even after amost full bottle...

[spiritofmusic]

I've got a Canadian red vinyl pressing of Hemispheres. The low end is a thing of beauty. And missing from any streamed versions I've heard.

The rest of my Rush collection is made up of Japanese and US pressings. And the warmth of the bottom end is the major difference to the digital versions I'm familiar with.

 

[HughP3]

The trouble isn’t with the recording. It’s with the booze. VH needs high octane juice. Try your luck with Tequila or mezcal next time..... After a half bottle of that, Everything will sound as it should

Yes yes! What was I thinking! I need to approach this as a component of the system. Paul Hobbs is too refined, does not have the shoulders needed for heavy liftIng such as this. Brilliant suggestion. maestro dobel should pair nicely along with 3 Advil

 

[HughP3]

I've got a Canadian red vinyl pressing. The low end is a thing of beauty. And missing from any streamed versions I've heard.

The rest of my Rush collection is made up of Japanese and US pressings. And the warmth of the bottom end is the major difference to the digital versions I'm familiar with.

I will look for some better cd of Rush as I am digital only , I have some ripped but they don’t sound good or good enough comparatively. Could be the digital engineering, maybe compression. For instance my Cd of Robin Trower Bridge of Sighs sounds great, even with Paul Hobbs

 

[spiritofmusic]

Hugh, it's frustrating to be sure. I was deeply anti-digital when the original Rush CDs were released in the early 90s. Ironically as I've warmed to digital since then, certain bands are being served worse and worse by each subsequent remaster.

It would be fascinating to revisit a first gen Rush CD from '93, and compare it to my 70s and 80's Japanese vinyl pressings.

I had high hopes for Rush on the current class leading server, but no luck.

 

[morricab]

I've got a Canadian red vinyl pressing of Hemispheres. The low end is a thing of beauty. And missing from any streamed versions I've heard.

The rest of my Rush collection is made up of Japanese and US pressings. And the warmth of the bottom end is the major difference to the digital versions I'm familiar with.

Something is really lost from digital mastering of classic and progressive rock. My Yes on vinyl is so incredibly better than digital. My only Rush on vinyl that is sound wise meh is Signals, which is unfortunate because it is probably my favorite Rush album.

 

[morricab]

Something is really lost from digital mastering of classic and progressive rock. My Yes on vinyl is so incredibly better than digital. My only Rush on vinyl that is sound wise meh is Signals, which is unfortunate because it is probably my favorite Rush album.

Listen to the Police Ghost in the Machine on vinyl...awesome sound quality...especially Spirits in the Material World.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Brad, I have all the good stuff here as well. 100% agree with you. I am amazed at how well the Steve Wilson remasters are regarded sonically. Yes "Relayer" has lost SO much on translation from vinyl, although he has wrought some magic from the one Yes album that bums out on vinyl ie "Tales From Topographic Oceans".

What is fascinating also is that when current day engineers who love, and cut their teeth on prog, go on to deliberately not tip up remasters, the warmth they engineer feels fuzzy and lacking in zip.

The Jakko remastered Bruford Band CDs just limp compared to my (not even first pressings) vinyl.

 

[HughP3]

Interesting you mention Steve Wilson remasters. I was listening last night to Jethro Tull passion play. I have a descent cd of it. Tidal has Steve’s MQA remaster and I did not like it. Just did not sound right.
@morricab on Tidal the mqa of Fragile is pretty good.

I had all these on albums but gave up tt a long time ago. I did not want to hear the crackling fire background anymore. But now I want to try to a good tt setup on my system but not gonna spend the money in case I don’t like it. I am happy with Digital and some is really really good. I still think a lot of the issues are due to poor engineering choices.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Hugh, I've now heard a wide variety of prog and fusion thru any number of servers, incl a bespoke one using a custom OS, and one that sounds truly brilliant with modern day sympathetically mastered music.

Remasters are the death of these genres. And the most revealing servers reveal how cold these disinterred corpses are.

 

[asiufy]

Van Halen is challenging on digital, and the hi-res stuff is no better. As usual, the answer lies in early (80s) CDs.
The DCC version of the s/t is amazing, and by far the best version. Others are hit-or-miss, but generally the early CDs will be better. Avoid the hi-res stuff.

 

[timztunz]

Listen to a good vinyl pressing of Hemispheres...not bad at all!

La Villa Strangiato!!!

 

[spiritofmusic]

Buenos Nochas, Mein Freund!

 

[stehno]

Some claim to "know" best anallog and best digital, yet I find it interesting how some go on and on complaining about the inferiority of so many recordings remastered or not as if the problem lies without rather than within.

There's no such thing as a perfect recording just like there's no such thing as a perferct playback system. Some are just more inferior than others. But potentially there still is tremendous levels of musicality embedded within - if you know how to extract it.

Seems to me that if some of you think you've reached the bottom of the barrel for best levels of playback, then perhaps you need to find another barrel.

From my perspective, percentage-wise I find very few grossly engineered recordings lacking musicality regardless of genre or age, remastered or not. But even with so many "inferior-engineered recordings", they are still tremendously musical and truly a joy to listen to. Yes, I have YES, Journey, The Who, etc and though they suffer from a lack of superior engineering, they still are a musical blast especially when played at 103 - 106db.

Frankly, I'm rather impressed how well the recording industry has performed over the last 7 decades. I'm also rather impressed with the early marketers of Redbook PCM and their claims of "perfect sound forever". IMO, after all this time, it turns out they weren't too far off the mark after all. My very first CD purchased in 1986, a William Ackerman - Windham Hill CD is as musical as many in my library.

The format didn't change. Sure, playback products improved to some extent over the years but not that much. The most dramatic performance improvement I've encountered is my attitude toward performance and my efforts to more fully engage. That's when my playback system's performance dramatically changed.

 

[sbnx]

The very best hifi system is rendered a pile of junk without a good recording engineer

 

[stehno]

The very best hifi system is rendered a pile of junk without a good recording engineer

From your perspective, I'd agree wholeheartedly. But I suppose I should ask.

How is one truly able to tell whether or not a recording is well-engineered? For example. Surely you realize the less musical a playback system, the more every recording sounds more like a poor remaster. Right?

So if I'm hearing you correctly, you already have at least a fine playback system. How frequently does it sound like a pile of junk to you?

 

[stehno]

I actually like this guitar better than the Van Halen cut. Well, I used to think I did. I never liked Foreigner but somehow I ended up owning this extended Live in Nashville CD. I really like Foreigner now. This was recorded about 107db peak in-room. In-room gestalt is maybe 20 - 50 time more than what one perceives via earbuds - but how does one measure that? Might this be considered inferior- or superior-engineered? Regardless, it's intense and fun listening in-room.

 

[wil]

Some claim to "know" best anallog and best digital, yet I find it interesting how some go on and on complaining about the inferiority of so many recordings remastered or not as if the problem lies without rather than within.

There's no such thing as a perfect recording just like there's no such thing as a perferct playback system. Some are just more inferior than others. But potentially there still is tremendous levels of musicality embedded within - if you know how to extract it.

Seems to me that if some of you think you've reached the bottom of the barrel for best levels of playback, then perhaps you need to find another barrel.

From my perspective, percentage-wise I find very few grossly engineered recordings lacking musicality regardless of genre or age, remastered or not. But even with so many "inferior-engineered recordings", they are still tremendously musical and truly a joy to listen to. Yes, I have YES, Journey, The Who, etc and though they suffer from a lack of superior engineering, they still are a musical blast especially when played at 103 - 106db.

Frankly, I'm rather impressed how well the recording industry has performed over the last 7 decades. I'm also rather impressed with the early marketers of Redbook PCM and their claims of "perfect sound forever". IMO, after all this time, it turns out they weren't too far off the mark after all. My very first CD purchased in 1986, a William Ackerman - Windham Hill CD is as musical as many in my library.

The format didn't change. Sure, playback products improved to some extent over the years but not that much. The most dramatic performance improvement I've encountered is my attitude toward performance and my efforts to more fully engage. That's when my playback system's performance dramatically changed.

Shehno, I think it's important to distinguish between the avg SPL's and peak SPL's when you refer to playback at "103-106 db." If you're listening at avg levels that high you are either ruining your hearing or you're hearing is already ruined!

 

[HughP3]

It does sound good... but there is no way my ears can stand a “sustainable” 100+ dB In my new room. I average 88 dB maybe really loud for a short time at 90 with peaks around 94. My old, much smaller room I would average 92 dB with peaks around 103. Weird how my new room measures Much less dB to get the same perceived loudness and impact.
Btw an Yamaha yz450 Mx exhaust measures 106db. Yes that’s very loud

 

[stehno]

It's irrevelant but my preferred listening levels depend entirely on genre. There's no way I'm gonna listen to Van Halen at 88- 92db nor am I gonna listen straight thru a Van Halen album at those 106 average db sustained levels. There's also no way I'm gonna listen to Vivaldi at 105db. To ensure some of the gestalt gets to my in-room recordings I do crank up an additional 3 or 4db.

Most music I'm listening in the 97 - 99 db range. BTW, I don't know if it's true but some say it's not necessarily the loudness of music that causes hearing loss or causes one to run outta' the room with ear fatigue due to distortion-induced breakup or flattening out. but rather the typically-associated distortions at those volume levels is what leads to hearing loss. I actually believe that to a good extend but ultimately I've no clue. Plus I've taken great strides to absolutely minimize the most severe distortions. I also happen to believe music ought be played near or at live music volume levels and I just so happen to have a system that allows me to freely do so. But that's me.

Wil, as stated in my pror post, that Foreigner cut was at maybe 107 db peak. If I wasn''t recording it, I'd be playing this cut at maybe 103 or 104db. But the vast majority of my preferred genre (instrumenetal and orchestral) and listening volume levels is significantly more reasonable than this.

At the other end of the spectrum I remember a reviewer visiting 10 years ago who played everything at maybe 62 db which I'm guessing is lower than elevator music levels. Took everything in me not to throw that clown out into the street.

 

[HughP3]

agree. i may not listen at venue level volume all the time (sometimes its too loud) but i listen loud enough deliver that in your chest impact and a sound stage that comes alive at volume. imo to little volume does no justice to the music regardless of genre.