[TheAnomaly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Dark Side Of The Moon does not belong in an audiophlie albums list. Its a fabulous fabulous album, and deserves the love it gets. But even the best releases of it are still fundamentally flawed. The same applies for any massively re-taped album (like Tubular Bells for example). Sound is simply not good enough no matter how clean the mastering is because the base master tapes quality isnt up to it.

does anybody else agree with this? i would say DSOTM, WYWH, and animals all have pretty good sound quality. maybe not *the best*, but i would definitely say they have good integrity...

 

[mojo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAnomaly /img/forum/go_quote.gif does anybody else agree with this? i would say DSOTM, WYWH, and animals all have pretty good sound quality. maybe not *the best*, but i would definitely say they have good integrity...

I guess it depends what you mean by sound quality.

On the one hand, sure, the mixing and repeated taping has degraded the sound slightly and so compared to more direct or modern recordings it does lack a bit of detail.

On the other hand, it's well mixed, not too loud, and very involving. If you look at it as something that's enjoyable to listen to and undoubtedly a work of genius (both in terms of the music and the way it's been produced) then I'd say it qualifies as audiophile.

I tend to agree with the latter point of view. Sound quality is important (and DSOTM is hardly bad in that respect) but so is the way it's produced, the content and if it invokes a response from the listener.

 

[esbenm]

I just bought "dark side of the moon" and "wish you were here". Ripped them to mp3 for a long trip.

I was shocked at the poor SQ. Especially on "Shine on part" 1 the first half of the song is full of nasty distortion.
One example, the last few bars of music before the vocals start, there is a break and then two drumbeats kick off the vocals "remember when you were young..." That part just drowns in distortion.
DSOTM is better but not high SQ, flat sound, not vibrant.

I know this is mp3 (lame V0) but still. I have one of the new Sony mp3-players and Sennheiser PX100 phones, pretty decent portable equipment. I never have distortion on other mp3's, stuff like the first Portishead album plays with ease.
In fact this setup usually exposes poorly encoded mp3's or bad recordings.
My home stereo is nothing fancy but again, no distortion!

What gives here? Last I heard these albums was probably on vinyl (B&O stereo) I don't remember distortion.
WYWH is a fantastic album, first time I heard it I had recorded in a rush from vinyl to used cassette tape and played it on a cheap-ish AIWA walkman, no distortion just pure musical bliss.

I bought the cd's off cd-wow.com where I get most cd's now. I assume they are remastered as most 70s cd's seem to be now. Are the remaster that bad? I have the remaster of Paul Simon Graceland, they butchered it with the loudness, no dynamics left.

 

[aaron313]

Throwing Copper - Live (as in the band)

This album has its moments of minimalism that are actually quite haunting, and well recorded as far as I can tell. Of course, when you are used to sh_t recordings, then average sounds great, right?

 

[mojo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by esbenm /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was shocked at the poor SQ. Especially on "Shine on part" 1 the first half of the song is full of nasty distortion. One example, the last few bars of music before the vocals start, there is a break and then two drumbeats kick off the vocals "remember when you were young..." That part just drowns in distortion.

I just listened to that part now myself, and it sounds okay. Maybe it is the remaster... Can you post a waveform picture? Say of Time on DSOTM, and I'll try and do the same to compare.

 

[chadbang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAnomaly /img/forum/go_quote.gif does anybody else agree with this? i would say DSOTM, WYWH, and animals all have pretty good sound quality. maybe not *the best*, but i would definitely say they have good integrity...

I have to agree with the statement that the musicality of DSOM transcends it's recording quality, although the recording is excellent in comparison to many rock recordings. And I have to give DSMO special merit, in that it is a STUDIO work - the product on mutiple takes, mixing and mastering. Many "audiophile" albums are strictly two Neuman mics and a jazz band playing live. Sounds great, naturally, but it's not a textured studio album. I think making one of those is harder to pull off. Many audiophiles rave about "Jazz at the Pawnshop" which I would subtitle "An amateur recording primer." That's such a raw recording (two Neuman's stuck someplace" but to the uninitated (e.g. non-tapers) it sounds so "real" so "audiophile" -- "Listen to those glasses 'tink' in the audience!" "You can hear the waiter cough on track three!" Big deal. Take a multitrack recording and make it sing through its mastering and complex structuring and you've impressed. Think how Phil Specter (God bless his murdering heart) put so much together and had it sound so "right" -- which reminds me, an ultimate audiophile album the "Casino Royale" soundtrack. I guess either an original Colgems pressing or the Classic Records vinyl pressing. I had a DVD-A version, but not a DVD-A capable player that would do it justice.

 

[nor_spoon]

Mark Knopfler with Emmylou Harris - All The Roadrunning.
Very good SQ overall, except some distortion a couple of places.

 

[esbenm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just listened to that part now myself, and it sounds okay. Maybe it is the remaster... Can you post a waveform picture? Say of Time on DSOTM, and I'll try and do the same to compare.

That could be fun, but how do I post that (waveform picture)? Please explain I will get it don't worry

I will also do some more serious testing on my stereo and rip lossless etc. and see if that changes anything.

Interesting thread this btw, especially the thrashing of "Stadium Arcadium". What are the "objective" criteria applied for determining if a record is audiophile or not?

 

[mojo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by esbenm /img/forum/go_quote.gif That could be fun, but how do I post that (waveform picture)? Please explain I will get it don't worry

Actually I was hoping you knew

Seriously, what software is used to produce those nice green on black diagrams you see on all the sites about the loudness war?

Here is my grab I made in Audacity:



Just download (it's free), no need to install, open the file and drag the bottom of the display part down to fill the screen. Take a snapshot with Print Screen, paste into some image editing app (I used Paint.NET) and crop it. Upload to ImageShack.

 

[shomie911]

The Killers: Hot Fuss surprised me, it's well recorded and produced.

Plus it's The Killers, their awesome.

 

[TimJo]

I think the Beatles remix album Love is certainly an audiophile quality vinyl release. Listening on headphones is quite an experience.

 

[Callous]

I second

Tool - "Aenima"

Pure amazingness.

 

[eraser_svk]

I dare to list here the Kosheen - Damage (2007). IMHO one of a very few well-mastered electronica albums, without pushing the volume to the edge whilst retaining the details. As I see, 95 percent of albums listed here are out of my taste, pity for me

 

[fatcat28037]

 

[MusicallySilent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif For a country male vocalist reference album I would suggest Willie Nelson's Stardust even though these are not country tunes.

Found that in the closet on vinyl the other day, may have to give it a listen over the summer, ill drag the turn table up to my room and use a cheapish stereo as a preamp as I dont really have any good kit yet

I think we might have some george winston solos too on CD, ill have to dig those up too