HOLY sh*t (by Bill Evans)

[AlainGr]

Hi Peter,

I admit that when I suggested that the Deep Purple "Machine Head" download had something wrong, I was barely making a supposition about the downmix thing... I tried to put in words what was happening. Of course I would not have ask questions if it was the first time I was listening to that album, but I know it from 38 years ago... And it's a pity because apart from the mix, the sound is way better on that download...

I still am not sure what to understand about the hi-res files in general. Are they all doomed... ? This reminds me of some remastered versions of albums (on CD) I have known for as long as Machine Head - some sound richer, fuller - some others sound compressed to the max and unnatural. It is only when you have either the CD or the download in your hand that you discover the results...

The music industry is renown for extremes - sometimes they can make wonderful recordings, but I don't know if I am too negative about this, most of the time it feels almost fraudulent...

OTOH I am aware that I will not expect too much from the genre ("Rock", that is). Someone mentionned Black Sabbath somewhere. Well, I still listen to them (rarely nowadays) and I do not expect the same SQ as for a classical symphony... The mono-led recording technique used with guitars that were swinging from one channel to the other - all the manipulation (sound-on-sound, echo, etc...) were new and used a lot... It certainly was not hi-fi ;-)

I guess that any remastering will be dependant on the person sitting at the console...

As for SACD, I downloaded a few of them from Blue Coast Records. Many are free and they are offered in DSDIFF format. I don't know if it is the choice of music that is making me feel that way, but it sounds a little "thin" (I don't have the vocabulary to express better what I perceive). But it could be the sound recording technique or the DSD sound signature, I don't know...

Maybe someday the music industry will be more honest with the origins and the techniques applied to an old recording... I am not sure I will be alive to see this though ;-)

Alain



 

 

[PeterSt]

Someone mentionned Black Sabbath somewhere. Well, I still listen to them (rarely nowadays)

Aha, so it was YOU to whom was referred to ?

But honestly, it was to me ...
sorry

[christoffe01]

.
Phasure NOS1 owner already know : Yes, that old stuff suddenly seems to sound "great" while before it just sounded bad to today's well recorded material. But to be honest "great" only means that we can suddenly normally listen to it, and nostalgic values come across.

Peter

Phasure NOS1 owner already know : Yes, that old stuff suddenly seems to sound "great" while before it just sounded bad to today's well recorded material. But to be honest "great" only means that we can suddenly normally listen to it, and nostalgic values come across.
Peter

Hi Peter,
that is new for me, because I didn't listen to the old files since years. The sound of the old CD's even with very good CD Players and other DACs (WEISS) was horrible, and I thought, the Oldies are lost.
I heard one of the first records from Neil Young today and I was surprised, the sound with the NOS1 is amazing. Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, Cream, Blind Faith, Jack Bruce, Stan Getz, Chick Corea, Stanley Clarke, Herbie Hancock, Miles Davis, Dave Grusin etc. are reborn.

Great job. It is time to send the NOS1 for an update to you soonest.

Best
Joachim

[pedal]

I admit that when I suggested that the Deep Purple "Machine Head" download had something wrong, I was barely making a supposition about the downmix thing...

I have noticed this on some hi-rez albums too. Generally I find the (center) vocal to low in level. The reason is that while they spend many expensive studio re-mix hours creating the 5.1 surround mix, they only spend a minute pushing a button to have the 5.1 version downmixed to 2.0... 

I have bought "most" of the DVD-A and DualDiscs of the well known rock/pop/jazz artists, and this is a defect heard on several titles (but not all). Sometimes you notice it only on a couple of tracks, like the YES/Fragile. However my £100,- Frank Sinatra/At The Sands is destroyed by this sh*tty downmix.

But there are a some positive surprises too: The DualDiscs of Brothers In Arms, where (my own) downmix from 5.1 to 2.0 went very well. (Software: DVD Audio Extractor).
Also, its safe to buy the titles who never was made as 5.1, like Neil Young, The Weavers, Muddy Waters, etc.

Someone mentionned Black Sabbath somewhere. Well, I still listen to them (rarely nowadays) and I do not expect the same SQ as for a classical symphony... The mono-led recording technique used with guitars that were swinging from one channel to the other - all the manipulation (sound-on-sound, echo, etc...) were new and used a lot... It certainly was not hi-fi ;-)

The 3 first Sabbath albums have surprisingly good sound. At the time the Black Sabbath guys didnt have a clue about recording technique. They just showed up in the studio and did what they were told. They recorded in a small local studio run by 2 professional engineers who used to work with acoustic instruments. Geezer Butlers bass was way too load, so they unplugged him from his loudspeaker and plugged the bassguitar directly into the (4ch?) mixing console. The first album was recorded on the fly with surprisingly good sound quality. I dont know if the first generation CDs or the later remaster CDs are the best, though.

[AlainGr]

Hi Pedal,

Thanks for pointing the SQ of the first 3 albums (Black Sabbath). Yes, they sound good. My apologies. It was more a joke about comparing rock music to classical music. Maybe I should call it "a biased point of view" on my part :-) Classical music is not my cup of tea, but for reasons I have yet to find, I hope I will learn how to like it someday... Maybe my girlfriend will stop saying how ugly my loudspeakrs are then ;-)

This reminds me of something. The first time I heard about Black Sabbath, it was from the "Master of Reality" album. The fuzz was so present, I was amazed ! The friend owning the album got it through an import (Vertigo label). When I bought my own copy, it was from Warner Brothers and the sound was absolutely not the same. The fuzz was still present, but not to the level of the Vertigo pressing. And there was way too much bass.

I still have a few hundred LPs. My turntable is alas in a box... It has been sitting there for many years now. I consider removing the dust that covers it and have it checked... Too bad the cartridge is not functionnal anymore (the rubber suspension surely had disintegrated)... It is a Grace F9e (it was a Ruby when I bought it, but it was not available anymore that last time I changed the stylus).

Ooops.... I really am far from the subject :-)

I have only few DVDs and I got them because they were included in the CD I was ordering. Up until recently I didn't even bother to extract them. I bought DVD Audio Extractor because I was curious about a Lighthouse album (1 CD, 1 DVD). I like to use it but it is more complicated since I have to enter all the titles myself. I don't "tag" my music. I use the Windows folders for this: Genre/Artist/Volume A/01 songA, 02 song B, etc... I use EAC for extraction and it made me lazy (it gets the infos from an internet database as you surely know).

I just changed my whole sound system and it's a 2 channel ensemble... I am not ready to go through new expenses for a while.

Do you have the Machine Head DVD Audio from 2001 (Rhino) ?

How do you feel when you realize that even after paying more for your music, you get served in second ? That is how I felt after I listened to "Machine Head". The sound is gorgeous, but those fluctuations and the almost total disappearance of the hammond (Jon Lord) is very frustrating...

Regards,

Alain

[pedal]

How do you feel when you realize that even after paying more for your music, you get served in second ? That is how I felt after I listened to "Machine Head". The sound is gorgeous, but those fluctuations and the almost total disappearance of the hammond (Jon Lord) is very frustrating...

I allmost cried from disapointment when I put on Sinatra/At The Sands the first time. It's one of those all-time greatest recordings, where the microphones happend to be at the right place at the right time. (The CD is great sounding). Similar to Bill Evans Waltz for Debby, Folksinger, Harry Belafonte at Carnegie, and other OLD RECORDINGS with fantastic sound and music.

It's important to remember that a 24/96 is only *slightly* better sounding than 16/44, if the master is identical.*
If the master is an inferior downmix, the hi-rez version is wasted money.
If the master is an improved remix, the hi-rez is great value.

I try to google and search for others opinions before I purchace a hi-rez title. Most titles are discussed in detail by users on Steve Hofman Forum and other places. Unfortunately most user reviews are for the 5.1 version, so you must spend some time being a detective.

My dream was to do my own manual downmix from 5.1 to 2.0. I even purchased the software, but never had time to learn it properly, he-he. If we are lucky somebody elsewhere in the world will do it first and share it with us afterwards... ;-)


*The combination of the ARC Prediction function of XX + the filterless NOS1 DAC actually turns your red book CD into virtual "hi-rez" by repairing the high frequency content of the squarewaves in the music. This is done by Phasures propritarian algorithm, and is an unique feature not seen elsewhere.
-So rather than spending your bucks on hi-rez you should use the NOS1 DAC together with first edition CDs without additional compression! Such CDs can be purchased in the 2nd hand market for peanuts.

Yes, I have the Machine Head DVD-A. Which song do you think is worst with regards to "fluctuations and the almost total disappearance of the hammond organ"?

[AlainGr]

Well the most obvious "anomaly" came from "Highway Star", during the intro. Deep Purple traditionally has Blackmore's guitar on one side and the Lord's Hammond on the other. With the original version, the hammond is quite present, but not on the DVD...

I also noted that at the end of "Smoke on the Water", it closes with the drums but on the DVD there are "back and forth" that alters the drum solo to a point where I was wondering if it was really part of the song...

Do you have the "standard" CD also ?

Thanks for the info about the 16/44 - 24/96. I am still in learning mode and from what I read on many forums, the more I read, the more I realize my ignorance :-) But I am willing to understand, as long as there is not too much maths ;-)

Yes, I thought about the NOS, but I got my sound system from one year ago and I need some time to "absorb" the expenses...

Where are you from ?

By the way I noted the amount of memory you have on your PC ! Wow ! I have a RAID hardware card on my desktop (I was tired of having BDOSs with the integrated Intel chip). One SSD for the OS, and 5 x 160GB HDDS for the rest. No, it's not on that PC that XXHE resides - it would be too noisy ;-)

You helped me a lot in explaining how XHE and the NOS work... I can't do better than what the signature shows, because the laptop is not powerful enough to go further. Still I am so amazed at the difference of quality when I compare with JRiver that I was using previously...

Another personal question: Frank Sinatra - Deep Purple... ? Just curious.

Regards,

Alain

[crisnee]

Has anyone listened to the other "great," Bill Evans album? It's another 1961 album "Live from the Vanguard," or something like that. I just have a few tracks from it and I'm not sure of their provenance. They might be from the remaster. "Keepnews Collection," is also part of the title--if that helps.

The reason I ask; The sound is really quite good, but the soundstage is odd, on my tracks anyway (tracks 2-5). It's almost as if I'm sitting behind the players. The bass and drums/cymbals are in the left speaker and the piano in the right. There is nothing really in the center besides audience sounds which at times are quite prominent. There's a lot of rude talking going on, sometimes it sounds like someone is talking right outside my window. It's this audience sound which makes it seem as if I'm sitting behind the performers. By the way, my system throws a very good soundstage normally so I don't think it's the system.

I recently ordered the original cd release (1990-91) so I'll be able to compare, but was just curious as to anyone else's thoughts.

-Chris

[pedal]

Dear Alain,

MACHINE HEAD
I dont have the album as CD (only mp3), but some tracks are common from the ANTHOLOGY 2CD (1991). The best songs from this album I prefere in the live version of Made In Japan. Frankly, I dont care much about SQ on this particular kind of music from the 70s, because I listen to them (a lot) on my iPod/Koss Porta Pro headphones while jogging or through my average car stereo, he-he.

I love this music, but the original sound quality is normally so-so, due to the poor studio equipment and the many tracks and overdubs etc. And perhaps - most important of all - the playback monitoring equipment was far more colored sounding in the early 70s. Loudspeaker cabinets from cheapboard, paper cones and peaky treble drivers. Todays equipment is much more clean sounding and resolved, making those old rock recordings sound dull. (There are a few exceptions, of course).

I love all kinds of music, especially rock and jazz. But also some folk and pop. Not so muc classical, though.

I have been planning to make a list of recommended hi-rez titles I have purchased, but cannot find the time.

PC SPECS
I build my PC last year when I thought it was important to have a very fast/powerful PC, but it seems it is not necessary with the latter versions of XX. A "normal" PC might sound the same. Ask PeterSt.

NOS1 DAC
You should really start saving for a NOS1 DAC. It is really something "special"!


Best regards and good night from Norway!

[AlainGr]

Hi Crisnee,

I would like to help you, but my knowledge about the Bill Evans Trio is quite recent and I did not bother looking for the provenance... But you describe quite well the positioning of the instruments. There is some noise, but as for the level, I am not quite sure...

I think that Peter will be of some help, since he seems to have 2 versions I think ? If it is of some interest, Peter could send you a song from the download I sent him (through filemail) ? Peter, could you ?

Regards,

Alain

[crisnee]

Thanks for your thoughts Alain. I'm really just curious if the original has the same "hole in the center of the soundstage," thing, or if it's a function of a remastering job. It doesn't seem to me that with that kind of hole people would have raved about the recording. I'll find out myself eventually, but was curious if anyone happened to have noticed in the mean time.

-Chris

[PeterSt]

I just noticed your track mailed Alain. I will try it. But probably I have the album as well; must check later today.

As for the "out of the window" Chris, I sure recognize this from the Debby album as well. Especially when you are not in the sweetspot, those voices may come from anywhere at the sides (very explicitly). Btw, I assume you meant windows at the sides.
Anyway, I do not recall holes in the middle or any other real anomalies regarding this.

Yesterday I was almost as far as putting up Frank Sinatra before trying half of a Louis Armstrong album (1965), but after discussing that would be the most outrageous for me, I dug up a Sammy Davis Jr. Am I crazy now ...
At least I have found the music my wife all likes, no matter what is playing. But the explicit remark keeps on popping up : this all sounds so normal. And it is true. Oh, I run into a poor one once in a while, but generally you can't go wrong (but skip the 1923 Armstrong stuff hehe).

A more crazy thing is that there is so much music from back then while it is all from before my ages, that I really have the feeling that I can listen forever to completely new stuff, and can run into real gems we all never heard of. Why never heard of ? because they never sounded good ! They didn't get attention other than half of the world sticking to vinyl probably because of the same reason - those recordings were so OK ?? Still, vinyl wouldn't have done it all the way, because I'm sure that still will sound gray-ish.
And suddenly ... suddenly I have a good reason to aks Mr Van den Hul over and ask for his judgement. This seems more fair than trying to point out that "CD" is better than vinyl.

May someone (with an NOS1) be able to do the comparison : dig up New York Trio. This is stuff recorded with modern technology, but posed in the same era as what we are talking about here. This is explicit, up to how the covers look like. Sounds the best if I had to judge. One month back it would be amongst my best for SQ, and although it still is, compare this with those early 60's. Only then you realize that something is not working with today's technologies. Too much "studio" or something. Too much attention taken. Something like a person with brains behing the sliders, while the brains should be from the players only. Now it's inconsistent.
This may do A LOT to how we perceive music. How it works or how it will not. The whistle level is amazing the past week. It doesn't need any special instrument either.

Sadly I seem to be stuck in a genre which is not one I like to play forever. I mean, after 6 tracks from Sammy Davis Jr. I really heard enough of that (for testing it out), and it seems impossible for me to next try Sinatra. The REAL problem is ... what to put up next then ? I mean, it seems even more impossible to put up Black Sabbath right after this old stuff, which doesn't sound old at all, but which represents an era like Christmas time forever. This is NOT the case at all after playing modern Ray Brown or anything.
The other way around maybe *is* possible. First go ahead with whatever rock if you are at that anyway, and next hop back to the early sixties.

Peter

[crisnee]

"As for the "out of the window" Chris, I sure recognize this from the Debby album as well. Especially when you are not in the sweetspot, those voices may come from anywhere at the sides (very explicitly). Btw, I assume you meant windows at the sides."

Nope, I meant the window right in front of me, between the speakers. There does happen to be a window there, but it's closed with an air conditioner in it.

-Chris

[PeterSt]

I have always said that the first Black Sabbath is one of the best sounding rock recordings I own. Also, that was the very first LP I bought. Btw, my last Black Sabbath is Masters Of Reality. I don't recall whether I stopped because it went downhill or I lost my interest in general, but I played Masters Of Reality the other day, and it really sounds GOOD.

About plugging directly into the mixing console ...
Maybe *that* is the reason that Sabbath Bloody Sabbath sounds so strange ? It somehow won't consistently go along with other albums. The guitars are too sterile, or better put : too well outlined. The fatness has gone from the distortion guitars.
All sounds too thin.

Also, its safe to buy the titles who never was made as 5.1, like Neil Young, The Weavers, Muddy Waters, etc.

Hey hey hey ... Neil Young 24/176.4 easily is at the (my) very top of worst sounding albums ever !!
I also have a 96 Greendale floating about somewhere, but Redbook's Greendale is near the top of best sounding already. I don't even like to try all this misery anymore, because it is s sheer waste of time, and my obsessions lay elsewhere.

The Weavers ? don't tell my wife. I have the hunch that she knows them and next wants to listen to it.
haha

[crisnee]

Peter, have you ever listened to Mapleshade recordings?

I have a few and they're not my favorite music, but I think they're doing something in the recording process which is like the 60's only updated for the 2000's. In fact sometimes I think they've gone too far in that direction, some of their stuff sounds too real, particularly when it comes to reed instruments.

We may think we want our music too sound real when we turn on our music systems, but we don't want a real jazz quartet, (particularly if it includes drum sets and saxophones) playing in our living rooms. Yet that's what parts of Mapleshade recordings sound like, or almost sound like. I think it's actually the much ballyhooed dynamic range that's making it so (they use no compression); could it be that dynamic range can be too wide at times?

In case you don't know, they record directly to tape at 15 ips (or at least did through the early 2000's) then transfer to digital. They don't use any effects.

-Chris