I wonder which headphones they are using... is it my impression or there's a LCD - 2 and a HE - 6?
no, no lcd 2 ...
Edited by Vaipec - 4/27/11 at 8:44am
Regarding CD vs. CD-R - it is a long discussion, which is not relative to this topic.
Just two words: you can't burn properly a CD-R these days in order to obtain a true matrix CD playback quality (perfect pits and stops). The old Yamaha recorders did the 'trick' using the so called Audio Master Quality Recording mode (AMQR) which produces longer pits and stops and cheats the Red Book little bit. Longer pits and stops make playback easier with very low possible jitter, even lower than the matrix CD. Unfortunately there aren't any AMQR capable recorders available anymore. The 'modern' recorders just suck and produce awful copies.
Somewhat Off-Topic... I purchased this album at 176/24 but when I try to play the tracks through my Mac Mini and Yulong D100 (via an optical cable), I get an 88.2kHz stream instead of 176. The FLAC files show up in Fidelia as 176.400 kHz. I converted a few tracks with XLD to Apple Lossless and then loaded into them iTunes, and they also show up as 176.400 kHz.
However, regardless of whether I use Fidelia or iTunes, the Yulong always shows an 88.2kHz stream (via both optical input and USB).
I realize this probably isn't an issue with the media, but if there are other mac users out there who are able to play files at 176, I'd love your suggestions on what to look for.
yesterday I've done some listening, 2 times in a row all the album (only binaural tracks) once with LCD 2 and other with HD - 800.
From that brief listening, I can conclude:
As the record is so spacious, I have to push the volume all the way up, almost to 3 o'clock, with my BCL amping hd - 800 and 1 o'clock with LCD 2. with normal records, to the same perceived volume, its enough 9 an 11.
the percussion is much more visceral with lcd - 2 as with all records. The pinpointing of instruments and voices are MUCH better with LCD - 2, so much that I think something wrong with my second listen (hd - 800) probably i was too sleepy (as the hd-800 was second and late night), I have to do a A - B again, I couldn't believe... supposedly the hd 800 are much more out of head experience with most of my records, so I had the expectation to the same with binaural... no, much better with LCD 2.
I've bought the cd standard, as my dac is the internal bcl usb, only capable of 44, 16 bits, and it's by far the weakest link in chain. So , the drums were quite visceral with my lcd 2, but far from the life experience (last 2 weeks went to 2 life classical concerts, so fresh in memory) I guess with a better amp, source, it could have big improvements.
the front central instruments were always diffuse, principally compared with the back 'channel'
This was a brief 2 times listen, so just a brief impression.
The HD800 already has that sort very spacious presentation "built-in" to the way its tuned which can make it sound very spacious with "normal" music which is usually mixed for speakers but may mess up something that isn't a normal stereo mix. Its like running a signal through a DSP or effect box twice. The second time can mess up the first. The LCD-2 is closer to just playing what it is fed which can be better for things like binaural recordings or the surround sound virtualization used with movies and games.
An interesting comparison would be playing the binaural version on the LCD-2 and the SoundField version on the HD800s. The HD800s might actually do better with the non binaural version.
I just listened to the samples of the 88/24 bits version. Maybe it's just me, but to me, the soundfield versions sounded more binaurally convincing. Maybe the tracks are labelled wrong.The files labelled binaural sounded more muddy, with a less realistically soundstage.
I listened with W1000. I know binaural techniques (I recorded on several occasions with an MD recorder and miniature electret mics in both ears) and most examples found on the Web (you know, the matchbox, the virtual haircut) are far more convincing.