XXHighEnd

Hi Peter,

If you're interested in sharing your wisdom and have the time at some point, would you list (and comment if you're so inclined) what you consider the best recordings/remasters of some of the great classic rock cds. I know you love and listen closely to much of that music, as do I, and I would really value your recommendations.

If you just have time for one or two for now, how about one of my very favorites, the first Led Zep album (and second and third). The Stone's live "Get Your Ya Yas Out," would be another.

Thanks if your so inclined or not.

-Chris

Okay, I realize the title is a bit presumptuous, so if you must change it, please feel free to do so.  :(

Hmm.... not really classic Rock but lately I have been listening to a lot of Allan Taylor, I supposed more folk rather than Rock.
Thanks to Stockfish record who rerecords him with lot of his music from 1970's over the past few years. The sound quality
is excellent and is much better than his original recordings from the 70's. There is at least one SACD and 5-6 CD albums and
a collection on single LP.

Hi Chris,

Once we are in this very little circle of 2 or 3 albums - thinking about "classics", maybe together we can extend them to 30 or so, and maybe with the help of others we may reach 80, but I guess it will be tough. Why ? because today many sound too poor to be interesting.

Uriah Heep - Live
Great album at the time with especially July Morning as a track which did something to me - still does. But quality is too poor on CD. Unplayable.
Someone should make a vinyl rip of this, because I don't recall it sounding so bad.

Led Zeppelin - Physical Graffity
Great tracks of too poor quality for today. Worked well on cassette tape though.

War - War Live
Typically less known, but really from that age. Cisco Kid is the track for me. No bad quality at all.

Pink Floyd - Wish you were here.
I have problems with letting this sound allright. But this is with all Pink Floyd the case.

Pink Floyd - Echoes.
I think this was afer Umma Gumma and the jump from really psychedelic to more commercial. Fun is (I know now) that Echoes is based on maybe 5 year earlier material which as far as I know wasn't released on normal albums (but I have it anyway), with the track names which are all different. This material is on Atomn Heartmother as well. Btw the latter is just one or two years "before my time".

Wings - Wild Life
This is the first album of Paul mcCartney and Wings, I have been the only one for 20 years owning this vinyl album without seeing it somewhere else. It lasted until maybe 10 years back when a box set of CDs came about which contained it as a CD.
Strange album, but to me it does something.

Wings - RAM
If you're from back then (around the end of Flower Power), this contains classics only. But, also good quality sound.

Deep Purple - Who do we think we are
Just a melodious album. But notice how strange Deep Purple is when you start from their first album.

Deep Purple - Fireball

Black Sabbath - Black Sabbath
Mainly for this one 14 minute track of which I not only forgot the name today, but which I never can select because one goes into the other in a "confusing" way. But it should be around : Behind the Wall of Sleep.
This was my very first album on vinyl, and it is the very best quality I have today on CD. IIRC the vinyl was from Vertigo.

Black Sabbath - Paranoid
I should say nothing here.

Black Sabbath - Sabbath Bloody Sabbath
Notice the great lyrics this band actually carries. They aren't that bad.
Quality is mediocre.

Deep Purple - In Rock
Child in Time ...

Deep Purple - Made in Japan
Should be my best classic. But it won't sound better than it does. Needs a turn table or something.

Steve Miller Band - The Joker.
I NEVER played this on CD (attempts told me poor quality), but it should be on this list I think.
Btw, I have an 18 minute "long version" of Macho City somewhere, and I play this one 6 times per year at least.

Dire Straits - Dire Straits
Not even a well known album for those who dicovered Dire Straits 10 years later, and from a somewhat later age (like above Steve Miller), but genuine Dire Straits.

Supertramp - Supertramp
Not really a classic maybe, but I owned it 4 years before a first single made Supertramp known in 1974, that single IIRC being drawn from that first album. I never understood why this band remained in the dark for such a long time.
Otherwise Crime of the Century should be a classic, but you must first own the album since 1974 before you can recognize it (with tracks like Rudy).

Grand Funk Railroad - ?
I don't know my album from back then anymore, but stuff like Go Home was on it.

Led Zeppelin I, II, III
Already implied by Chris, these would be the first to mention. No poor quality on these, and each of the tracks could be called classics. Here, for me it is always about putting on the album, knowing that at some stage the track will play you want to here (Gallows Pole would be one), while in the mean time you enjoy the other tracks so much. Somehow it never bores. Let me in this realm add that tracks like Kashmir (and many others) are as intrigueing, weren't it that the quality is too poor to listen to (that being on Physical Graffity or Houses of The Holy).


Ok, this is what I come up with in an hour's of time. Other people may come up with quite some more (please do !), but it may be difficult to grasp what this era of music is about and how it is related to your age. So, Dire Straits doesn't belong to it, as Steve Miller doesn't and Supertramp doesn't. But somehow they bridge the gap from leaving behind the possibly greatest time of all music ages which at least for me is about character in the music, 20 minute long tracks (or otherwise it wouldn't work) and how the rock from then could be used for school parties and dance on it. Yes, isn't that strange. If I only take Child in Time as the example (but now from Made In Japan), and if I'd ask you at the age of 40 to listen to this and imagine that you'd be "slowing" on that 14 minute track each party with a random girl - which by guarantee would lead to a new "relation" ... how did this work ?
Listen to the track - it shouldn't. But back then, at the age of 13, 14, 15 it did. Probably because at least I never dug up the lyrics, and probably because there's something like the wait for the wild and the cooling down again (2x). You'd (both) knew it would be coming.
But what really is the difference with Stairway to Heaven (which was somewhat later and not really "used" by me) or that Gallows Pole I mentioned. This stuff creates tense, but especially because you knew. However, the beat of the when is hard to guess. Shine On you Crazy Diamond (from much later) is similar. Echoes ... all the same.

So, maybe not all masterpieces (well, I think they are), but it worked like maybe only Ravel could do it. And not because of Bo Derek (but she came Ten years too late I think) ...

I don't want to put my thoughts on you, but if you were only 3-4 years younger at that time, it already wouldn't have worked. You would be playing the Beatles or earlier Stones. 3-4 years later ? you wouldn't have gotton the real spirit this era could have pressed on you.
Forever ...

Thanks so much Peter.

I'm wondering if there any specific masters or remasters or the original transfer to cd of any of the albums you mentioned that you prefer. I think I read somewhere (on CA?) that for instance you had a specific Led Zep II? that you found better than the rest.

Love, "Revelation."

I'm not sure if it qualifies as classic rock, but if not maybe we should include the late 60's. That album really affected me. It was the first album I knew of that included an interminable jam/improv (which I love). I particularly love the soprano sax (which almost sounds like an oboe) section and the slow change of rhythm late in the piece.

Most people consider "Forever Changes," a masterpiece but I gravitate toward Revelation, and the album too. And speaking of revelation, I went to a Love concert in some club in the village (NYC) and had to leave in the middle of the concert because I was literally freaking out (the term back then). It was so loud (way too loud and I liked loud) that I was literally losing my mind  :grazy: :wacko: . I actually took myself (along with my girlfriend at the time) to a hospital emergency room. And I wasn't on drugs!

And speaking of Dire Straits, one of my favorite all time songs that meant alot to me too, "Romeo and Juliet," from their second album "Making Movies."

Chris

I've never heard of him. What's his music like or who is like him, if that's applicable. If I were to give him a try, which album of his would you start with?

Are you saying that his recordings are being reissued by Stockfish or that he's making new recordings of his old music?

Chris

A big thumbs up for Allan Taylor also. I first heard him in a few audiophile compilation discs, and after listening I wanted to know more about this folk singer. I now have five of his albums, and 'Colour To The Moon' is as good a place to start as any. In some ways he reminds me of Mark Knopfler tonally when Mark is singing his more mellow tunes.

On Allan Taylor's web site you can sample snippits from some of his albums. He is best served late at night with the lights low and a glass of your favourite at your side :)

Cheers,

Russ

My favorite album by him right now is Hotels and Dreamers. Color to the Moon is also excellent. Mostly folk ballades, I would think. His voice now is bigger, darker than it was in his albums 30 years ago. The arrangement is a touch bass heavy. Sound quality is as good as anything that came out in the last 5-10 years and better than most, I would say.

I also like the way he sings now better than his older album. I did not know him before I heard his Stockfish recording as well. After that, I checked through ebay and he had quite a number of LPs in the 70's and I ordered a few of those but the sound was quite terrible so I would just stick with his Stockfish stuffs.

His Stockfish recording are all new but I think most of the songs are from his old albums with some reinterpretation and arrangements (for the better, in my opinion).

A bit off topic but on Stockfish label, David Roth's folk, gospel, classic standards are also very nice!

Well, I have learned to lay everything which is called "remaster" aside. I also don't care anymore about MSFL because very often it's just bogus. Completely the same as the original. But why not anyway ? was the original drawn from a 4th generation CD or something ?

There is no remaster I know of which sounds better. But, there's also the categegory of remasters which just make another track of it. Love from the Beatles is an example. Great work, and the material itself remained untouched (for levels, compression).

Sadly there is also the combination of both. For example, the remasters from Yello contain actually new tracks (or mixed so differently that you'd really like those for a bonus), but the quality is so poor that it's a waste. That is why "sadly".

Peter

I disagree a bit with Peter here regarding no remastering that is better than original. I don't have good example of rock/pop/classic rock genre since I don't listen to much of these but a number of albums I have that was released as CDs in the mid 1980's from analogue master presumably with first or early generation AD converter. The original London cast of Les Miserables CD was signficantly worse than the more recent remaster (done in 2002?). I happened to scratch my original disk that I bought in 1986 so I ordered the new remastered one last year and to my surprise, it was a lot better since I still have the original CDs on my hard drive, I could still compare the two version easily. Decca Solti's Ring Cycle was another good example. the original release was ok but it was remastered again in late 1990 or early 2000's I think and then Esoteric remastered it again and released as SACD. Even the CD layer of Esoteric SACD sounds much cleaner than the original CD release.

I agree that some new remaster recordings are pretty bad  and I am not sure why they did not just transcribed the original mastertape without tinkering. However, some remasters are definitely a major improvement over the original one.

I already have the first example of an MFSL which clearly is better ...
... and which should be at the top of classics ...

Iron Butterfly - In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida.

The drum solo just started just now ...

About Love ...

I didn't know it. Just played Da Capo. Exceptional good quality btw (very Byrds like). Although this is officially Phsychedelic Rock ... I don't see that much. Not from this album. Also, there's so many familiar sounds that it's hard for me to find it original. The Who (which I deliberately didn't mention earlier), The Stones. And, while I earlier read about the latter taking a full LP side track recording parallel to the take of this Da Capo, was fairly sure this will have been Sympathy for the Devil of which I ever owned an indeed 20 minute or so version (I think it was a live version). After hearing Revelation I'm even more sure this was the one (but never looked up the age).
But, I sure can imagine that Revelation could make one wild. Great.

I'm going to listen to the other albums too (can't find the first one).

Peter

More about Love,

Their first album came out in 1966, Da Capo in 1967 as well as Forever Changes. They only lasted a few years as a real group, then Arthur Lee fronted a psuedo version of Love from 1968-69 on, and it wasn't very good. Arthur Lee also inspired the Doors early on, and maybe that's what your thinking of, as Sympathy for the Devil wasn't released until a year after Da Capo.

Sympathy for the Devil came out in 1968, and the great live version on "Get Your Ya-Ya's Out!" didn't come out until 1970; it had Mick Taylor on guitar along with Keith. And speaking of the Byrds, back at the time I made a tape where I combined "Lover of the Bayou," the live version with that live "Sympathy for the Devil." Started it out with those great raunchy chords on Lover... and slid it/faded in Sympathy as Lover ended. Great! It could really get you going.... down. I had reel-to-reel tape decks back then, loved them. My favorite was a Tandberg.

I swear you mentioned something about very good remasters of a couple of early Led Zep albums somewhere.

Chris

Suteetat,

Thanks for all the info, I'll definitely try to take a listen to some of his Stockfish recordings (I started to type swordfish but then thought that didn't smell quite right and checked back on your message).

And I agree about the remasters, I've definitely heard some that were significantly better than at least the original transfer to cd (can't say as to the lp as often I didn't know it, or if I did, I didn't remember it clearly enough unless it was particularly good or bad. I've also heard some where I wondered why they bothered.

Chris

Sh*t man, you must be right. I really was very confused at trying to get the to the origins (no matter who was first) of those sounds. The Doors should be in that list definitely. At least L.A. Woman passes by several times per year ... for - how many years ? Cars hiss by my window ...

The rock music from that era (say end 60's up to maybe 71) all carry the same "hollow" nature in the sound. I don't know whether you can perceive that (NOS1 users sure will), and I wonder what it is about. Highs are superb, spatiousness is enorm, and one thing springs from it : genuinity. Not only from the performers (who were in that same psychedelic age as we were of course) but also what was (not) done to the recording. Somehow. You can almost call it superbad sound, but it is super good. Take Syd Barrett. He continued with that GREAT open sound while Pink Floyd went towards today's sound.

About Led Zeppelin remasters ... maybe you are confused with this reply to me from Barry Diament ? :


I just looked it up, and saw that I have a Remaster of Houses of The Holy. Hmm ... must try it.

You can also be confused with my raving about Dread Zeppelin. Great sound, great basses, great fun. Could be better than Led Zeppelin. This is what I tell more often ...

Yeah that's what I read about the Led Zeppelin. Does that mean he produced the originals, not the remasters?

About Love. Don't worry about finding their first album, it only had one or two good songs on it. "My Little Red Book," comes to mind as the song. And yes there is a kind of hollowness to their sound. I hadn't thought of it that way; and it does sound right for the music, whatever that means. But it definitely isn't very "hi-fi." Maybe it's the lack of highs which exposes the hollowness more than if it had those sparkling highs. I have "Forever Changes," playing as I'm writing. It is such a cool album. Not your typical psychedelia or typical anything.

I have some remasters of Jefferson Airplane cds which supposedly were good, I'll have to listen to them for sound quality to see if they have that hollowness, or if not, how they sound. I particularly like their somewhat odd album "After Bathing at Baxter's," or something like that.

So much of my music I have in only digital format (ripped to HDD) and I don't have the info of what it was ripped from originally so I never know exactly which production/remaster whatever I'm listening to. I'm very bad when it comes to record keeping.

Chris

But I said


So, highs *are* sparkling here, but I expect that not to be so on other DACs. This is how The Beatles started to sound normal instead of so grayish, and how Syd Barrett started to sound very interesting instead of a man on drugs only.


The Houses of The Holys remaster sounded fairly ok yesterday, but I guess I don't like the "massiveness" from the tracks of that album. Also there's flanger on tracks that work through in the cymbals, and it is hard to believe that was intended at the recording. At least I never heard it, but then the last time I played it must be over 10 years back (with a much poorer system).


Yes, Barry produced the first three Led Zeppelin CDs. Mind you, not the recordings. On that matter IV will have been from the CD age, while I, II, III were not and had to be done afterwards.

We may think about the reasons for a remaster, apart from a commercial thing and many may want that "new version". Was it done wrong the first time ? Must it be loud(ness)er today ? Do we have better equipment today maybe ? Well, if the latter, I don't believe much that it works out for the better.

Peter, this doesn't make sense to me, unless the NOS1 is adding highs to recordings, or we have different ideas of what those highs are. Because whatever the condition of those highs, I do agree, genuineness does spring from "Da Capo."

If a system is capable of  producing "sparkling highs," why would it choose not to on particular albums, or even tracks. For instance as I'm typing this I'm watching/listening to a concert DVD. It has excerpts from several concerts on it, the first sounded great with "sparkling highs," the next dull and lacking. By the way, what I consider dull lacking highs actually hurt my ears--literally.

Humble Pie was a favorite of mine of the early heavy rock stuff. Loved Steve Marriot's crazed voice. "Rock On," and the next couple of albums.

Chris

Peter,

I just read the other topic in NOS1, which refers to this topic. First off you said "Also it is too far away to make clear or to be understood well, I'm afraid. See Chris's example. He interprets it as plain bad quality sound, while it is exactly the other way around."

I did not interpret it as bad quality sound. I actually find the sound quite good and having that quality of genuineness which you remarked upon. I found that the highs did not sparkle but somehow in this case it was not bothersome.

And maybe that's a clue (the highs did not sparkle but somehow in this case it was not bothersome) to what you were discussing in the other post.

There was a study (Japanese I think) which determined that people reacted differently (with more of a pleasure response) to music that included highs that they could not hear than to the same music without those highs. They were speaking of highs above 20 khz if I remember correctly, but the same principal would apply here.

Perhaps the highs did get recorded but at a very low level and the engineers/producers because of lacking equipment didn't hear them. Now your NOS1 is able to pick them up and reproduce them along with other things the engineers recorded but didn't hear. This might explain why you get the bad with the good.

-Chris

Humble Pie ... early Fleetwood Mac ... yes ! I still regularly must tell my wife that Fleetwood Mac really isn't a womens band. Haha


This is rather unclear to me, but I think I can refer to Physical Graffity as the example (I didn't listen to it for years). This is grayish sound. The opposite from beautiful. This grayisch emerges from smear. But smear where ?
If I look at the evolution of how things happened here, I think I can say that this may not be smear at all, but just a "too close to eachother" high frequencies to work out on a normal system. Of course, high frequencies are high frequencies, but now the level plays a role too. So, hide that (by poor microphones etc.) or have it in. In this case (Physical Graffity) it is in. Too bad, because our systems can't differentiate the high resolution, and *the system* smears it. Until our systems change and can cope, then suddenly it becomes the most profound.

I always have the example of (sweeped) brushes, which seem to be a tough subject for DACs. Two years back I never heard them. Today ? today they blast through the room like crazies. But think what brushes are; IMO this may well be the highest resolution possible because of metal sweeping over a veil with the most fine (animal) structure, and the On/Off of that goes so fast that without care is vanishes totally. This is all a DAC's work; I never changed my amps or speakers ...

It also will depend on the frequencies in there. Take Enigma. Always that very profound grayish sound from sampled cymbals or something. At some stage that improved somewhat to more live cymbals (or more fresh, a litle more sparkling). But further ? it stays exactly the same. A too low resolution to begin with. 8 bit samplers in the synths or something. Vangelis, the same. There are many more of them. But most certainly not all the new "ambient" stuff. Man, each little tweak I apply and those get so much better that you completely won't recognize thise albums anymore.

Nice hobby ..

"I always have the example of (sweeped) brushes, which seem to be a tough subject for DACs."

Peter,

Could you give me a name or two of examples (of common albums that I might own) of the sound of brushes that you are referring to. I understand what you mean by the sound, I think (very delicate but distinctive). On occasion I've heard them sound pretty good from some of my cds, but of course I can't place them at the moment.

Chris

Almost random Jazz ? Oscar Peterson ?

I will try to think of it tonight at playback time.

Just ran into a rather excessive one :
Lisa Ekdahl, Peter Nordahl Trio - Back to Earth / Laziest Girl in Town

Somewhere in the middle the brushes stop for one second; it then becomes sooo quiet ...

Just a second Jazz(ish) I ran tonight ...

Tord Gustavson Trio - The Ground / Reach out and Touch it

But it's really everywhere ...

It may be everywhere (which it is) but not always easy to find when called upon and  not always well recorded, which is what I'm after.

I have this album, as a matter of fact I have a few of the Tord Trio.

-Chris

It is not only about using the brushes at "brushing". But also (or merely) about brushes being used in the first place (also to smash around I mean). If you take the next track from that Tord Gustavson trio you'd have the clear example of that.
But that is 95% of jazz really.

Not that I could perceive that a few years back ...

After playing Love - Forever Changes yesterday, I finally knew ! Apart from perceiving some Pink Floyd influences, it is now totally clear :
The Moody Blues.

:yes:

Not something I really went for ...

You've got to be kidding (that would be yoking in Dutch or is it Danish)? I'm going to have to think long and hard about that and try to hear it in my head, and then kill myself.

-Chris

Haha. I must honestly say I too was disappointed about finding out. I really wanted to add to my previous post "I hope I'm not embarrassing you", but thought that would be silly or something. But hey, the Moody Blues are not The Shadows ... :)

I think it gets really bad when one -in a later stage- went for Neil Diamond. I did, sort of. Half. :blush1: It was that period I bought a couple of Moody Blues as well. Bad youth I guess. Early life crisis.

Somehow this reminds me of a track I was very familiar with at the time : The Motor Cycle Song from Arlo Guthrie (http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/motorcycle-alice.shtml)
I never got around to get this track or album; a friend of mine had it and we played it often. I recall it was quite a longer track than the lyrics (link) imply. Mind you, I must have been 13 or so. I really can't imagine the seriousness I recall. Ok, I must have been 14. Haha.

Ok, I'm getting serious now. First of all I will not admit that I am at the moment while typing this listening to the Moody Blues, since that would imply that I own some of their music. But, if I were listening to them I would tell you that they did not influence LOVE. They don't know what love is, pathos maybe, sentimental hygiene--I mean slush, most likely. Yes that's it. Rather pleasant that "Nights in White Satin" though.  :whistle:

And to further prove to you that the Moodys did not influence Love I did some research. Neither "The Great Rock Discography" by Martin Strong, nor All-Music cited the MBs as influences. They did cite among others, The Byrds, Beatles, Kinks, Zombies, Loving Spoonful and Hollies.

And last but surely least they both started pretty much at the same time and Love's better albums just slightly preceded MB's known albums. It's likely that Love never even **heard MB as they didn't tour and were pretty much strictly an L.A. band in there early and great days (they didn't start touring until after their best days).

Well if we're going to go into music we listened to when we were 13 then let me just say that songs like "Bobby's Girl," and "Poetry in Motion," were one's I might have heard--heard possibly being too neutral a term as a description of my interest at the time. But time may have deranged my memories.

And why in heaven's name do you listen to that long Steve Miller track,  :o  I forget the name, six times a year. I listened to it once after you wrote that and will find it rather difficult to listen to it again. Should I? Did I miss something?

Maybe the MBs were influenced by Love but they didn't know how to show it :unsure:?

**I mean before they produced their first particularly memorable songs on Da Capo.
-Chris

Not to beat the subject to a pulp, but I will unless physically restrained; here's a quote from "Albums, the Stories Behind 50 Years of Great Recording."

"Frequently hailed as a classic of psychedelia, Love's third album, Forever Changes, is actually that much rarer artifact: and album that exists in its own category."

I think this implies at the least no specific influence, or very many influences very well digested and commingled. In other words no stinking badges, er... Moody Blues.

-Chris

Ok, not embarrassed then, but offended. Nah, shocked. Anyway, I can't help it ...


Oh, that's merely just a technical reason. It has a fairly stiff bass, and rather expressed highs on cymbals. Both vary in level along the track, and it gives me a kind of opportunity to judge these matters without the track ending at 4 minutes already. So, this is just on the development department. For the same reason I keep on playing the Zeps regularly, or A Whole Lotta Love once per one-two years. I mean, there's too much other stuff to listen to, but falling back to the same albums or tracks for testing has to happen just the same. Get Yer Ya Ya's Out is another example, and THE example of how much an album can improve, while actually it's a total flat nothing. At first.
But just from the Jimi Hendrix era and some Joe Cocker I'm not able to find anymore, is Led it Bleed. There I was 13 I guess, and only last week I played that heavenly album for about a first time since then. One of the best sounding albums ever, and I bet you won't believe that ... (just the original version)

Back to Love, maybe there's a scandal under the hood similar to Meat Loaf. That is, back at the time it took quite some effort to proove that it really was that other lady singing (Ellen Fowly - had a few albums of her too). Or what about the so many songs Jimmy Page hacked eh ? (I posted about that the other day). So, we really may like those impressive tunes, but half of it is not Led Zeppelin at all, but 50's songs from mostly unknown artists. Not that I care much.
Maybe you do ? haha

hey there young whipper snapper .. don't go a mockin' the Shadows ;)

They produced a number of fine instrumentals tracks in their day. As long as Cliff didn't get into the act they were very easy listening.

The Moody Blues though... that's another level entirely. Aaaah .. Nights in White Satin .. brings back memories :)

Cheers,

Russ

 

The Shadows have a copy act too : Status Quo.
Once upon a time I had over 40 albums of them (all on DAT tape). Until I saw them live. The worst performers.

The best performers ? Uriah Heep.
Ok, that was 8 years or so back.

Strangely enough, I didn't follow Status Quo back in the early 70's when they were at their most popular over in England. I dont think their fan base was all that great over here. A year or so back I saw a TV documentary about them and recognised some of their songs, so went out and bought a few of their more popular albums. Haven't listened to them for a while now though .. too much jazz still to enjoy ;)

Cheers,

Russ

Peter said "But just from the Jimi Hendrix era and some Joe Cocker I'm not able to find anymore, is Led it Bleed. There I was 13 I guess, and only last week I played that heavenly album for about a first time since then."

I do believe that, not for any technical "great sounding," reason, but because it was one of my favorite albums ever and the song "Gimme Shelter," ranks way way up there. For that reason alone, it must have been a very good sounding album.

Tell me more about "Get Your Ya Ya's Out," if you don't mind. It's another album I think very very highly of. You use it for discerning what?

Peter said "Something about "do you care." I can't see it from here and I don't want to edit to find the real quote.

And do I care? not a wit, haha. Partly because I know nothing of the scandals to which you refer. But I do know I heard nothing similar to Love in my musically aware and discerning youth, haha again, (although there is a general MORness to the songs which some might confuse with similarity too...

-Christo, La Aficionado

Let's start with the Moody Blues once again;
Listening to Love (which I really didn't know before) you can feel all over this is not The Moody Blues. The Moody Blues are not pressing some era or whatever. Love does. Pink Floyd does. Even Canned Heat does, to name something from the same era. There are more. But to be honest, and when this is about the type of music we talk about, not even The Beatles do. Stones yes again.
And so it is only disappointing (at least for me) to find that Love just build up their songs, have the same voices, the same kind of rythms, the same kind of overall sound - as The Moody Blues.
All would be similar to liking ABBA. I guess it is about the difference between commercial music and something one stands for ?
Too hard to explain maby.

Having said this, your remark about Gimme Shelter is exactly NOT why I like the SQ of it. This is what one would think generally, but I guess you don't know me then. Just try to think I am trying to create the best SQ i the world, and *then* I would say something like that in stupid fashion only because of some memories ? no. But what I *am* after, is letting these memories sound the best. Like it happened to The beatles (I hope you won't get confused all over), which really sound almost as good as today's good recordings. Almost. But at least a 100 times better as I ever could imagine (a few years back).

Get Yer Ya Ya's out for me is THE example of a most poor flat sounding album, which can sound crazily good afterall. All it really needs is a better playback chain, but which mainly comes down the the DAC. Or I better say it te other way around : without that DAC you will never get there. On LP maybe (I think I said something similar before).
Don't ask me how that emerges, but somehow there must be hidden highs or dynamics or whatever which won't improve by just buying a more expensive DAC. Also, I think it must be related to the impulse response somehow, because at least *that* is the main difference for the NOS1. Can't explain it further, and I can only pass on the message that so, so, sooo many good old recordings exist ... we just didn't know. And the very last one telling/thinking this because of some emotions would be me. Trust me.

That you really can't imagine this is something else, and rather normal of course.
I know you came around in here later than the large topic about the NOS1 development, but if you had followed that you would know what I have experienced throughout that project. About 10 seconds lasting cymbals while normally you hear them 2 seconds or less. And about that not being good because things were over expressed. Wrong. Still the "information" is in there because it could be squeezed out. In the end the NOS1 didn't end up with 10 seconds lasting cymbals, but the 2 was extended to 4 so to speak. So, a lot better, but far away from what can be.
Back then I was talking for a year or so about things I am doing right now. I was talking about being the only one having this sound, just because no such DAC existed (and still doesn't btw). Two months back I couldn't say this anymore, because I wasn't alone anymore, and the only difference was people's amplifiers (for those owning the NOS1 I mean). But lately and just still today ? - it is the same again. I am listening to something nobody has or can. But it won't last long, because the first NOS1-USB ships this week.
Now ? now I am not sure whether cymbals last 10 seconds or maybe only 7, because it is not about that anymore. They are not profound. All fits. And this is how Get Yer Ya Ya's Out turned from a flat dull sounding album into a most fresh and spatious sounding album, where even Charly Watts seems to be a happy smiling man (something must be wrong now hehe). I talked about this longer ago.

Still it is not a good recording, while Let it Bleed is.
And I always use the poor sounding albums to improve.

In the end you *must* be able to feel what I am talking about, because you use an NOS DAC yourself. Why ?
Well, I can tell you, sure not because of its most poor measurements. This is not about your specific DAC, but about all NOS DACs, like today's Audio Notes (but name them, it really doesn't matter). So, like that poor distorting DAC ? Well, now think about such an NOS DAC but now with good measurement figures. What would that change ?? That is the NOS1, or back to the subject, that is what I am listening to, and that is what squeezes out the better from perceivedly poor recordings. Somehow, because I really couldn't predict *that*.
That another interface again can influence this to such a large degree *is* something I could expect, just because I know what the DAC chips do and the only uncertaintly factor is the interface. Next I knew about those cymbals which told me the information is in there. But how to bring it forward without beging aggressive and disturbing after 30 minutes of listening to it.
And *still* I am not ready, because cymbals still are the loudest instruments on stage. Not so through loudspeakers. Yet.

Obsessive Pete

Last night I have been playing Humble Pie (The Immediate years (Natural born Bugie)) and Fleetwood Mac (forgot the name of the album, but the one from 69 with Oh Well on it).

Try this.

It is from the same "hollow sounding" period (end 60's) we talked about before.

You can hear the quality is totally different from today. Like maybe no close mics where ever used.
To me it seems that the resolution may be lacking or something; hard to tell (yet).
But there is really no way I can point out what is wrong with it. The contrary ...

I am playing more of this stuff lately, just because it attracks. But yesterday, after 3 hours of listening to this era music (played a Blue Note Jazz one as well), and after which anybody should be totally dizzy of bad sound, I started to wonder.
I started to wonder why my wife didn't have a single complaint in weeks about my music choise or level.
And so it was time to ask a question :

"Hey, what do you think all this old stuff music differs from today's ?"

The answer was a bit surprising, but still in my own direction :

"This all has more depth. It's less fucked up. Less stressed."

Try it. Try Humble Pie, Fleetwood Mac and Love for that matter. Try to imagine that those sure more readily available highs sound LESS stressed which is extactly how I would describe it. But careful, the "less stressed" is my interpretation of my wife's "less fucked up" which may not be english for this. But the fucked up is meant to be overblown, pumped up, and in the end of course about less compression - a subject I don't think my wife has a clue about (at least we never talk about this).

The importance seems to be that my own idea of "less stressed" which would litteraly be so (and not the fucked up thing), comes down to the same. You can listen to it for hours and hours, with -mind you- a level of highs you really won't run into with modern recordings. It is really creapy because that Blue Note album again showed that sheer "SPL" (I mean sound pressure) on even brushed cymbals.
I must also add that it seems that day by day it is getting "worse" because for me too things are still burning in. If you'd hear that Blue Note album here (I forgot, but it's names something like "Classical Jazz"), you'd say OMG what is happening here ??
I seem to say this to myself each evening when I turn on the music for the first time.

This is not blabbering about any NOS1 or something, but it *is* about the seemingly sheer impossibility that the ever so bad sounding old recordings are so good. But it is also about the for me intrigueing "how to bring across that message".
Chris, take Oh Well. I recall that as the back side of a vinyl single, but here I'm talking about the 9 minute version. Try to imagine that I am telling you that the Spanish Guitar played on there sounds better than your live Spanish Guitar ...
Of course this can't be, but so good it actually is.

It seems totally impossible that so much "data" is in there we never heard. Of which I was sure it were only nice memories why I played it once in a while. I feel "I" am going to change more than just producing better sound. Watch "me" ...

Peter

Peter said "Having said this, your remark about Gimme Shelter is exactly NOT why I like the SQ of it."

Peter, I think you misunderstood me. I was being facetious. I was saying because I liked the album it must have sounded good. I have no idea if it did sound good or not as I wasn't into the technical aspects of sound back then at all. And I wasn't saying/implying anything about why or if you liked it.

But I did listen to it (an older cd version) after your email, and I found that my favorite song sounded the least good. I found many Stones cds to have particularly bad sound although not "Let it Bleed," which sounds quite good, I think it was the later ones in particular, when they changed labels?  A lot of unintended (I hope) distortion--sounded like inner groove distortion all over the lp. It's all a little (lot) hazy in my memory.  I noticed this without particularly thinking about sound at that time (as I mentioned earlier).

Re my disclaimer about being aware/unaware of sound back then. There were a few things I was much too aware of. Inner groove distortion, Wow (of wow and flutter) which I couldn't stand the slightest bit of--I'm real sensitive to out of tune, and rumble.

-Chris

Peter said "Get Yer Ya Ya's out for me is THE example of a most poor flat sounding album, which can sound crazily good afterall. All it really needs is a better playback chain, but which mainly comes down the the DAC."

Then how do you explain that one of the best times I ever had listening to it was in a Subaru (car--do you Subaru in Dutchland?) cranked to the max.  :party: The roo was rockin.  :blob8: "Sympathy for the Devil," in particular. Maybe it's not a question of the DAC at all, but of volume.

-Chris

P.S. I'd crank it right now to test the theory, but it's 1:05 am, and I live in an apt building. Maybe you should test it, it's morning right? How does your wife like a crankin Mick and Keith at 6 a.m. ish?  :censored:   or you for that matter?   :soundsgood: :yahoo:

"Hey, what do you think all this old stuff music differs from today's ?"

The answer was a bit surprising, but still in my own direction :

"This all has more depth. It's less fucked up. Less stressed."

What kind of music is she calling more fucked up, more stressed. In other words what had you normally been listening to? What's the comparison?

I'd been listening to Miles Davis from that period and before, a mixture from a boxed set. It too had what you're calling that "hollow," sound, although it doesn't really sound hollow (that wouldn't be good at all) but I sort of get what you're referring to. Anyway, I was impressed with the sound of many of the tracks on the cd (not all, although none were bad) . I've listened to it several times. It is definitely not at all as let's call it "pristine," as say Tord Gustavsen, or Patricia Barber. But it seems its all there, simple and just the music, buster. I don't know how exactly to put it. Quite different from today, but not necessarily worse.

A way I might put it, this happened with Love, who still has no (I repeat No No No) relation to the Moody Blues in any fashion other than they both were influenced by the MOR sound. Let me start again. On first listen, or rather on a not paying attention listen, one might not go back to the music easily because the sound, "well it doesn't seem very good, and I'd rather listen to great 'sounding,' recordings if I have my druthers since I have too much stuff to listen to anyway."

But if you happen to go back to it and listen more carefully, or you pay attention the first time, you realize that the recording is not a problem after all, as it matter of fact it's quite good, the music is all there. It's just not shiny and sparkly like a new diamond ruby bracelet, or Alfa Romeo--don't ask.

I found "Oh Well," on a Peter Green album, I don't know if it's the same version that you're referring to. I'll give it a listen tomorrow.

-Chris

P.S. Again. I wish I could afford your DAC but... Oh well, probably the rest of my system isn't good enough anyway. Don't want to put a diamond ruby bracelet on a hobo or a girl hobo (hoboette). But I'll tell you resetting up my system, carefully this time, has made a huge difference and sometimes I can't imagine it sounding much better.

By the way, somewhere you said you're English is bad. It is not bad at all, in fact it is very good. Many native English speakers don't write as well as you do. It's just when it gets to technical stuff, because the subject matter is already difficult, it becomes a morass and nightmare at times to figure out what's going on. What's Goin' On?

Btw ... to take out a more often confusion ... dutchland as such does not exist, but I guess the Amish already made the mistake. Or at least what came from it looking at the "dutch" area there (including the dutch flag). So, a few facts :

- In The Netherlands (which is where I am) we speak Dutch.
- One of our neighbours is Germany. There they speak German.
- When "Germany" is pronounced in their own language, it's called Deutschland. Translated into their own language they speak Deutsch.
- The Amish originally are from Germany, but IIRC merely from contries like Swiss (Zwitserland). This group of people is merely oriented about their language which is "High Deutsch" or a form of better pronounced German, habits and attitudes coming along with it.
- When they left for the US, they had to leave from Holland (which is the same as The Netherlands) and possibly had to group up first for a longer period. Why ? because Holland is at the see across the ocean with the US at the other side, and Germany et al is not. And so, in the end the word was spread that these people where from Holland, which they really 100% are not (not even a single one).
- And now areas of the US (main will be west of Philladelphia I think) are called "dutch", with people speaking german, riding in coaches with horses upfront, them originating from Germany/Swiss).
- That The Netherlands played a few roles in the exploration of the US is another matter and actually less known in the US itself. This is not only about The Hudson River area ("owned" by dutch some 400 years back), but also about earlier "discoveries" and the first States emerging.

Did someone say that a few things are confusing ??

Another order of confusement is how the "USA" emerged. As far as I can tell this is all about the more "warrying" countries, like the UK (and others). Although part of the stories, Spain is not amoungst those. However, according to our history books it was Spain who did most of the exploration, Columbus being a first (??) in 1492. But all the Spanish always did was harboring somewhere, greet the Indians, draw it on a map, and leave again. This is not about the literal forming of the States, but of course it is about Europe knowing that America existed in the first place.
That for us it always is confusing that Indians are not form Indy, Indonesians are not from India (which is how we call Indy) either and "Indy" food as how we call it really is from Indonesia is another matter, and who introduced Indy racing, changed that into CART (which really is a small race buggy in which all race historics learn to race), merged it back with Indy to next leave the Indy leage again - it is beyond me. But much of it is about confusing names which look alike.

Which brings me to the Subaru, of which we own one. No good stereo in there though, so no experience with that regarding your remarks. I do seem to have figured out though that a car stereo won't contain a sufficient amount of highs, which allows many music to sound better. A great lack of detail, but it could be perceived as better.
Germany is known to be THE country where most of the highways don't carry a speed limit. It is therefore not uncommon to drive in an unlimited row of cars all driving well over 220Km/h (some 140M/h). I can tell you though that when I drive the Subaru up to its limit (which is around 260/160) no good stereo would be any good anyway. haha. Besides that, I really think that no music is any good at driving at these speeds, because it really needs some attention to "take the highway corners", or look ahead for someone who drives at normal speed when things really can get dangerous, never knowing when that car might prepare to take over another - that one even driving slower. Sorry for that too long sentence. Here, this is not the US where people tend to be polite and stay in there line as long as it takes to grant the other the road. The contrary, here we think "if I don't change line NOW, I might have to break myself".

Peter


PS: By now I know that Pink Floyd's The Wall (normal studio version) sounds way better in MFSL Gold Disc.

Hey Chris, your English isn't too bad either, but you need to brush up on a couple of areas ;-)


Mani :prankster:

Hey Nick, are you there ? before people think a Subaru is anything of a car ...

Do you have a stereo in your supercar ?
(:drool::drool::drool::drool:)

Peter hi,

Your Subaru is defiantly something of a car, I have seen what they can do on tracks and I'm a big fan!

Unless the engine is not running in my car a stereo wouldn't be much use ,on long runs I use ear plugs :o. The Chevy V8 sound track rivals listening to a NOS1 though when i'm in the right mood :) 

The sound system haha  :grazy:

(http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/2782/25072008186.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/38/25072008186.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

So Mani, are you saying I used the wrong form of yer and 2?  Everybody's a critic.

Awl i no sho'nuff ain't nothin. Eye yam sew a shamed.

-Herr Christian

P.S. That's a hint Peter for my upcoming post. Apologies for too much Facetiousness and goofiness will play a prominent part in it.

So Peter, guess what. I am German, that would be Deutsch to you. Ya ich bin ein Deutscher. Ich bin nach der USA als kind.

So why did I say Dutchland? Because I'm goofy, sarchastic, silly and facetious, here, there and everywhere. So of course I know all the stuff you so elaborately put forth. I hope said is well absorbed by someone in need of it; I didn't mean to create yet another subject for you to write about. It's probably not fair of me to do this kind of stuff with language in emails and especially to non-native speakers, but I can't help myself. If I can't have fun writing I end up not writing at all. (And it's no better when I'm speaking, except that critics like Mani can't tell which form of 2 or yer I'm using).

As to the music and American-Japanese Subarus. This buggy had a good sound system in it, not uber good, but very good.

The other night, just after my note about the Get Yer Ya Ya's and loudness issue, I listened to a Wilco album (not in the Subaru). And lo and behold a section started playing that sounded like it had to be turned up to be enjoyed. It sounded cramped and small, insignificant (hard to put into words). But it was only this one part of the album. I couldn't turn it up to test it, as it was early in the morning. The rest of the album sounded fine, big, spacious, nice spread out soundstage at that relatively quiet level.

-Chris

Peter said "Chris, take Oh Well. I recall that as the back side of a vinyl single, but here I'm talking about the 9 minute version. Try to imagine that I am telling you that the Spanish Guitar played on there sounds better than your live Spanish Guitar ...
Of course this can't be, but so good it actually is."

Ok, so I listened to Oh Well. I agree with you in part. The classical guitar sounded really really good, but only for about 30 seconds to a minute at about the 7 minute mark. At about the 5.5 minute mark it sounded lousy, slightly out of tune, and the way it sounds when I'm playing and thinking I can't get this thing in tune today, and it sounds like sh*t. But for some reason at 7 minutes it sounded great. It must have been added in later or something.

The track for the most part sounds like it was recorded in mono. The instruments are right on top of each other.

-Chris

Are Amish allowed to have Internet then ?

Nah, I suppose they don't live in appartments.

haha

Great story Chris.

Oh Well ...

I am doing this by recalling the track from memory :

Yes, I guess you are right that you can hear "overdubbing". But (again, from memory !), what about such a thing being audible *that way* is a characteristic of recording from that time ? Maybe that is part of the "honesty" I dedicate to the music of that era ?
But it is still the most difficult to communicate over, because I only recognize this "honesty" thing lately. Not two years back or something.

I need to play much more music from back then to recognize what it really is about. And an again better playback chain maybe. I mean, I  tried a.o. a few Muddy Waters, but that doesn't sound good at all. But then this is a characteristic of blues I think (who needs good recordings to express blues). Reggae even worse (visit Jamaica and you'll know why).

That's probably true ...who needs good recordings..., however I don't know whether to credit the music or blame the recording engineer for giving me the blues when I listen.

-Chris

It's sound systems like yours (and those big logging truck versions) that are causing me to have to mess around with floating my system, putting it on rollers and hoping it doesn't jiggle its way off and crush me while I sleep :sleeping:, I'd just like you to know.  :old:

-Chris

Looking at this picture once again ... doesn't it say "Standard Definition" somewhere ?
nah ...

Peter you said "PS: By now I know that Pink Floyd's The Wall (normal studio version) sounds way better in MFSL Gold Disc."

Are you serious? If so, how so, i.e. how does it sound better. The version I have already sounds very good. I happen to really like some of "The Wall," very much. Also was one of the best concerts I ever went to, in part due to some unexpected circumstances, and of the course the great overwhelming music/sound/show, "Welcome to the Show."

-Chris

It will be nit picking, but the MFSL Gold version sounds more full. This will be because the original sounds more harsh. Too sharp or something.

I was just looking at Amazon for "The Wall," out of curiousity. I can't believe how many versions there are, including a remaster which will be out in September. Even the Israel Symphony Orchestra and the Ninja Turtles do "The Wall." Ok, maybe not the Ninja Turtles but we do have Pink Floyd En Bossa Nova. I bet they've got a hi-res version too.

-Chris

I think Roy (AUDIODIDAKT) dug op 9 or 11 different versions of Dark Side of The Moon. It's somewhere in this forum.

Chris hi,

I feel your pain or should that be vibration . At least were not neighbours, I say this only because the spark system on the car used to make so much RF when I bought it that it would freez the picture on any televisions nearby. I wouldn't have wanted to add RF problems to the truck related wows of a fellow audio enthusiast. :innocent:

Nick said, "I feel your pain or should that be vibration . At least were not neighbours, I say this only because the spark system on the car used to make so much RF when I bought it that it would freez the picture on any televisions nearby. I wouldn't have wanted to add RF problems to the truck related wows of a fellow audio enthusiast."

Freeze the picture? Really, are you serious? And don't mention wow to this audio enthusiast. Ok, you can, I don't have a turntable anymore.

By the way, as much as I've gotten over cars (and trucks) through the years, I was really impressed by your sound system. And as much as those systems irritate when I'm listening to Astrid Gilberto or Sade, I love the sound of the just barely turning over bass burble of a 407 or Harley, or the sounds of street racing as in "American Graffiti."

-Chris

Hi Chris,

Yes, in the UK we are on digital tv now and the RF just stopped the picture as I drove past - neat feature. I could live with the feature (not watching tv at the time :)  ) but the problem was that the engine ECU wasn't too happy with the RF either. I put in a new spark system and its fixed now.

I am defiantly with you regarding  the 407 and Harley  "sources".... sweat music.

Nick

Btw Chris, did you recognize that the (your) flute is a typicle instrument for beginning 70's (psychedelic) music ?

I don't know how they got that in, but at some stage (don't know what year) it disappeared again too. It doesn't seem to fit the type of music; too classical. But it was profound. Some verry explicit (like Focus, or Back Home from the Golden Earring).

Peter

No I didn't. The only flute I knew of in popular music was Jethro Tull, Yusef Lateef and Herbie Mann, none of which I particularly loved. although Yusef had a few moments and Herbie one album I really liked (At the Village Gate--I think) but the flute playing wasn't particularly terrific or terrific sounding. Actually, suddenly I hear a song in my head, my feet are tapping... (I must have an audiophile quality head) "Going up Country," Canned Heat.

Any of it any good? Golden Earring sounds familiar but I can't place them. Or is it the Steely Dan song I'm thinking of? I used to play a few folk bars wtih folkies and the streets, oops another song is sounding as I write, although I think it was recorder. Jefferson Airplane second album, and LOVE, right? Or am I dreamin'? It's late as usual. I also improvised Vivaldi while people ate at the West Bank Cafe in NYC. I say Vivaldi, because diners asked me if what I was playing was Vivaldi. So... it was.

Coincidentally I went to a concert today (rare event in my parts these days) of flute and organ (church organ). I'm not terribly fond of flute any more, but this was terrific. Who would have thought that organ and flute would go together. When done right, they go together, don't you doubt it young fella! Wow, it was really touching and moving and quite beautiful in parts. Benedetto Marcello or Marcello Benedetto, who knows with them thar Baroque Italians, and a great 8 note octave modern piece by the organist, John Weaver. And of course Bach, but you knew that.

Hey, I'm just sharing, that's what you do here in the U.S., especially in kindergarten and pre-school.

-Chris

All the examples you mention "do the flute" indeed. But with Love as the example (you didn't recognize at first), it's about all of them from that era. Pink Floyd not though (of what my mind tells me).

It also seems to imply that everybody could play the flute. Is it that easy ? ;)

Maybe it is something like those (Indie ?) "snake swearers", where the flute does wonders (but this is about another type of flute of course). Fits "psychedelic" quite well ...

Peter

Flute trivia: Peter Gabriel picked up the flute to "have something to do" while the rest of Genesis did their usual 15min instrumental thing.

Quite a few english rock bands featured the flute. Camel, Genesis, King Crimson, Gentle Giant and of course Jethro Tull. Even mighty Led Zeppelin!

I guess it is their folk music heritage, combined with the fact that many of the british prog rock musicans had proper classical music education.

Here's what my friends said at the time about the flute after trying to play it. "How the hell do you get any sound out of this thing?" Having said that; it's a lot easier than the piano.

Pedal, Led Zeppelin, really? What album, what track? I'll have to give it a listen, as I probably have the track.

-Chris


California Dreaming, Mas and Pas

So, I started thinking just before going to sleep, so why did the flute suddenly appear in popular music?

Here's why (I think). Because it is the most convenient of the intruments that can be played solo to good effect and is also a nice accompaniment instrument.

The other instruments that fit into the musical category include the other woodwinds, maybe the trumpet but probably not, the piano, violin, viola, harp, harpsichord and that's about it.

Of these instruments the only ones reasonably portable (and therefore even a possibility for winning the convenience award) are the woodwinds, violin, viola and trumpet. Of these remaining instruments the flute (and recorder) is the most convenient because it doesn't involve reeds, or two parts (bow and instrument) and relative fragility. After all a good hippie wanted it here and now, good and ready, and easy, which is why the recorder was even more popular out in the fields of Woodstock and other idyllic spots.

The instruments left out altogether are either too loud, too low or high in range, or non-melodic (drums, triangle etc.).

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

-Chris

Well, Chris, it's "the most famous rock song in the world"... Tease, tease.

I have been thinking about it too, *knowing* that I heard it the other day. But it won't come upfront in my mind.

But if you talk about a famous rock song ... it should be Stairway to Heaven. Yes, I think I hear that flute now in my mind ...

Yep, absolutely no question about StH having a flute at the beginning.

Mani.

Hi Peter,

"Living In the Past" by Jethro Tull was ................... .

Joachim