or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Zero Audio - ZH-DX200 Carbo Tenore | ZH-DX210 Carbo Basso (Carbon & Aluminium IEM) thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Zero Audio - ZH-DX200 Carbo Tenore | ZH-DX210 Carbo Basso (Carbon & Aluminium IEM) thread - Page 198

Poll Results: Which one would you order??

 
  • 74% (281)
    Carbo Tenore
  • 25% (98)
    Carbo Basso
379 Total Votes  
post #2956 of 5986
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post

Have you guys heard Thriller remastered?  It's pretty damn good.  I have a box set of Micheal Jackson Remastered, it's amazzzin.  Dynamics and separation are crazy.




And Daft Punk, so dynamic and well mastered.   L3000.gif



I'll admit I was skeptical about the MJ remasters, but I'll check it out. People always talked up the original CD release.
post #2957 of 5986
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post


I'll admit I was skeptical about the MJ remasters, but I'll check it out. People always talked up the original CD release.

Yes, they are worth it.  My best source is ODAC>O2 and nothing seams to beat it.  Is that your reference source for iems also?


Edited by SilverEars - 6/20/14 at 9:39pm
post #2958 of 5986

In terms of raw recording.  Love recordings like this.  It's just raw and amazingly real and detailed.

 

 

 

And extremely detailed vocals.  Are they doing anything special with their recordings? I'm not a recording specialist so I don't know, but clarity and details are just striking.

 

post #2959 of 5986
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post

I actually really like the Tenores at low volumes... *hides*
Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgunshane View Post

The bassier variants sound much better at higher volumes. However with james444 tip mod or s200 tips, low volume listening is pretty good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

Me too

 

x4. My modded Tenores sounds pretty good at low volume, plus they're very comfy for nighttime listening.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post
 

 

This is some of my favorite ear candy. The tenores sound so good with this stuff.

 

 

^ That's a timeless classic, but I actually like his latest album a lot too:

 

 

My favorite line: "I took you out of the ghetto, but I could not get that ghetto out of you"

 

post #2960 of 5986
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post

Have you guys heard Thriller remastered?  It's pretty damn good.  I have a box set of Micheal Jackson Remastered, it's amazzzin.  Dynamics and separation are crazy.




And Daft Punk, so dynamic and well mastered.   L3000.gif


I'll admit I was skeptical about the MJ remasters, but I'll check it out. People always talked up the original CD release.

 

No!  What?! My god no! The new remasters are 100% identical to the original CDs with added dynamic compression. I'd compared them, they're crap as a remaster. As a CD in general they aren't bad. They're not uber compressed or anything. But the fact that they pass as a remaster is crap. Nothing was done to them but compression. The original CDs sound a touch more open and natural. Doesn't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise. :-P

 

Sorry if I seem harsh, but I compare CDs extensively and this sort of thing really irritates me. The artist almost never has a say in these remasters and the companies simply make them louder because people immediately assume a louder version is better. They label it a "remaster" and sell it all over again.

 

Now to be critical, his remasters compared to modern CDs will sound very dynamic and awesome. But take that to the next level with the originals.

post #2961 of 5986
Thats usually the case, remasters are worse than the originals
post #2962 of 5986
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post
 

 

No!  What?! My god no! The new remasters are 100% identical to the original CDs with added dynamic compression. I'd compared them, they're crap as a remaster. As a CD in general they aren't bad. They're not uber compressed or anything. But the fact that they pass as a remaster is crap. Nothing was done to them but compression. The original CDs sound a touch more open and natural. Doesn't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise. :-P

 

Sorry if I seem harsh, but I compare CDs extensively and this sort of thing really irritates me. The artist almost never has a say in these remasters and the companies simply make them louder because people immediately assume a louder version is better. They label it a "remaster" and sell it all over again.

 

Now to be critical, his remasters compared to modern CDs will sound very dynamic and awesome. But take that to the next level with the originals.

So you're saying specifically Michael Jackson SACD remaster is the same as the original?  :o  I've heard about bad remasters, and heard them.


Edited by SilverEars - 6/20/14 at 10:22pm
post #2963 of 5986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

Thats usually the case, remasters are worse than the originals

 

Yes. Most of the time. Sometime you get lucky and get someone who cares about the album and does it right.

 

Here's michael jackson's "speed demon" off the Bad album. This is one of my test tracks for headphones "because" it's so damn dynamic and awesome sounding. The top is the remaster the bottom is the original:

 

Not only is it compressed, but the difference between the "meat" of the center waveform and the peaks is less due to the over-compression/limiting. So when they increased the volume to the max, they then pushed the sound further in volume by squeezing the sound against the ceiling even more (that's what compression does). If that's your opinion of a great remaster, o.k. I'd throw it in the garbage and buy the original personally.

 

For a better idea of the level of compression I've "normalized" the original CD in this screenshot. If you aren't familiar with normalization, it is making it as loud as it goes "without" compression or limiting. This is the equivalent of turning up the volume digitally to the max level before any distortion. In audio engineering this is considered to have no affect on the quality of the sound unlike compression.

 

You can see with the original CD normalized, there is still a lot more room between the low and high amplitude sounds. In other words, a lot more dynamics. Otherwise there are no frequency changes, no sampling differences, no bit-depth improvements... nothing. Bad remaster.

post #2964 of 5986

Yes, I've heard of loudness wars where you change the amplitude.

post #2965 of 5986
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

For a better idea of the level of compression I've "normalized" the original CD in this screenshot. If you aren't familiar with normalization, it is making it as loud as it goes "without" compression or limiting. This is the equivalent of turning up the volume digitally to the max level before any distortion. In audio engineering this is considered to have no affect on the quality of the sound unlike compression.

 

You can see with the original CD normalized, there is still a lot more room between the low and high amplitude sounds. In other words, a lot more dynamics. Otherwise there are no frequency changes, no sampling differences, no bit-depth improvements... nothing. Bad remaster.

 

That's pretty interesting. Have you heard the original CD and the remastered, and do they sound as obviously different as those charts suggest?

post #2966 of 5986
Thanks luisdent! Very nice read.
post #2967 of 5986
Quote:
Originally Posted by waynes world View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

For a better idea of the level of compression I've "normalized" the original CD in this screenshot. If you aren't familiar with normalization, it is making it as loud as it goes "without" compression or limiting. This is the equivalent of turning up the volume digitally to the max level before any distortion. In audio engineering this is considered to have no affect on the quality of the sound unlike compression.

 

You can see with the original CD normalized, there is still a lot more room between the low and high amplitude sounds. In other words, a lot more dynamics. Otherwise there are no frequency changes, no sampling differences, no bit-depth improvements... nothing. Bad remaster.

 

That's pretty interesting. Have you heard the original CD and the remastered, and do they sound as obviously different as those charts suggest?

 

Those are screenshots from my original and remastered CDs. :-P hehe.

 

And no, I would say that ironically they don't sound as drastic as the charts suggest. In volume? Maybe. In dynamics? I think that would depend on the listener. I hear the difference easily, but I'm very familiar with the effect and have a lot of experience comparing CDs of all different compression levels. Not to mention I use compressors (for different reasons) in audio mixing. I think most people with a good ear for "differences" in general would hear it.

 

In reality, the remasters aren't very heavily compressed compared to most modern CDs. So I can completely understand why someone would hear them and think they sound excellent. But that doesn't mean they sound "as" excellent as the originals :-P And I apologize if my original post on compression came off poorly. It's late, and I'm sure you can guess how I look at the subject. ha Let me find a more drastic example...

post #2968 of 5986

^ Thanks :)

post #2969 of 5986
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post
 

 

Those are screenshots from my original and remastered CDs. :-P hehe.

 

And no, I would say that ironically they don't sound as drastic as the charts suggest. In volume? Maybe. In dynamics? I think that would depend on the listener. I hear the difference easily, but I'm very familiar with the effect and have a lot of experience comparing CDs of all different compression levels. Not to mention I use compressors (for different reasons) in audio mixing. I think most people with a good ear for "differences" in general would hear it.

 

In reality, the remasters aren't very heavily compressed compared to most modern CDs. So I can completely understand why someone would hear them and think they sound excellent. But that doesn't mean they sound "as" excellent as the originals :-P And I apologize if my original post on compression came off poorly. It's late, and I'm sure you can guess how I look at the subject. ha Let me find a more drastic example...

Can you tell us if you hear excellence or not, or see it on the time domain?  If you hear it as excellent and look at the time domain, does it change your mind as not so?

post #2970 of 5986

O.k. Here's one of my biggest disappointments in remaster history. ha.

 

Days of Future Passed by the Moody Blues.

 

This is one of my favorite CDs of all time. As such, I have always wanted the best quality version of the CD. I own six versions of this CD (4 stereo mixes and 2 surround mixes).

 

The original CD is very good in terms of aural quality, but it has problems from tape glitches, weird noises here and there and some arrangement differences. But the main portion of the audio is clean and good. The 1997 remaster is one of the best remasters I've heard. No noise reduction, no compression. They took the original tapes, re-transfered them and got a similar sound to the original CD, but without the noises and whatnot. They even transferred it better (there are may ways to transfer from a master tape) and very slightly improved the overall sound quality as well. The mobile fidelity version of the CD is almost identical to the 1997 remaster, because they also did a raw transfer of the master tape and eliminated the noises, etc. But mobile fidelity used a higher speed transfer, which results in more information per unit of sound put on tape. The results is a very slight (I'm talking very slight) improvement in smoothness and naturalness.

 

These three CDs are great. Then comes the SACD. The SACD is very "clean" and sounds very good in surround. However, the DTS surround sound mix is better with dynamics. Both the surround sound SACD and the stereo SACD that it comes with are very dynamically compressed. This isn't as bothersome on the SACD surround mix, as it is a different mix all together and interesting to hear. However, the DTS surround mix has a lot more depth and dynamics, but the audio isn't as "clean", noise free, etc. I still prefer the DTS mix personally as it is clean enough and sounds superb.

 

Anyhow, take a look at the history of this CD. I have omitted the original because the arrangement is different and the waveforms don't match up. But it looks essentially the same as the first two anyway. This is the final track, nights in white satin. The top is the mobile fideilty CD, the middle is the 1997 remaster, the bottom is the stereo layer of the SACD. This is a freaking SACD we're talking about. As I mentioned before in a previous post, the technology is only as good as the master.

 

 

Now this CD is very obvious to my ears. The SACD stereo layer is the exact same "audio" from the source and the sound overall is the same in terms of the transfer. But then it is compressed to hell. The song sounds lifeless, nothing stands out nicely in the mix, the sound is fatiguing after a while. It's dog mess. The engineer should be fired.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Zero Audio - ZH-DX200 Carbo Tenore | ZH-DX210 Carbo Basso (Carbon & Aluminium IEM) thread