[TheAnomaly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattopia /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm so glad to have found this thread. I remember buying Californication quite a few years ago, listening to it *once*, getting a headache from the sound quality, and never listening to it again. Always thought it was just me...

of course. along with WTSMG, Californication has the dubious honor of being the worst sounding album of all time

 

[Oliver :)]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattopia /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm so glad to have found this thread. I remember buying Californication quite a few years ago, listening to it *once*, getting a headache from the sound quality, and never listening to it again. Always thought it was just me...

I never thought it was me, I thought my phones were broken

Ok, let's see... 192kbps? That's trading bad for worse in my book, looking at my lossless rip of the mastered CD averaging at about 1000kbps...

 

[Oliver :)]

Ok, that sure is better than the mastered version. Easily heard issues such as the scratching noise around 20 seconds into "Scar Tissue" are not present. Nevertheless, it *is* rather complex matrial, I would love a higher bitrate version...

 

[nikongod]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver /img/forum/go_quote.gif I never thought it was me, I thought my phones were broken Ok, let's see... 192kbps? That's trading bad for worse in my book, looking at my lossless rip of the mastered CD averaging at about 1000kbps...

i think you answered yourself int eh next post.
in some ways 192bps is worse than lossless, but when the CD sounds like absolute garbage, and the 192bps variant sounds like what a good recording ripped at 192bps sounds like....

i would take the "digitally compressed to save space" version over the dynamic range compression version of this album in a heartbeat. i would probably pay full CD price for it too.

i have never been terribly skilled at figuring out which recording was high bitrate and which was low though. the dynamic-range compressed version sounds like poo all the time.

 

[pesciolino]

i have the unmastered californication on 192 mp3 which sounds absolutely fantastic. can only imagine how good it would sound properly mastered...

 

[cosmopragma]

And now the dumb question:
Where do you all get the "unmastered" version of Californication?
In case the answer is against the head-fi rules please send me a PM.

 

[Pars]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAnomaly /img/forum/go_quote.gif of course. along with WTSMG, Californication has the dubious honor of being the worst sounding album of all time

I take it Oasis? Yes, their compression sucks... nice to have an acoustic guitar = stack of Marshalls

 

[Quixizous]

I remember listening to this album back in the year it was released and thinking "Man, did I get a bad copy?" You would think that, considering how much revenue the album was expected to generate, there would have been plenty of people listening to the final mix who might have caught the lousy mastering job.

 

[pesciolino]

try to hunt down the unmastered californication and you'll hear what i mean

 

[pesciolino]

i mean, it sounds almost like a different album, even at 192kb

 

[eduj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by duff138 /img/forum/go_quote.gif isn't it funny that 99% of the people that own it or reviewed it never notice how ****** it sounds?

actually its not funny,its sad

Just search for the "unmastered" californication

 

[funkymonkcp]

It's funny, I was just about to create a thread about this album. A couple weeks ago, I was bitten by the audiophile bug. As I learn how to setup my equipment properly and buy new stuff, I notice more and more the issues with this album. It's my all time favorite album and is what made me discover the Chili Peppers. Since June of '99 I have been a Chili Pepper nut.

I am so bummed about the master of this album. I've been ripping all my Peppers cds and just realized I have the unmastered version too. It got me thinking, which version of this album should I use primarily? I mean, just look at the screenshot I took of a comparison between the cd version of otherside and the unmastered version.

Which would any of you go with? The cd version, lossless highly compressed and clipped version or the unmastered , 192 CBR mp3? Another thing that makes the decision harder is that the unmastered version has differences in the songs, such as differing lyrics, overlays, etc... I know it ultimately comes down to what I think is better to my ears but I just don't know. I listen to this album in my car, on my HD-280 headphones at work, and z-5500 computer speakers with an x-fi at home. I know it's not a very audiophile setup but I'm working on it. Got the HD-280's to start. Aye, so hard to decide.

 

[Rav]

Personally i'd rather listen to a well mastered (or in this case unmastered) mp3 than a badly mastered CD any day of the week.

 

[funkymonkcp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rav /img/forum/go_quote.gif Personally i'd rather listen to a well mastered (or in this case unmastered) mp3 than a badly mastered CD any day of the week.

I've been listening to both versions all day and I definitely prefer the unmastered version, even if it is in a lossy format.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Listen to both... You don't have to make a final decision.

Or try mastering the unmastered version yourself. The instruments could use a little thickening up versus the vocals, IIRC.