HOLY sh*t (by Bill Evans)

[crisnee]

>>This later result is attributed in part to the use of very steep band filtering in the experiment, to firmly separate the ‘audible’ energy band from the ‘inaudible’.<<

Peter this quote is from the second experiment; the one that refuted the first. In other words, Nishiguchi found that frequencies above 26khz did not effect anyone in a positive way (or in anyway). They used these very steep filters to completely separate the regular from the ultra and used I think all of 6khz to do so (from 20khz to 26khz). They thought this would make the test more reliable. (Just not sure if you got that the quote was from the refuting test).

-Chris

[crisnee]

I'm curious how many of the folks that love hi-res have speakers that reproduce frequencies out to 80khz in a smooth and clean fashion.

And speaking of Holy sh*t. Roy Orbison; For the Lonely. 1988 Rhino Remaster Inglot and Perry.

I've had this disc for years but have only played it in the back ground now and then. I love Roy Orbison, but not to listen to intently or critically.

Well I decided to listen closely last night at 5 a.m., Wow, what recordings, and kudos to the remasterers. If anyone decides to get it don't let the first two tracks discourage you and start you swearing at me and thinking me deaf, dumb and doltish. The first two are mono, thinnish--no sound stage, a bit wooden and boxy but not terrible by any means. But come track three, my room filled from wall to wall. The girls doo wapping and cooing on the right, instruments all over the room, no speakers to be found any where. And old Roy, right there, pretty much in the middle, doing it all. At times I could hear his saliva click, I saw his tonsils (ok maybe not--I didn't really want to anyway). But he's so clear and present at times, you realize he isn't perfect after all. He quavers a bit too much here and there, sometimes he's not completely controlled, sometimes a touch off. But don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. He's superb, just not perfect, but would you expect someone who wears those giant black rimmed glasses to be perfect?

Anyway, if you're at all interested in good old American rock and roll and crooning, Roy if you don't know already, is the other Elvis. Therefore you must get this.

-Chris

[crisnee]

Also, maybe they have better equipment for the hires files.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Feel like explaining a bit more?

-Chris

[PeterSt]

Peter this quote is from the second experiment; the one that refuted the first. In other words, Nishiguchi found that frequencies above 26khz did not effect anyone in a positive way (or in anyway). They used these very steep filters to completely separate the regular from the ultra and used I think all of 6khz to do so (from 20khz to 26khz). They thought this would make the test more reliable. (Just not sure if you got that the quote was from the refuting test).

Hey Chris - Oh yes, I got that. But I guess my post (and ideas) about it are too much the other way around in order to naturally get what I was talking about. So, that (steep) filtering is only for the worse. What I said was something like : now it will sound all so bad (relatively) that for me myself and I there would be no way to (let) judge anything anymore. My brain would have turned completely black, red or yellow (pick one) and no sense could be made out of it.
Of course this is joking a bit, and I really wouldn't know what would happen to those brain pictures, but if it were about perceiving music for the better or for the worse, there would always be the totally annoying because of the filtering. No Q's to adjust, so to speak. It would be too far off.

And then I will have added something like : but hey, this is me, while "you" are listening to such a thing always.

Let me tell you additionally that when I was testing Fidelia the other day, and when I did not find that decent filtering yet, my wife entered the room with the immediate remark what I had done *now*. Woolly, disturbing, shouting, nothing - were her remarks. Completely off, and just that other player, but really normal in-DAC filtering. I will bet you that most people will have quite some problems in differentiating between the filter settings; not so when there's not that other filter behind it. Then they show.

... But all I was saying is that whatever it was they listened to and through whatever filtering means - it can't have been right at all.
But of course I'm indirectly telling you the same about your system, so it can't be that bad.
Although ... No. I am *not* telling *you* so, because at least you don't have that filtering sh*t in there. Other sh*t, but for the better net. Well, that's what I think.

Peter (blahblah)

[Flecko]

Also, maybe they have better equipment for the hires files.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Feel like explaining a bit more?

For example if you have a SACD Player. It depends on the model but some are optimised for DSD and some for PCM. If the player now is optimised for DSD, CD's cannot sound as they could.
(This could be the reason why in audio magazines the SACD sound of a player is rated much higher than CD sound. Maybe DSD is that good, I do not have any experience with that format, but it looks supicious to me.)
If you have such a player you will permanently make the experience that 24/48 sounds better than 16/44. The sound could also be better just due to a maybe better format (DSD insted of PCM) and has nothing to do with sampling rate and bandwidth.
One way to make a listening test without such a bias, is to make it by a computer audio system. It should be an upsampling system too. Because if you use different sample rates, the filters should be different, which would be an advantage for hires again.
I would suggest to use a good hires file and convert it down to 16/44. Now you have two identical files that just differ in sampling rate and bandwidth.

[PeterSt]

And speaking of Holy sh*t. Roy Orbison; For the Lonely. 1988 Rhino Remaster Inglot and Perry.

Couldn't find this one in my library. Instead I'm right now playing the oldest I could find : Roy Orbison Sings Lonely and Blue from 1960. MFSL.

Asked my wife who it would be ... Elvis was the answer. Haha.

Well, sounds great again. Old and old-commercial, but great.

If this is the same wall-to-wall you talked about Chris, then it's my estimate that this one is taken the same as your album there. There's quite some hall added to it. Yes, I recall that from the more commercial music from back then. Moody Blues again spring to mind.

Btw, my father -back at around that time- owned a self brew hall device, and I think it produced the same sound as I hear here. It was a box of some 1.5' long, in there 2 very light (weight) springs of that length. As far as I can recall the signal just went through these springs (1/3" wide and one for each channel I'd say) and there was the hall sound. You could tap on the springs and could hear them making sound.
The shape of the (aluminum) box mattered too. It was trapezium like.
Maybe I'm dreaming if I say I recall that you could see the springs move when music went through (but they should I guess).

Ain't music good for ALL memories !
Peter

[crisnee]

And speaking of Holy sh*t. Roy Orbison; For the Lonely. 1988 Rhino Remaster Inglot and Perry.

Couldn't find this one in my library. Instead I'm right now playing the oldest I could find : Roy Orbison Sings Lonely and Blue from 1960. MFSL.

Asked my wife who it would be ... Elvis was the answer. Haha.

Peter

It's a Rhino compilation of the best of ole' Roy. And I'm glad you're wife recognizes the other Elvis unprompted. By the way, I don't think he was officially referred to as the other Elvis, but there was another guy "Ral Donner," who actually did at times sound almost exactly like Elvis. But don't bother looking him up, he's not worth it, although I did swoon for one song of his.

Spring reverb is what they were called, and yes I think he and his producer did use them, and I think it was all they used.

-Chris

[PeterSt]

Maybe forget about my crazy MP3 idea ...

Last night I deliberately played a 320 MP3 almost throughout (Acoustic Alchemy), and while this is without drums, all sounded rather grayish to me. So, no, I could not imagine this was the best. Ok, a psychological thing plays a role here, because I knew I had the same album uncompressed as well.

When the last track was about to start, I dug up the uncompressed version, and restarted at the 2 but last track.
What a difference ... Complete night and day on the snap, the micro attack, the reality of the (all over same and in the end annoying) guitar.

Ok. So once upon a time there was this time that I could not differentiate between MP3 and uncompressed. This time apparently is history.

Apologizes for the roar ...
Peter

[crisnee]

Maybe forget about my crazy MP3 idea ...

Ok. So once upon a time there was this time that I could not differentiate between MP3 and uncompressed. This time apparently is history.

Peter

Unless of course there's another reason. The difference seems too large for mp3 to be the only reason. Maybe you should do a few more comparisons, you know other albums, other compressors/decoders whatever.

And speaking of Holy Sh*t; I noticed on CA you mentioned Klaus Schulze stuff in the Holy Sh*t category. What is some of his best (tracks or albums) I've not listened to much of that type of music, but I'm always interested in the best of a genre. I do have one of his albums (X).

-Chris

[Calibrator]

What is some of his best (tracks or albums) I've not listened to much of that type of music, but I'm always interested in the best of a genre. I do have one of his albums (X).

G'day Chris,

"Picture Music" from back in '75 is a good example of his work before the electronics hardware started getting too complex. It's one of my favourite's from his early works. A more modern release could be something like the concert "Rheingold - Live At The Loreley" done in '08 and with support vocals by Lisa Gerrard.

KS has an unmistakable signature to his work, and you really can't go wrong with sampling (no pun intended) any of his works.

Enjoy his creativity.

Cheers,

Russ

[PeterSt]

Hiya Chris,

Re Klaus Schulze : something else is the matter here, and I will eloborate about this later. Not too much later, because I'm too eager to tell about it.

Russ, our KS expert here, knows (I think) that I am not too fund of him at all because it (generally) sounds old fashioned to me. Not interesting enough. This is mainly because nothing so much happens in the higher regions, while today quite some "similar" stuff exists that excels there.
But I applied "something" in my system, and now something unbelieveable happened to the lower regions. And I mean unbelieveable. So yes, yesterday I played vol.4 of Contempory Works (I) and it may be the best I ever heard in general. Yes, "suddenly". After that I also managed to play Vol.3 which starts with a 45 minute track. Yes, 45 minutes of 100% the same beat, and nothing much different when I played the synthesizers myself ever back, although I could do it 4 hours in a row.

The strange thing is, that now it is sheerly about the bass which makes this mighty interesting. But, as I noticed now, those highs are in there just the same. So, way into that 45 minute track it is as interesting as other stuff, but I never noticed it (on the Vol.3 just the same btw).

So, we may be raving about highs, some may be raving about bass, but watch out for that real bass. This is about another dimension again. I won't eleborate further now. Not in here.

Re MP3 ... I don't know. Remember my attitude. I'm not only open to this (MP3 is not that bad), but also *wanted* it to work. It-does-not. But man, if you only know how huge the changes have been the last year (or two). And this excludes my bass thingy, because that wasn't there day before yesterday. So theoretically the difference may become more and more.

Peter

[crisnee]

Thanks Russ, Peter. I'll take a listen around. I did listen to "X" which I hadn't listened to in a very long time and it sounded less old-fashioned than I was afraid it would (I was never very fond of that old synth sound which is in part why I didn't get into electronica type stuff back in the day).

Peter I don't see any of the recordings you're referring to available here (in the U.S.). Could they be the same as "La Vie Electronique," of which there seem to be versions 1 through 10 or more. And all seem to be 3 cd sets to boot.

And Peter, what's some of the other more interesting stuff you're referring to. You didn't think I'd let you get away with not naming names did you?

-Chris

[Calibrator]

So yes, yesterday I played vol.4 of Contempory Works (I) and it may be the best I ever heard in general. Yes, "suddenly".

Well now, what better way to test my system rebuild, than a spot of KS magic heh?

The first (short) track certainly has an underlaying bass "drone" in it, which was a hint of what was to come. The second track had his typical soothing rhythmic style, this time with a more defined bass beat. The third track stepped up the tempo and the bass beat became more prevalent, with a repetitive 'da thump thump' throughout most of the track. Similar in some ways to a bass drum, but more tightly damped. The fourth (last) track was very lively, and introduced new sounds and sequences, but still with that underlaying strong bass beat.

There was certainly an emphasis on the bass beat in this album, moreso than typical with most of his works. Perhaps KS discovered a new knob on one of his many synths

It's a good album to test how your system can handle relatively high energy levels in the bass region. For the ultimate test though, you need to try "Woofer Cooker" from the Boston Acoustics Test Disc. A quick google search has revealed a 320kbps MP3 is available here to sample ... http://www.mp3ye.eu/662170_bass-test-cd-woofer-cooker-this-track-can-smoke-woofers-mp3-download.html

Caution is advised!!

Cheers,

Russ

[PeterSt]

Similar in some ways to a bass drum, but more tightly damped.

I can tell you Russ : You have NO clue. Haha.

It is THE album where I discovered for a first time how a bass drum is represented so (SOO) real, while it should be covered by a synth. Ok, maybe sampled sound, but hey, we are talking about "samples" all the time, right ?

So no. I appreciate you rather explicit outlay of this album (or both of them), but it really isn't explicit enough;
I did some more testing yesterday, and I know now. What you will be talking about is how "we" perceive such an album normally. But it is far from good ...

Later (and somewhere else) ...
Peter

[Calibrator]

Yeah, well, I couldn't be 100% certain it wasn't a bass drum sampled by himself or something he had concocted on his Moog, which was why I said "similar"

Regardless of whether it was sampled or created from oscillators, it was a good tight sound, and added a nice touch. It wouldn't surprise me if it was a sample though, as KS used to be a drummer before turning to the electronics, so I'm sure he has the odd drum kit or two still laying around his mansion.

Cheers,

Russ