[FarFromCentre]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick20 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sir, name me one CD that sounds better with a 2007 remastered issue, than a 80's issue? Just because they didn't have the technology we do now, doesn't make it inferior. Back then, compression was a bad thing, nowadays, it's a good thing (or the "engineers" think so). Back then, not a lot of people bought CD's, therefor the quality of the reproduction is MUCH higher than it is now. Back then, Engineer's actually were trying to reproduce the music in the purest form. Nowadays, this is just the opposite. Please, tell me a CD you have from the 80's, that sounds WORSE than a current (2000+) reissue. -Nick

Just because less people bought CD's back then does not mean that the quality of the transfer will be better. Explain to me how recording equipment has gotten much better since the eighties and the quality of a recording/new master be worse? I can think of many CD's that can sound better than when it first came out in the eighties: 90125, Close To The Edge, Rio, Seven And The Ragged Tiger, TFTO, Big Generator, Fugazi, Misplaced Childhood..... Back in the eighties as I've read and heard, when CD's were new and just coming out, record companies were all scrambling to release old material to CD's and it was often done too quickly without paying too much attention to detail/quality. Sometimes it was just done from a vinyl source, not even the master tapes/tracks were used. Nowadays if it's from a reputable record label, they will have skilled audio pro's remaster the audio from the original master tapes with new, better, audio equipment that is miles beyond what was available in the 80's.

 

[nick20]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FarFromCentre /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just because less people bought CD's back then does not mean that the quality of the transfer will be better. Explain to me how recording equipment has gotten much better since the eighties and the quality of a recording/new master be worse? I can think of many CD's that can sound better than when it first came out in the eighties: 90125, Close To The Edge, Rio, Seven And The Ragged Tiger, TFTO, Big Generator, Fugazi, Misplaced Childhood..... Back in the eighties as I've read and heard, when CD's were new and just coming out, record companies were all scrambling to release old material to CD's and it was often done too quickly without paying too much attention to detail/quality. Sometimes it was just done from a vinyl source, not even the master tapes/tracks were used. Nowadays if it's from a reputable record label, they will have skilled audio pro's remaster the audio from the original master tapes with new, better, audio equipment that is miles beyond what was available in the 80's.

Some people just will never understand...

Would you like to see some comparison graphs between the years difference? I know it doesn't mean a whole lot, but it sure shows how well the "engineers" compress the hell out of CD's, how they are less dynamic, and 5x louder. It's not even close. "engineers" nowadays don't know how to use the full advantage of the current technology, except maybe MFSL, and a few other's.

This is one of those highly subjectice topics I hate to discuss.


Whatever.. I'm done here...

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick20 /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is one of those highly subjectice topics I hate to discuss.

There's nothing subjective about it: there are many CDs today that suffer from terrible compression. It's awful.

But you are making the overstatement or wrong assumption that all modern CDs suffer from this compression/loudness war, which is not true.

--Chris

 

[Piffles]

Well, to get back to answering the original poster's question, I'm quite aware of the "garbage in - garbage out" rule but I would nuance it a bit.

Every element in the sound reproduction chain adds its own "garbage" to the sound, there's no element that will "clean up" the sound. So if you have source + amp + headphones, you get 3 layers of garbage on top of your sound.

In your case, the highest pile of garbage being stacked onto the sound is from your source: the mp3s. But that doesn't mean the sound won't be better by changing headphones. Indeed, if you change headphones for better ones, you will reduce the garbage layer stacked on by the headphones, therefore reducing the overall amount of garbage compared to your previous setup and therefore better sound.

What some people might say is that the headphone garbage layer is negligeable compared to the mp3 garbage layer, therefore reducing the headphone garbage layer will make virtually no difference. Logically sound argument but I don't agree. Headphones make a hell of a difference. And even you do have a crap source, the low garbage level of the headphones will help with any setup, good or bad.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FarFromCentre /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can think of many CD's that can sound better than when it first came out in the eighties: 90125, Close To The Edge, Rio, Seven And The Ragged Tiger, TFTO, Big Generator, Fugazi, Misplaced Childhood.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick20 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some people just will never understand... Would you like to see some comparison graphs between the years difference? I know it doesn't mean a whole lot, but it sure shows how well the "engineers" compress the hell out of CD's, how they are less dynamic, and 5x louder. It's not even close. "engineers" nowadays don't know how to use the full advantage of the current technology, except maybe MFSL, and a few other's.

nick20, you are way off base here. The "loudness war" is certainly a problem, but your overgeneralizations are simply not accurate. You asked FarFromCentre for examples of instances where remasters sound better than the original 80s releases, and he gave you a number of examples. Have you listened to all of the examples that he provided?

Here is a sample from "Siberian Khatru" from the 2003 Rhino remaster of the Yes album "Close to the Edge," which is one of the examples that FarFromCentre gave you of a remaster that he feels sounds better than the original:



This remaster doesn't exhibit any of the compression or loudness problems that you attribute to it.

 

[Rickio]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I think you have to go on a cd or case by case basis. I have heard new remastered cd's which sound like crap. 3 examples I am aware of off the top of my head. The 30's anniversary edition of steve millers - fly like a eagle. they made it muddy and bassy and just simply crap. also the older zz top albums were remastered to sound like the newer zz top with added bass and it sounds weird as all heck! also I heard a new copy of the romantics - in heat , the bass was way over bearing.

I also have the original versions to compare and the new versions definitely suck

I am not calling it a trend I am saying lousy remastering and sound is both old and new. Lot's of older cd's or vinyl also sound lousy hehehe

 

[astro]

There's no right answer for everyone.
You should do a blind test to see if you can hear the difference or not.
I personally can't hear the difference between 128kbps and anything higher than that from blind tests.

 

[dragontooth67]

astro, Just curious, but what kind of setup/headphones do you use?

Everyone else, thanks for the advice. Just curious Nick, how long have you been into the hi-end audio scene? While I appreciate your advice, its seems that the type of tastes you have acquired for CDs must have been acquired over long period of time. I don't expect I will be able to tell a huge difference straight away.

I think the reason I started this thread is because there is another thread started in the Headphone section where someone, who seemed as inexperienced as I am, said he could hear artifacts, poor quality, etc, in his .mp3s through his new hd650s (unamped, if I recall correctly). That is what got me thinking about this topic....

Anyways, thanks again to everyone for the high-quality responses!

 

[monolith]

I think it's important not to let recording quality dictate the music you want to hear. If there's an album you like, finding a good recording of it is great, but I find that some people seek out albums simply because they're recorded well, or conversely don't listen to great albums simply because they're not. That's terrible.

 

[Tarkovsky]

What's this misconception that mastering engineers want to piss all over audiophiles? This a strange obsession with 'purity' of the original performance you have. Especially considering in everything but live recordings their is no original performance. The loudness wars not withstanding compression is often a good thing. But you have to understand there are many different kinds of compression. There is individual compression of instruments that is the product of the coloration of mics or amps used. Then there is compressing music across the frequency spectrum in different bands, or multi-band compression. This is also quite useful in moderation, especially when considering the limitations of the medium, however this is really what your complaining about. In general engineers will up this if the intended listener is going to be listening on a cheap stereo. So if you buy a remaster it's most likely going to be mastered for people who have the gear to enjoy it. Conversely if you buy a Britney Spears CD it's going to be mastered and recorded to make a pleasant sound on poor quality gear.
Oh and on the OP
Yes MP3s sound awful, but get the headphones because they will allow you to hear that and encourage you to get better recordings. Or not. Either way if you want headphones, you're still going to get something out of them, even if it's not as much as you might get from a 192/24 flac.

 

[Joeywhat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by monolith /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it's important not to let recording quality dictate the music you want to hear. If there's an album you like, finding a good recording of it is great, but I find that some people seek out albums simply because they're recorded well, or conversely don't listen to great albums simply because they're not. That's terrible.

How is that terrible? I wouldn't want to listen to Moonlight Sonata if it had been compressed to hell, and recorded with a megaphone...

And people need to remember that it's really not the engineers' fault that the albums are being compressed so much. Remember that they have bosses too. At the end of the day a loud album makes more money. If the engineer can make that album as loud as possible without any noticeable distortion or pumping, he' making his supervisor happy.

 

[dragontooth67]

I couldn't help myself....I swooped up those HD650s autosound posted on eBay...for $230. Seemed like too good of a deal to pass up, given my current situation.

Thanks for all the advice, I will keep you updated on how it works out for me!

 

[variable114]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeywhat /img/forum/go_quote.gif How is that terrible? I wouldn't want to listen to Moonlight Sonata if it had been compressed to hell, and recorded with a megaphone... And people need to remember that it's really not the engineers' fault that the albums are being compressed so much. Remember that they have bosses too. At the end of the day a loud album makes more money. If the engineer can make that album as loud as possible without any noticeable distortion or pumping, he' making his supervisor happy.

because there is more to music than how it's recorded. just like a great movie made with a cheap camcorder would be worth watching.

 

[manaox2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragontooth67 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I couldn't help myself....I swooped up those HD650s autosound posted on eBay...for $230. Seemed like too good of a deal to pass up, given my current situation. Thanks for all the advice, I will keep you updated on how it works out for me!

haha, I saw that. Your going to need a serious amp now though... For $250 -$350... I guess I recommend the Gilmore Lite based on past recommendation. Or a DarkVoice.

 

[monolith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeywhat /img/forum/go_quote.gif How is that terrible? I wouldn't want to listen to Moonlight Sonata if it had been compressed to hell, and recorded with a megaphone... And people need to remember that it's really not the engineers' fault that the albums are being compressed so much. Remember that they have bosses too. At the end of the day a loud album makes more money. If the engineer can make that album as loud as possible without any noticeable distortion or pumping, he' making his supervisor happy.

The moonlight sonata is a beautiful piece of music. I'd want to hear it if the only recording of it available was a 96kbps mp3. Thankfully, this isn't the case, and it's interesting to search for a great recording. Modern rock music is a much better example. With all of the truly excellent music being produced today, a lot of it is naturally compressed and such, and there aren't many alternatives (vinyl pressings being the only real one I can think of). I think it's lame to ignore great music like that just because of the way it's recorded.

The way some people talk about music, I get the impression that before ever listening to anything, they rip the CD and examine the waveform, and if it clips a lot they simply don't listen to it. I understand and support searching for well recorded examples of music you like (can't get enough of my Idlewild South MFSL SACD), but recording quality shouldn't be the ultimate goal. Good music should be.

That's what I think, anyway. Music first.