[AnyDave]

   
loudness war is a fact , no question about it.
 
as for your 'every era has great music' point, i think that yes, every era has ****ty music and mediocre music but today's 'great' music is not so great compared to the great music made in the 60s-90s
 
feel free to write me your top-20 albums from the 00s/10s and watch how they get easily demolished by music made in the 60s-90s

what is true, is that each era produces music influenced by their times and this is the era of hype , dumbing down and labeling a 6/10 as a 9/10
 
there are exceptions sure, but they only confirm the rule i just mentioned
 
what is great about today though, is how you can search through say rateyourmusic.com and discover amazing albums that have gone kinda un-noticed when they were released back in the 60s-90s

but as for today , i see what (the hyped media) labels as 'genius/masterpiece' and i don't know whether i should laugh or cry about the 'great' music that is fed to today's listener
 
btw, i am just 40 yo , so it's not some nostalgia thing for the golden days of my youth back in the 60s 
 
i first listened to music on a serious level back in the 90s and after feeling a huge dissapointment with how ****ty music began turning out from 00s onward , i decided to dig back to the 60s-80s and i can not be happier 
 
if you think that Kanye west or lady gaga or tame impala or beyonce are 'titans/genius' , well you are lucky - but when you have listened to really groundbreaing stuff by real titans , i can't help but make a huge facepalm every time someone says oh man (insert mediocre hyped artist) is a genius 

 
cheers 

(btw , i can include my top-100 albums list and you can see how music breaks down by decades - after 1999 it looks like a bomb fell on 'creativity land'

 
Music, like many art forms, is a very personal thing that tends to reach people emotionally.  What reaches you or me may not reach somebody else the same way.  I suppose I could make a list of top albums for comparison purposes, although I don't really consume music that way, and I don't really think of things as this era vs. that era.  Music often reflects a slice of time and constantly evolves.  It's perfectly reasonable that not all musical styles and eras will appeal to everybody.
 
I'm the same age as you, so I sometimes identify more with music that I grew up with than with a lot of music that's released today, but that's a fairly common human reaction, I think.  Luckily, I was exposed to music from many different eras growing up; I spend a significant amount of my very early childhood attending orchestral performances (CSO mainly) and spent a lot of time in high school going to rock shows, while being in various rock bands and performing classical and jazz music.  I think this helps me keep an open mind and try to sift out what I like from any era.
 
I do agree that there are certainly some areas where creativity has seemed to stall, but I think that often can happen with music that is marketed to the masses; it certainly didn't start in 1999 (I remember the 80's).  Sometimes the most creativity is found outside of anything that you would hear on the radio (I suspect this is what you are referring to as "exceptions").

 

[luisdent]

I didnt like their later music as much. I only have that album, but it's one of my favorites. Even the compressed cd sounds great to me. It's just a well played and mixed album. The new SACD master i recorded is like hearing it new again.


Many of my SACDs are my favorite masters. I don't even care about the surround as much sometimes, as hearing the original stereo mixes in better quality is just great. I do like some surround mixes though like billy joel and james taylor. But even with all the excellent surround music i have, I don't feel like I'm missing much with a well recorded stereo mix. A great mix can make you think there is a center channel already. So it's already 3.1 and even alan parsons (one of the best engineers, imo) swears all you need for true surround is four speakers placed correctly in a good listening room. I agree.


Sometimes it's easy to get caught up in technological advancements and forget to make the most of what you already have. Some of the best music was made because of limitations. The recording of dave brubek's time out is interesting. Very minimal studio setup in a limited time budget. But the technique gave incredible results for the age of the recording.


Anyway, i just like that SACD typically caters the mastering to be like the studio recording itself. And stereo SACDs let you enjoy them with the er4sr. I'm not sold on the fancy DSD sound, as some SACDs sound identical to the CD counterparts. I've even ab'd some. It's like they slapped the exact same master onto a different disc and sold it for twice the price.


There will always be people who think it sounds better because its a SACD, but unless it's a better master or surround, I don't want it

I think the biggest issue with so many of the high res vs. redbook comparisons is that so many of the high res versions are remastered.  As you point out, this has a much more profound effect on the sound quality than a change in sample rate or word depth.  I've thought about setting up a controlled listening test to compare 96/24 vs 44/16 but haven't had time to do it.

As an engineer i constantly mix down multitrack projects fully recorded at 24/96 24/192. I've even recorded certain projects at 16/44. The difference is much more obvious (but still small) during mixing. The higher 24-bit is the biggest difference in the headroom it offers. The sample rate not so much.

With 60 tracks recorded at 16-bit the dynamic range is less which increases the noise floor. That adds up when you add 60 tracks together. But bouncing down the final mix from 24 to 16 bit is not very noticeable. It might be under extreme conditions, but even with good gear I've never felt I've lost anything audible mixing down a project. And i have done a/b conparisons personally. I'd definitely do it, but it's absolutely critical it is a double blind volume matched test worh a good sample pool or number of guesses.

As for music i believe there is simply more music nowadays due to the simplicity of recording and getting it out there. But i am pretty picky and i still find there is great music today. It seems hard to find, but then so is good old music if you look past the commonly accepted "great" albums. I used to say that music was crap today, and the 2000 era seems the worst in my mind, but I think sometimes that is because great music is overshadowed by popular music.

But it is dependant on your personal preferences as well. I might love orchestral soundtracks snd therefore the last 10-15 years has been excellent with amazing hans zimmer, james horner, and other excellent soundtracks. Inalso love 70s prog rock, but that era has passed for the most part and music is just different now. Luckily some amazing artists like steven wilson have come around and brought back a similar style to that with the best recording quality out here to boot.

I just say listen to what you love and enjoy it. Of course, this is best done using your er4sr

 

[AnyDave]

As an engineer i constantly mix down multitrack projects fully recorded at 24/96 24/192. I've even recorded certain projects at 16/44. The difference is much more obvious (but still small) during mixing. The higher 24-bit is the biggest difference in the headroom it offers. The sample rate not so much.

With 60 tracks recorded at 16-bit the dynamic range is less which increases the noise floor. That adds up when you add 60 tracks together. But bouncing down the final mix from 24 to 16 bit is not very noticeable. It might be under extreme conditions, but even with good gear I've never felt I've lost anything audible mixing down a project. And i have done a/b conparisons personally. I'd definitely do it, but it's absolutely critical it is a double blind volume matched test worh a good sample pool or number of guesses.

 
Yeah, there are many practical reasons to record in 24 bit even if you are going to mix down to 16 bit at the end.  More available headroom being the obvious one.  I've never heard anybody argue against that, even the diehard "high resolution is pointless" crowd.  The real debate begins with 16 bit vs. 24 bit on recorded media.

 

[castleofargh]

16/44 is good enough for me even after I've applied replay gain and lowered further down for some EQ. even then I don't have any noticeable noise at my usual listening levels(and I'm pretty obsessed with background noises).  I'd go with 13/37 for the lolz and still be fine for most uses.
but yeah, crappy masterings are crap whatever the resolution. and great songs are great in mp3 on a mono speaker in a bar with people shouting. I never got why sound engineers didn't get more fame and love when they're clearly part of the actual magic of a band.

 

[luisdent]

Many people may not realize that the actual reason 16/44 was chosen for the cd specification is that studies were done that showed that 16/44 was the point at which any further resolution was inaudible to listeners.

It all has to do with the nyquist theory.

http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/MusicAndComputers/chapter2/02_03.php

https://www.dsprelated.com/freebooks/mdft/Sampling_Theory.html

You can find a lot more info, but the idea is that cd has a bit depth and sample rate that allows us to hear at least the resolution and dynamics (bit depth)and sonic detail over time (sample rate) that the human ear is capable of hearing.

 

[AnyDave]

Many people may not realize that the actual reason 16/44 was chosen for the cd specification is that studies were done that showed that 16/44 was the point at which any further resolution was inaudible to listeners.

 
Harry Nyquist would almost certainly agree. 

 

[luisdent]

Many people may not realize that the actual reason 16/44 was chosen for the cd specification is that studies were done that showed that 16/44 was the point at which any further resolution was inaudible to listeners.

Harry Nyquist would almost certainly agree. 

You beat me to it haha

 

[gnarlsagan]

Many people may not realize that the actual reason 16/44 was chosen for the cd specification is that studies were done that showed that 16/44 was the point at which any further resolution was inaudible to listeners.

It all has to do with the nyquist theory.

http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/MusicAndComputers/chapter2/02_03.php

https://www.dsprelated.com/freebooks/mdft/Sampling_Theory.html

You can find a lot more info, but the idea is that cd has a bit depth and sample rate that allows us to hear at least the resolution and dynamics (bit depth)and sonic detail over time (sample rate) that the human ear is capable of hearing.

I've pretty much always subscribed to this theory, but what about Tyll's recent article claiming otherwise? Certainly is interesting at least.

Nowadays I'm thinking that what we hear depends largely on what level we can consciously access the information being fed to our brain through our ears. And a lot of things can affect this, like mood for one. I'm also not sure after reading that article that direct a/b testing is as reliable as I've always assumed it is. Seems that spending more time with the music has a measurable effect on a listener's ability to differentiate between regular and hi-res.

I'm not preaching any of this as fact, but I will admit I'm more open to these ideas now than I ever have been in the past.

 

[HiFiChris]

Everybody who's interested in finding out whether he's just hearing the better mastering of the Hi-Res and DSD tracks or the actual claimed superiority of the file format could just convert some Hi-Res/DSD files to Redbook standard and do a blind test in Foobar 2k using the optional and free ABX plugin (WASAPI/Asio4All should also be installed for sure).

 

[AnyDave]

  I never got why sound engineers didn't get more fame and love when they're clearly part of the actual magic of a band.

 
I completely agree.  Steve Hoffman was mentioned a few pages back.  He's done some amazing work.  And often, like in the case of George Martin, they do far more than just record the band.

 

[thefitz]

A few songs into my XR - boy did I make the right choice. The only thing I'll miss about the SE535 is the insane, insane sensitivity.

 

[TheDreamthinker]

This is terrible.
Up to this point i completely missed the ER4XS and ER4XR launches. No notification, No homepage announcement. Nothing.
I had only been wondering, while browsing the sale forums, why the prices for original ER4s had dropped.
 
And I consider myself a great fan of the original ER4s. Shame on me.
 
Currently doing a bunch of catching up on the thread.
Could someone give me a very brief rundown on how annoyed i should be with having bought an ER4pt, only 1 year ago?
 
*openly weeps*

 

[thefitz]

  This is terrible.
Up to this point i completely missed the ER4XS and ER4XR launches. No notification, No homepage announcement. Nothing.
I had only been wondering, while browsing the sale forums, why the prices for original ER4s had dropped.
 
And I consider myself a great fan of the original ER4s. Shame on me.
 
Currently doing a bunch of catching up on the thread.
Could someone give me a very brief rundown on how annoyed i should be with having bought an ER4pt, only 1 year ago?
 
*openly weeps*

Check out their trade-in program.

 

[TheDreamthinker]

Check out their trade-in program.

 
Thanks for the tip, just checked it out.
Still reading through the thread.
 
From what I have been reading though, as an upgrade from the ER4s, the ER4SR are not ground breaking changes. Main refinement in extension and some in clarity.
Also as, I am not currently located in the US, $275 + shipping, customs, etc. don't make an upgrade worthwhile.
I'd rather invest this money into my inevitable UERR purchase.
 
At least i currently don't think so....still reading though. The conversation is a bit diffuse, though.

 

[thefitz]

The drop in impedance and increase in sensitivity at the same performance level is pretty huge. I went from ER-4S to ER-4XR and I'm happy with my choice, since I don't need an amp.