Atari 400. That's not to say analog is perfect. We all know it is not as analog makes you quite aware of its limitations. Analog also provokes more care and attention be taken with the details of a project. That is not the case with digital, far too many see digital as "perfect sound", if not forever, at least through complex and numerous manipulations that only serve to damage the fidelity to the source. Yes, careful engineers can make good sound in digital formats, that has been true from the earliest days of jerry-rigged digital recording. But many of those same engineers and artists would still prefer to have their finished product recorded and packaged in analog - if only they could afford the cost impediments that exist when only a handful of tape and hardware manufacturers and worthy mastering/pressing facilites exist in the world. As fewer and fewer discs come to represent good sound for the masses the very concept of good sound disappears from the collective memory much like 12" black and white televisions no longer represent the SOTA in video. We all hunt for the next big bargain in 72" panel TV's thinking "the deal" will make it all better. The 1-2% of the music market represented by the audiophile buyer is the very rare exception and not the rule - but that has always been the case and most contemporary vinyl shows just how careless the mass market process had become by the dawn of digital playback. Sadly, digital, IMO, only gave more leeway to the carelessness of sloppy engineers and producers to continue those practices which further lowered the perception of quality in a public with the attention span of a gerbil. Throwing money at the problem only made the matter worse as money cannot top talent and value. The average recording today is created well after the performers exit the building and that practice has only been made worse by the concept of digital's perfection no matter what is done to it. Transferring files via the internet is one of the truly stunning achievements of digital that makes it all the more interesting as a format. It remains a creativity generator as performers from around the globe work more or less together in virtual time. Multiple tracks performed days, weeks or months apart in countries across the globe can be assembled to good, if not occasionally great, effect. Yet, how that creativity is blunted by the format which made it possible is abundantly evident with only the most brief listen to a mono 78 where all the performers could actually touch one another on multiple levels. "Perhaps the tide is turning, since I have heard some new rock albums that sound pretty darned good on CD. They are being produced on vinyl as well nowadays, but the vinyl I'm sure is almost always sourced from the mix created for CD." If you'll do your research, you'll find that is not always the case. An artist with pull and an engineer/producer who cares will often still record on analog for its privileges though the materials are becoming more and more difficult to acquire. Each version released will have its own mix due to the highlights and limitations of analog vs. digital. This certainly isn't the case in all instances but those who seek out analog for its sonic virtues seldom scrap those same virtues by compromising the final product just for the sake of another format or for convenience. "A lot of CD's sound terrible, but as Art said a lot sound absolutely stunning (especially well made albums created in the last ten or fifteen years)." However, the question should remain, do they sound "stunning" compared to another recording or compared against the real thing - if it ever exists in too many cases. Situations which the digital format has made less and less likely to be the case. If you are deprived of quality slowly enough that each cut is slightly less noticeable than the last, you still end up with lower quality. You don't realize just how different the new product is if you have no idea how the old product compares. Your memory banks are drained and your senses are numbed and you accept what is provided without question. Is this "better" than yesterday's offering? In some ways it is and in many ways it is not. I have "good" CD's when it comes to sound quality and I even have a few great sounding discs and I have many not so good LP's. In the end I still find even the not so good analog allows me a closer look at what the artist intended - assuming of course if it has not been demolished in the process of putting it on a disc in a way that is intended just to save a few bucks. Digital is convenient and can sound very good, of that, there is no doubt. It has become my main format if for not other reason that its convenience - I don't have to get my exercise every 3'28" or 42'58". That's not a bad trade for fragility. Think, however, how vinyl all but demands you sit for a moment and listen while digital is everywhere and always more accessible at the push of another button. It is the average digital recording that is only convenient which lowers the standards for everyone else, that cheapens the stock for everyone. This is not a stick my head in the sand and not acknowledge truth position. Having heard several hard copy-less servers along with MW's computer based system compared to his CD based playback I have to admit digital done "well" is surprisingly good for very low cost (not that the system supporting MW's digital playback is inexpensive though). It's almost embarrasssing to hear the higher priced CD player vs. the relatively low cost computer playback and this suggests at least a portion of digital's promise of high quality at lower cost might actually begin to be realized three decades out. Yet the CD system still beats out the computer in most ways that matter and the analog source is still closer to the real thing than the digital adherents would prefer. Digital has long struck me as the analogous movement to the Food Network. Each ingredient is proudly named on the menu to make something "special" where my mother called it pot roast or just "spaghetti". The utensils must be accepted as worthy of the task while earlier generations wouldn't have wanted a wolf or a viking in their kitchen. Digital has made us unaccepting of the wrong qualities in too many ways. That it also has allowed new artists the environment to create without inhibitions is the trade for the overall noise that exists in the digital world. Now, if only those new artists with a $200 handheld digital studio with flashdrive had something to say. Analog was more about the moment, capturing it and preserving it to survive another generation the joy of finding "Kind of Blue" and "Maybelline" hiding in the grooves. Quantity has never been good at replacing quality and digital technologies have been mostly successful at exploiting the formats to lessen the impact of truly great creativity. . |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 734 Registered: Oct-07 | It is completely out of context, and I'll let you decide if it relates, A famous Russian once said: 'Quantity has a quality all its own'....... |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 455 Registered: Dec-06 | If you'll do your research, you'll find that is not always the case. An artist with pull and an engineer/producer who cares will often still record on analog for its privileges though the materials are becoming more and more difficult to acquire. Each version released will have its own mix due to the highlights and limitations of analog vs. digital. This certainly isn't the case in all instances but those who seek out analog for its sonic virtues seldom scrap those same virtues by compromising the final product just for the sake of another format or for convenience. I had read that most vinyl is sourced from the digital mix. I listen to music that is mostly released by the big labels and I'm not shocked that they operate in this fashion. But if we are talking about music that is usually released by audiophile labels then I'm sure the focus on quality is much higher. I try to buy good quality recordings whenever I can, and I'm am starting to dabble in other genres (ever so slowly) that tend to have better made recordings. Hopefully one day I find something I really enjoy. But for now I like what I like, I buy the best version of an album that I can, and unfortunately sometimes I just have to listen on my Klipsch computer speakers because the main system is a little too revealing. But I agree with you on the point that digital has enabled producers to tinker with the sound endlessly and as a result sound quality becomes secondary. GN'R's Chinese Democracy is a funny one, it does feel like they tried to preserve the dynamics on this album. But the artist's vision is one of endless tinkering, layering, and pro-tools effects and it just kills what should be a hard rock album. The songs aren't allowed to breathe, most of them at least. Comparing the final version of each song to it's demo version before everything was piled on, the demos are simply superior, even though the quality is much lower (they are low bitrate mp3's in most cases). |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 14312 Registered: Dec-04 | A lot of stuff has been done 'because we can'. In many cases, that is too bad. I shudder to think what 'Maybeline' may have been instead. |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3470 Registered: Feb-07 | I love that quote Leo. I agree with you Dan. Chinese Democracy could have been a great album but it has too much of a processed feel to it. Pro-tooled to death. I notice on some of my CDs from the early part of 2000's (feel weird to write that) that the liner notes actually credit pro-tools technicians but most no longer do that these days. It's almost like no one wants to admit the industry is using them to make CDs sound "better". |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 736 Registered: Oct-07 | What's true in audio, is as true in photography. I can make a fairly realistic, given proper start material, picture of you shaking hands with Hitler. Give me some time and I can engineer such a photo. It would pass casual inspection, but not technical or if I turned over the original file. Such photos are good for a laugh. But just like over engineered audio, I can over engineer a photo. Too much sharpness, over the top colors, impossible lighting, or other effects. The best 'engineering' in either medium, IMO, is subtle, inconspicuous and dare I say, appropriate. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 535 Registered: Mar-04 | "Chinese Democracy could have been a great album but it has too much of a processed feel to it. Pro-tooled to death." Trying to blend together all the people who played on the album would lead to such a problem. |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 456 Registered: Dec-06 | I don't know unbridled, it is great in places and the demos are largely fantastic. You don't need to blend everyone together, just keep the best stuff and throw out the rest! I think "If The World" is the best song on Chinese Democracy. It's one of the less cluttered songs and thus one of the better sounding songs from an audiophile perspective, but it's also one heck of a song, it's got this cool summer vibe to it. Could have been a big hit as it crosses genres and is catchy as hell, but of course Axl doesn't want to promote his big album. There are other cool songs: "Shackler's Revenge" and "Riad and the Bedouins" come off pretty well. But then "Catcher in the Rye" would probably have been the best song, Queen meets the Beatles, and the demo is magic, but the final version is totally ruined by cluttering it up with so many unnecessary guitar parts that only obscure the beauty of the song. Brian May did the solo on the demo version, and it's a great solo, but they didn't keep it for whatever reason choosing instead something that is much worse. The live versions of "The Blues" that they performed in 2001/02 were phenomenal, and the studio version just doesn't capture that magic. All these studio effects just sap the song of the emotion it had. But this is what GN'R is all about, isn't it? What we get is great but there is a lot more unfulfilled promise than anything else. But I'll be seeing them in concert twice this month. Can't wait! The live shows are always awesome! They just played one show for 3.5 hours in Japan last month. Doubt either of mine will get close to that long but here's hoping. |
|
Gold Member Username: SoundgameToronto, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1087 Registered: Jun-08 | Maybe I'm the odd man out but I haven't heard a GNR album start to finish - ever. I say when it comes to true top notch music artists the best way to go in the recording is...keep it simple...keep it REAL. My move away from alternative rock toward jazz was highly based on the realism and the quality in the jazz recordings. It was how great it sounded that got me listening, appreciating and enjoying the music. This was one case where it was love at first sound rather than love of the music. Then I went back and started to find other gems like the more mainstream Jack Johnson. For a mainstreem artist, his recording are just wonderful..at least on the albums I've got. |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3480 Registered: Feb-07 | George... seriously? Not even once? I need to take Jazz for Dummies course. I bet jazz would sound sweet on the Mac system. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 14315 Registered: Dec-04 | Appetite for Destruction...on 11.. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2775 Registered: Nov-05 | What the heck is GnR doing on 'a perfect sound forever' thread?  |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 457 Registered: Dec-06 | George, I don't mind wallowing in the gutter that is GN'R and Aerosmith and the like, in fact I love that dirty and bluesy hard rock sound. However, I'm open to trying new things. My forays into high class society so far consist of a couple of Leonard Cohen albums (awesome stuff), Norah Jone's Come Away With Me (haven't listened to it yet), and some sort of recording of Ravel's Bolero by the Minnesota Orchestra, released by Mofi in SACD format. One day I'll definitely look into the jazz genre. Don't know if I'll like it but I have to give it a fair shake. |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11767 Registered: Feb-05 | High class society.....? |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3485 Registered: Feb-07 | The "Use Your Illusion" double album by Gn'R (1991) was actually quite well produced. Besides hard rock, they mixed in elements of blues, classical and progressive rock.} |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 737 Registered: Oct-07 | Dan'l, Like dirty blues/ hard rock, eh> http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&source=hp&q=bluesbreakers+with+eric +clapton&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=13513597701751059390&ei=Xb5ES__uOoOkMb-TuPEB&sa=X&oi= product_catalog_result&ct=image&resnum=13&ved=0CDYQ8gIwDA# I can't imagine that link working, but it is the first Clapton/Mayall =Blues Breakers album. My OLD copy has a very rough, garage sound. They claim improvements for this remaster version, but based on foregoing posts, won't believe it until heard. |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 738 Registered: Oct-07 | http://www.amazon.com/Bluesbreakers-Clapton-Mayall-Blues-Breakers/dp/B00005K9QP maybe this? |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 458 Registered: Dec-06 | High class society - said in jest. Needless to say though, I think you guys are all extremely sophisticated and cultured. ;) David, I think AFD and Lies were quite well done as well. AFD is a little messy sounding, but it fits the songs and theme of the album perfectly. The Illusion sound would not have worked on that album. |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3487 Registered: Feb-07 | I agree Dan. AFD has a loose, open sound to it. It wouldn't have been nearly as good with the polished production of Illusion I & II. |
|
Gold Member Username: GavdawgAlbany, New York Post Number: 1380 Registered: Nov-06 | this is exactly the thread I have been looking for. I will listen to pop (occasionally) and alternative as background music when I am cleaning, or as a distraction. The quality of the recording is terrible. My generation can't seem to understand that a quality recording adds to the overall enjoyment. I generally listen to jazz (or as I am writing this, Loreena McKennitt) when I really want to listen for pure enjoyment. Sure, I can listen to alt-rock, but I end up switching the discs out. There are some notable exceptions to this however. One artist that has had consistently good quality recordings for mass market (to my ears anyway) is James Taylor. |
|
Gold Member Username: SoundgameToronto, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1088 Registered: Jun-08 | If you guys want to try out jazz - the album to start with - and you might as well go out and buy it since it's the top selling jazz album of all time - is Kind of Blue, by Miles Davis. It's a very safe into to jazz with a laid back sound but tremendous transparency. You need to forgive the surface noise. Get a copy on vinyl or the high-bit rate re-master, which sounds great. You won't believe how great it sounds though it was recorded in the mid-50's. Put Kind of Blue on and sit back with a little scotch, bourbon or for those who don't like the hard stuff...Guiness might do. Oh, the sweet sound of jazz. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 536 Registered: Mar-04 | "The "Use Your Illusion" double album by Gn'R (1991) was actually quite well produced. Besides hard rock, they mixed in elements of blues, classical and progressive rock." You can see that Slash and Izzy were big fans of the Faces. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 14323 Registered: Dec-04 | Gavin, JT does, indeed have some wonderful recordings, I am a fan. His DVD's are equally well recorded for audio, if not vid. As an example, try 'Live at the beacon'. The sound is top drawer, bar none, but the vid was mixed by someone with AED. I have not seen a sacd of it, but THAT would be a first choice for live. See also Patricia Barber for jaw dropping live audio... |
|
Gold Member Username: GavdawgAlbany, New York Post Number: 1386 Registered: Nov-06 | I have hourglass on sacd. It is one of my reference discs. |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 462 Registered: Dec-06 | leo, just noticed your Clapton suggestion. I'll check it out. Picking up three discs from Japan now...Kind of Blue on SACD as suggested by George, if there is one jazz album I get I figure this should be it. I'll also try a couple of Blue Spec discs (similar theory as SHM-CDs). Blue Spec are apparently burned with a blue laser that makes the pits more clearly defined (thus easier to read). I'm skeptical, but since I'm ordering from Japan I'll get a couple. The Nylon Curtain and Toys in the Attic. I think I've got more different copies of Toys than any other album. One on regular CD, one SACD, one CBS Mastersound gold version, and now this one. |
|
Gold Member Username: GavdawgAlbany, New York Post Number: 1436 Registered: Nov-06 | All my Diana krall discs are sacd as well. Great sq...elevates the CD experience to the next level. |
|
New member Username: Don_rx1ON Canada Post Number: 6 Registered: May-09 | Dan L., where did you order the discs from... amazon.jp, HMV, or Tower? I'm interested to know if you paid CCRA customs duty on them. |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 523 Registered: Dec-06 | Hey Don, Bought them from CD Japan. This was my second purchase there, no problems either time, very good service. No duty paid on this shipment, the CDs were just in my mailbox one day when I got home from work. I chose Air Mail as my shipping method. I'm not sure how customs works. Maybe I got lucky, or maybe CD imports aren't subject to customs. I ordered a couple of CDs recently from Amazon in the US and they got through too. http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/ |
|
New member Username: Don_rx1ON Canada Post Number: 7 Registered: May-09 | Thanks for the link, Dan. I've bookmarked it. Much appreciated! Cheers! |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics