[Stillhart]

Haven't gotten into it, really looking forward to the 5.1 aspect of the album. Wilson is known to be one of the few that gets it "right"? Saw that it came with the digital download and the BD was only 4 bucks more so why not. My first surround album.

What's not important I think is that Wilson's albums gets a nod from the audiophiles. This album is no different in that aspect. As to wether I like the album or not, I'd be lying if I just didn't get into his stuff. Wouldn't call it boring, I was calling the act of abx-ing clips boring.

 
I have a couple of PT's 5.1 albums and they're SUPERB on a real 5.1 setup.  I've never tried them with virtual surround.  I'm really eager to get some of his remasters of the classic Yes albums.  He's quite good at mastering the PT stuff.
 
And yes, I get that you were calling ABX boring.  But his solo stuff is also boring so it shouldn't be any different.  

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

are you sure the files are all from the same master and at the same loudness?
I know it sounds dumb, but they can put totally different masters for each file format. dunno if it's for rights troubles or just to fool people but they sometimes do it.

With the low noise floor of where I'm at and having iems, as far as I can tell yes it is level matched. I have no solid proof but my ears which seems to be ok to hearing very slight differences would say yes. Doesn't the abx plugin work that out?

 

[bigshot]

I got angry at the last two 5.1 remixes I got by Steven Wilson. XTC's "Drums and Wires" sounded like a prog rock album by the time he got done with it. The new wave edge was totally shaved off. And Jethro Tull's "War Child" had mixes that left out important stuff like doubling vocals. In fact, the vocals were mixed exactly the same in every song. I like the old quad mix better. He is on strike two for me.
 
(XTC's "Nonsuch" sucked big time too, but I blame that on the band, not the mix.)

 

[Stillhart]

  I got angry at the last two 5.1 remixes I got by Steven Wilson. XTC's "Drums and Wires" sounded like a prog rock album by the time he got done with it. The new wave edge was totally shaved off. And Jethro Tull's "War Child" had mixes that left out important stuff like doubling vocals. In fact, the vocals were mixed exactly the same in every song. I like the old quad mix better. He is on strike two for me.
 
(XTC's "Nonsuch" sucked big time too, but I blame that on the band, not the mix.)

 
The Yes albums are mastered pretty poorly as it stands.  I'm not sure how much he could mess them up.
 
@Soundsgoodtome , you really need to listen to "In Absentia" and "Stupid Dream" if you like "Deadwing".  "Lightbulb Sun" is also in the same vein tho it's not quite as polished as their later stuff.  "Arriving Somewhere But Not Here" and later are all good too, but I think the first three I mentioned are the solid core.
 
Anyways, sorry for the OT posts.  I'll stop now.  lol
 
On topic:  I'm kind of annoyed that there are people selling HD stuff for so much more than CD quality.  I was, quite frankly, shocked when I saw the price of the HD Led Zeppelin albums.  I don't know how they expect HD to catch on with pricing like that.  Even if it does sound better (which we know is arguable), it doesn't sound THAT much better.

 

[Krutsch]

   
The Yes albums are mastered pretty poorly as it stands.  I'm not sure how much he could mess them up.

 
I thought the SW multi-channel mix of "Close to the Edge" was spectacular - not many albums I've listened to more times than that one and I just loved it.

 

[Stillhart]

   
I thought the SW multi-channel mix of "Close to the Edge" was spectacular - not many albums I've listened to more times than that one and I just loved it.

 
"Close to the Edge" and "The Yes Album" are on my short list.  "Fragile" too if he did that one.  I'm just having trouble validating spending that much on these albums.  I've spent a lot of money on Yes over the years (including concerts and tees) so spending additional money on an album I already own on LP and CD is... tough.  But first-hand reviews from audiophiles saying it's "spectacular" go a long way towards helping my decision!  Thx!  

 

[bigshot]

His remixes would be a lot better if he wasn't remixing Yes.

 

[lamode]

  I hesitate to bring this up again, but I found an article that's a little confusing and I think this is still the best place to ask it.
 
I found an article about Hesitation Marks, Nine Inch Nails last album. Here's the link:
 
http://nineinchnails.tumblr.com/post/59587808317/hesitation-marks-was-mastered-in-two-different
 
Basically, if you bought the CD, you could download an audiophile version (24bits, 48khz) for free.
 
I interpret this article to say that it was impossible to have a modern "loud" album, and have good dynamic range at the same time. It seems they wanted an album that was both loud and had great dynamic range and couldn't do it on a CD. Is redbook not sufficient for this? If you want a loud album with high DR, this article indicates that you'd need more than a CD can address. Is that a correct assessment on my part? If so, is that due to the increased bits, or the increased range?
 
Regardless of what you think of the loudness wars, I really do like NIN stuff mastered loudly. I gave the Audiophile version a listen and it does have the loudness I'd expect of a modern album, and I thought it sounded more detailed and rich than the CD version.

 
Sorry but you seem to be going around in circles.
 
There is NO advantage to HD, ever (as a consumer format). Nothing, zip, nada, nichts, ничего, 沒什麼...

 

[castleofargh]

no audible advantage for the end user at least.

 

[lamode]

 
ABX tests are a seriously flawed methodology.

 
You keep saying that, without any evidence. What was it you were saying about science again?

 

[lamode]

  Here was this debate I was reading which was pretty entertaining: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/digital-music-16-bit-44-khz-explained
 
One thing that should always be taken into account is that a high-res version of anything is almost ALWAYS going to better than its late 80s/early 90s counterpart at 44.1 if they even half-tried to make it decent. We didn't have technology back then to do the downscaling like we do now imo. I'm not saying it is 100% but I have heard some pretty resounding samples. STP's Core album to me sounds a lot better overall in high-res than it does with the old CD for whatever reasons. I'm sure the downscaling there had some issues.

 
You have mentioned 'downscaling' a few times, but again this is basically inaudible. Try comparing a native 24 bit recording with a truncated 16 bit version in an ABX test and see how you go. You won't hear a difference. Yes, we have some more advanced dithering techniques now compared to in the 80s but all that does is drive down the noise floor even lower.
 
As for 24/96 to 16/44 conversion, that wasn't an issue in the 80s anyway.

 

[lamode]

 

2002/2003

During the recording of Mahler´s 2nd Symphony (Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, Gilbert Kaplan, released on Deutsche Grammophon CD 474 380-2, SACD 477 594-2) in the Musikvereinssaal, Vienna, the whole recording sequence is carried out by using both PCM and DSD technology following the microphone. To exclude sound variations by different A/D converters, the team uses special converters capable of dealing with both formats. The result of the subsequent listening comparisons by double-blind test is as straight-forward as sobering: There is no difference whatsoever.

 
Which many of us have been saying for a long time.
 
However, there are technical disadvantages to DSD (such as incompatibility with DSP) which makes me wish this format would die ASAP.

 

[kraken2109]

I find Porcupine Tree and Steven Wilson's solo stuff are all produced really well. I haven't listened to his remasters of other bands though. The SW and PT surround mixes are great though.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
Which many of us have been saying for a long time.
 
However, there are technical disadvantages to DSD (such as incompatibility with DSP) which makes me wish this format would die ASAP.

I like DSD particularly for the fact that it can not be mangled with PCM>DSP every time some computer geek would like to sell yet another DSP software of one kind or another.
 
IF you personally can fathom the thought of making a recording and playing it back without any computer (except the recorder)  within miles, then you might, just perhaps might start hearing the advantages of DSD over PCM. With live mike feed as a reference. And not remasters of masters done by third and fourth party, at and during which you most definitely were never present.
 
If you have to PCM>ABX>DSP everything before it ever reaches your ears, that is the same as saying decent (not necessary expensive) restaurants should die ASAP because they do not conform to the "standards" of McDonald's. Which is to say the lowest possible common denominator.
 
I do try to not use the word "you" as much as possible. In this post, it is very much intentional and adressed to you personally - because you are doing anything possible to tar and feather DSD, most probably before you heard it done right and properly demoed vs properly done PCM.
 
I am not familiar with the Mahler/Kaplan recording on DG - because DG is NOT the record label generally known for sound quality. Its forte are good to excellent musical performances of mainly core classical repertoire. But I do have Kaplan's first effort recorded by Tony Faulkner.  There is a reason WHY the recordings from DG reissued on vinyl are almost invisible in number compared to Decca, RCA, Mercury, Westminster, etc - and fast forward to present day, DG sound has not changed much - in some cases, it has become even worse. Utilizing the advantages of which DSD is capable of does require more understanding of the recording process than the usual DG issues are displaying. Having said this, PCM vs DSD test, if carried out by DG in their usual ways, bears very little weight for me. By the time signal hit the recorders, either PCM or DSD, it was all over. 

 

[RRod]

  I like DSD particularly for the fact that it can not be mangled with PCM>DSP every time some computer geek would like to sell yet another DSP software of one kind or another.
 
IF you personally can fathom the thought of making a recording and playing it back without any computer (except the recorder)  within miles, then you might, just perhaps might start hearing the advantages of DSD over PCM. With live mike feed as a reference. And not remasters of masters done by third and fourth party, at and during which you most definitely were never present.

 
[redacted] Oh nm, it's you analog