This more old stuff - or even today's remasters like Waltz for Debby ... they all totally s*ck.
Really? All of the old stuff sucks? -I dont think so.
The oldest hi-rez album I have is probably the 24/96 version of Miles Davis - Relaxin With The Miles Davis Q.
Track 2: You're My Everything. It's a recording from 1956.
You have it too, I think. Give it a listen and tell me if it sucks
What did I just say ? they all s*ck. This one too. Or especially, because of the poor distorted sound and all the anomalies in it;
It :
- Is no Hires at all (hard cut at 22.05);
- Is clipping in each track (not severely, but it does -> fine engineering);
- It does not contain any info under 100Hz, while there's a severe anomaly at 100HZ (should be some kind of hum);
- Sounds as flat as a pancake.
So, it fails all over, and this is what you put forward as an example-of ? I don't get it.
It doesn't matter with which one you come up, because here too, statistics proove that I will judge/write like this about any HiRes (older !) album anyone comes up with. So to be clear : not necessarily about today's.
I hear you say : yea, but this is 1956 ! So what ? read that Waltz for Debby topic I just pointed you at. Same story, although 5 years newer for that particular album, though remember I went back to 1958 I think, and all is just the best. Until, until it is remastered (which is different from a first transfer to CD), may it be just that remaster or a remaster for HiRes (which usually was for multichannel; this Miles Davis too if I see it right in the graphs). Really, I don't even need to look when it's 24/96 (24/192 is another story).
For this reason I want consumers to support hi-rez formats, so the music industry will be encouraged to increase their hi-rez output.
You sound like plugging something ?
It won't happen because it is too late. No digital sound engineers around to do it, and otherwise the tapes have worn out if they can be found at all.
Sooner or later you will get a flat hi-rez transfer of the NHOP mastertapes too.
... which will be the moment I don't play it.
Sadly I don't have the "original" CD album of this Miles Davis, but I can imagine I can dig it up somewhere. Otoh, it costs too much time to obtain the proper one. Like with Waltz for Debby; this example took me around a day to work out which version I have, which is a best one. All others are not at all (just the Redbook versions/remasters) and *still* I couldn't point you to this version. So, never mind.
The latter implies the danger of liking "HiRes" better than that Redbook version you coincidentally have, because it will just be another remaster. So, any remaster sounds completely different, and the one is worse than the other. This means that comparing already is a difficult task because you'd first have to *know* that you have the most original one. Like one which went to CD in the early 80's or so. When people didn't understand how to molest anyway.
I have quite some emails from people like you, who will never give up on their IDEAS of HiRes. It sounds better such and it is better so. A bit of a pitty if such an example isn't HiRes in the first place, don't you think ? This one, by accident, is in the open. Not really my fault, but it is a nice example.
My own example of good HiRes usually is about Beck's Sea Change (24/88). Technically good, but at the 4th track you will be sleeping. And then to think I never compared it with a Redbook version; it's just technically good which is audible in the absolute sense.
Also technically good are a few Alice Cooper albums in 24/192. Here though, it's the problem that it flaws for the recordings themselves (just poor sound, and not my music either). There isn't much more around.
Possibly the DSD originals bring something for the better. But this has its own problems, and the only confidence we can have is that it won't be manipulated (mind you, when original indeed, and which sure will exist).
Peter
