[Hershon2000]

I play mainly 60/70's remastered rock & blues stuff & I've gotten to the point where I find it hard to listen to a below average recording such as "A Whiter Shade of Pale". Mind you, I don't like most modern recordings but the sound on the above track I've used for illustration has a muddy type sound, little if no separation of the instruments & basically, for lack of a better word, sparkle.
This isn't a comment on the song which I love but the recording quality. If any of you have come across this problem, is there anything you can do to significantly improve it such as adding some kind of device to your system that will give greater separation to frequencies for example, or tyring to remaster it by burning it onto your computer & trying to change it? Please note, assu,e we're talking about the best available CD recording of the album.

 

[JaZZ]

I ususally edit mediocre recordings with a Wave editor (WaveLab Lite). The main thing I do is equalizing -- a bit more sparkle on top, a dose of low-freqency extension... It often works wonders. But don't expect them -- some recordings remain mediocre. You can't make a muddy recording with lots of distortion more transparent.
.

 

[GreatDane]

I'm not into software solutions but I use a processor made by Aphex that makes old recordings a lot better.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatDane /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not into software solutions but I use a processor made by Aphex that makes old recordings a lot better.

It may indeed work. But be aware that the Aphex exciter adds artificial overtones to the recording, it not just modifies the sound to bring it closer to what the microphones have (or should have) captured. It's an effect device which creates a pleasing effect (comparable to flange, reverb, phasing, chorus, etc.).
.

 

[Hershon2000]

Thanks for the idea but I am a bit confused on a few things (reading the Aphex instructions online didn't help): 1. What cables do I exactly need for inputs & outputs as I don't think O have any inputs or outputs on my equipment for balanced XLR cables (just RCA, toslink & coax). Are there adapters I can use if just XLR or something else? 2. What do I connect this too? Thanks

 

[GreatDane]

Hershon2000,

You'd need 1/4" TS > RCA cables for connecting to normal consumer type gear. This will give an unbalanced connection. The Aphex automatically adapts to unbalanced gear(inputs & outputs).

I use a balanced connection(TRS) from a Central Station then an unbalanced output connection into a Corda Cross-1.

So for unbalanced input & output you'd need four TS>RCA cables.

 

[GreatDane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif It may indeed work. But be aware that the Aphex exciter adds artificial overtones to the recording, it not just modifies the sound to bring it closer to what the microphones have (or should have) captured. It's an effect device which creates a pleasing effect (comparable to flange, reverb, phasing, chorus, etc.). .

I am aware that the 204 is not a purist thing but I'm definitely not a purist. I love my crossfeeds too.

The 204 will surely not be for everyone but for me it works very well. The user can choose to color the source very little leaving much of the signal unchanged for a very sublte effect.

As I've recommended before, there's a review at the Aphex site taken from
Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity by Colin Miller that explains in good detail what the 204 does and how it does it.

 

[Hershon2000]

Thanks for all the info. I'm probably going to get one on Ebay. What is the best way to use the Aural Exciter? Specifically: 1. Do you have it on for all CD's or just the ones that you're not happy with the recorded sound? 2. Can you leave the settings on one regular setting for consistant good sound or do you need to adjust the settings individually for each recording? Thanks for your help.

 

[GreatDane]

When I'm using my Woo Audio 3 tube amp I have the 204 on with processing active at all times. I don't always have the aural exciter portion tuned very high, for instance if I'm listening to my DT-880 which are bright to begin with...for these I normally have the big bottom cranked up quite a bit to make them much bassier.

Once you hook it up and play with it you'll find that it's easy and fun to tweak each new song to your liking. The manual that's included is very good and has useful info beyond the basic use.

 

[pageman99]

Funny you should mention Whiter Shade of Pale, it's in my library as well. I listen to a LOT of early recordings.

I use a Behringer SRC2496 to upsample to 24 bits, 96 hz then have it dither. The difference is simply amazing on older (and newer!) cd's.

Then I run that into a Musiland MD10 DAC, then in to a Mapletree Ear++Purist tube amp.

The beauty is that the SRC2496 can be had for only around $100 plus shipping.

Stuff like the best of Buddy Holly, best of the Rolling Stones (not Hot Rocks) best of Mamas and Papas, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Van Morrison, best of Janis Joplin, Are You Experienced by Hendrix, Brubek's Take Five, Horowitz at Carnegie Hall, now all sound like I'm literally sitting in the recording studio while they are laying down tape. I'm now only limited by the sound reproduction ability of the original tape equipment.

Mind you quite a bit of this effect is from the stunning ability of my Ultrasone 2500's to bring out every last bit of detail from these recordings, but the upsampling and dithering is an invaluable contributor. The beauty is that the SRC doesn't really add any thing of it's own coloring, it just brings out the HIDDEN essence of the original recordings IMHO.

Highly recommended. Just be sure to use coax interconnects, optical just ain't good enough.

PS: the more I think about it, the more I realize that early recordings aren't necessarily bad, it's just more difficult to bring out the essentially beautiful sonic core hidden there. I have hundreds of vinyl albums, bought 30-45 years ago, and I actually NOW like the CD's better.

 

[Hershon2000]

The Behringer SRC 2496 sounds like its definately worth me trying out for the price, thanks for telling me about it. A few questions for you on it. Is it basically a DAC & can you use it for all CDs or do you just use it for old stuff that wasn't recorded that well? Does it automatically upsample to 24 bits 96 or do you have to set this each time? What does dither mean? Thanks again for the info.

 

[pageman99]

http://www.behringer.com/SRC2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG

From the Behringer site. Plus there's a downloadable manual.

Essentially, I use it for all CD's, but this is a matter of personal choice. The beauty is you can choose your own favorite sound signature.

You can use it as a DAC which of course gives analogue out. Or conversely take an analogue signal and convert to digital. Also, of course will take digital in, and give digital out.

There are buttons on the face that let you choose various frequencies and bit rates. Once chosen, they are automatic. The SRC also has a very good internal clock, which really makes a difference if one is using a generic (read inexpensive) DVD/CD player. Or if you have an excellent source you can just choose the source's clock. IMO the clock upgrade alone, is worth the price of the SRC.

Very flexible!

Dither simply mathematically manipulates the bits of a signal is such a way that it smooths the square edges of the source signal. Some like it, some don't. Depends on your system IMO. To me it refines the music, but like any manipulation, at a slight cost in accuracy. Very useful on early digitally recordings IMO. But again the choice is yours.

As you can see you get a lot for your money.

Be aware this is pro studio equipment, which means it doesn't quite have an absolute black background. S/N ratings aren't quite as good as audiophile equipment. On the other hand, for me, when music plays you'd never notice.

Hope this helps.