[bigshot]

And the modern equivalent of Bach? The Beatles?

It's apples and oranges, but I think Michael Jackson and Prince are the equivalents. And believe it or not, I think Snoop Dawg's Doggie Style is as important as Sgt Pepper.

 

[Strangelove424]

Michael Jackson, Prince, even Snoop Dawg are decades old. 2/3 are dead. And the other 1/3 is so high he doesn't know what decade he's in anymore, though I'll admit Snoop could thrown down some rhymes in his prime. By modern I mean 2017. (or atleast the whereabouts)

 

[bigshot]

I've been focusing on multichannel lately which limits the gene pool severely and tends towards stuffy art rock. I think they've been around for a while, but I picked up a multichannel album by Kodo the other day that was really good. I think it was called Mondo Head. It's probably a decade old though. I really like Nicole Atkins too. She is still recording and touring. If you're strictly looking for this year, just google best albums of 2017 and you'll come up with lists with youtube videos. I love browsing stuff like that. Never know what you'll find. Happy fishing!

 

[Brooko]

Nicole Atkins is brilliant - very talented.

 

[Niouke]

We human always try to reproduce the excitment of the first time, wether it is music, sex or food...I'm still listening to the 2 smashing pumpkin albums that guided my teens and made sure I posses every album I was listening back then I'm afraid the 90's hip hop is a dead genre, everyone that tries to emulate it nowadays is off mark IMO, wether it is east or west coast. Nostalgia speaking?

Spotify sure is annoying and it often proposes the same songs but there are ways to improve its selections. One of the tricks is that it can propose songs based on what is contained in the individual playlists so if you have multiple playlists, you will have multiple propositions.

 

[Strangelove424]

I've been focusing on multichannel lately which limits the gene pool severely and tends towards stuffy art rock. I think they've been around for a while, but I picked up a multichannel album by Kodo the other day that was really good. I think it was called Mondo Head. It's probably a decade old though. I really like Nicole Atkins too. She is still recording and touring. If you're strictly looking for this year, just google best albums of 2017 and you'll come up with lists with youtube videos. I love browsing stuff like that. Never know what you'll find. Happy fishing!

Ha, I picked up a 5.1 artsy prog rock album called Grace for Drowning on a YouTube recommendation by Steve Guttenberg. Won’t do that again. Gutenberg doesn’t even like 5.1 anyway. I don’t know what I was thinking. My God, I tried listening to Steve Guttenberg. I’m not a fan of industry awards, but am going through the 2005+ grammys list of surround sound winners right now. The ones I know of on that list are really good, so feel confident about the rest. I am very fond of Nicole Atkins. She is really talented and unique. Ironically enough, I discovered her on “modern timeless” or some such named Spotify playlist but unlike other old school but soulless mimics Atkins stands out. Maybe I'm being exposed to more music with streaming, so much so that I am taking it for granted.

 

[castleofargh]

people what are you doing? what about our evil plan to convince the world that we only ever listen to test tones and don't have subjective opinions?

We human always try to reproduce the excitment of the first time, wether it is music, sex or food...I'm still listening to the 2 smashing pumpkin albums that guided my teens and made sure I posses every album I was listening back then I'm afraid the 90's hip hop is a dead genre, everyone that tries to emulate it nowadays is off mark IMO, wether it is east or west coast. Nostalgia speaking?...

I believe you blame yourself for what you can't ignore. you blame yourself, for wanting more.

 

[Hawaiibadboy]

Don't know where to post this.

This is just an amazing CD.
WOW!

These height ,depth, circling test with instruments is just cool as hell

 

[castleofargh]

I have a chesky record that was in the fiio X3. the "Dr. Chesky’s Sensational, Fantastic, and Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show" ^_^ it was mostly what one would expect from those albums, very clean, pretty much untouched acoustic binaural recordings. and a few tests/demo of moving around the head. in my case it didn't work very well, what should be an horizontal circle ended up getting closer, moving up, etc. only the general panning was really stable in my head. I don't blame the job done, it's simply that the gear probably just didn't have the right signature, and that me and the dummy head are just not that alike aside from having about the same hair quantity.
but I have made a few friends try and some felt blown away some didn't like it at all. the wonders of HRTF.

Shiit offering a 4 bands analog EQ for 149$. really nothing outstanding, but isn't it absolute breaking news as far as amateur audio fashion goes? how many will throw up a little when realizing how they're between a rock and a hard place, being Shiit fans forever, and purist EQ haters at the same time? in the coming months I expect a strong trend of "EQ is good when it's a good one", and "EQ is fine, it's digital EQ that ruins audio!".
but if it's enough to make a few people open up to the idea that EQ isn't only about ruining the "true sound" or other nonsense like that, then I'd be inclined to see this as a positive event.

 

[Argyris]

I expect a strong trend of "EQ is good when it's a good one", and "EQ is fine, it's digital EQ that ruins audio!".
but if it's enough to make a few people open up to the idea that EQ isn't only about ruining the "true sound" or other nonsense like that, then I'd be inclined to see this as a positive event.

That's exactly the justification I expect to see as well.

I doubt any additional openness will be had, however. It's one of those "don't dwell on how the sausage is made" things that nearly all recorded music uses EQ and effects processing. And these days most of it is handled in the digital realm because of convenience, cost and massively expanded options over relying solely on available hardware. If audiophiles had to confront this fact, they'd have to chuck out nearly their entire music collection from at least the mid-80s onward to avoid it. Some, sadly, might actually choose to do this, as I've seen the occasional person attest to only listening to so-called audiophile records or labels. The rest, averse though they may be to EQ, seem to regard surrendering a massive chunk of their collection as a bridge too far. So instead, the cognitive dissonance associated with EQ being simultaneously audiophile anathema and a ubiquitous and integral part of post-processing seems to be largely swept under the rug, or else justified as being part of the source material, warts and all, leaving the individual to concentrate on ridding their own wallets of money systems of alleged additional sonic impurities.

Or it could just be the Apple effect: <insert beloved company> is doing it, so now it's a good idea.

 

[bigshot]

I saw that shiit EQ on Facebook today. I can't imagine anyone needing that thing when there are so many good EQ apps out there. Four band tone controls? That wouldn't even get me out the gate on EQing.

 

[JaeYoon]

That's exactly the justification I expect to see as well.

I doubt any additional openness will be had, however. It's one of those "don't dwell on how the sausage is made" things that nearly all recorded music uses EQ and effects processing. And these days most of it is handled in the digital realm because of convenience, cost and massively expanded options over relying solely on available hardware. If audiophiles had to confront this fact, they'd have to chuck out nearly their entire music collection from at least the mid-80s onward to avoid it. Some, sadly, might actually choose to do this, as I've seen the occasional person attest to only listening to so-called audiophile records or labels. The rest, averse though they may be to EQ, seem to regard surrendering a massive chunk of their collection as a bridge too far. So instead, the cognitive dissonance associated with EQ being simultaneously audiophile anathema and a ubiquitous and integral part of post-processing seems to be largely swept under the rug, or else justified as being part of the source material, warts and all, leaving the individual to concentrate on ridding their own wallets of money systems of alleged additional sonic impurities.

Or it could just be the Apple effect: <insert beloved company> is doing it, so now it's a good idea.

Ugh just the thought of audiophile approved labels on music. Throw away your collection that isn't audiophile approved eq.

Wouldn't surprised if this spread.
Too crazy for me. I want to enjoy music from now on. Not worry about EQ and processed effects from studio.

I love my albums from pre 2000s. Not throwing any of them away no matter what audiophiles believe.

*time to throw away audiophile card and burn it in a campfire.

 

[bigshot]

This isn't anything new. I remember when I was a kid, there were "hifi demonstration records". They would have reams of liner notes in gatefold sleeves detailing what microphones were used, how the record was cut and mastered, fancy diagrams of response charts, etc... and not a single mention of the names of any of the musicians performing the music! It was true in the LP era too. There were labels that put out LPs that had been recorded digitally- mostly classical music performed by no name regional orchestras. Others put out direct to disk LPs of easy listening music and old timey swing. None of it was about music. It was all serving the equipment fetish of hard core audiophiles. I got caught up in this stuff for awhile, but it eventually bored me. I see the same thing in multichannel. The same boring late 70s rock albums that were released on half speed mastered LPs are still being flogged on SACDs and the same musically indiscriminate audiophiles are buying it in the high end format du jour.

I listen to music, not my stereo equipment.

 

[JaeYoon]

This isn't anything new. I remember when I was a kid, there were "hifi demonstration records". They would have reams of liner notes in gatefold sleeves detailing what microphones were used, how the record was cut and mastered, fancy diagrams of response charts, etc... and not a single mention of the names of any of the musicians performing the music! It was true in the LP era too. There were labels that put out LPs that had been recorded digitally- mostly classical music performed by no name regional orchestras. Others put out direct to disk LPs of easy listening music and old timey swing. None of it was about music. It was all serving the equipment fetish of hard core audiophiles. I got caught up in this stuff for awhile, but it eventually bored me. I see the same thing in multichannel. The same boring late 70s rock albums that were released on half speed mastered LPs are still being flogged on SACDs and the same musically indiscriminate audiophiles are buying it in the high end format du jour.

I listen to music, not my stereo equipment.

I definitely liked that you shared this memory. It just angers me that audio equipment got more recognition than singers who perform the music.

Unfortunately this pops into my mind I like buying classical plays and tracks off HDtracks. Like Puccini Tosca, etc. However I always choose cd quality over 24 bit if possible. Unfortunately a lot of times only 24 bit is availible. I buy it anyways in hopes I'm supporting someone.

But it also shows I'm giving money into this consumer 24 bit non sense. But my main goal is just to get access to the music.

 

[headwhacker]

Shiit offering a 4 bands analog EQ for 149$. really nothing outstanding, but isn't it absolute breaking news as far as amateur audio fashion goes? how many will throw up a little when realizing how they're between a rock and a hard place, being Shiit fans forever, and purist EQ haters at the same time? in the coming months I expect a strong trend of "EQ is good when it's a good one", and "EQ is fine, it's digital EQ that ruins audio!".
but if it's enough to make a few people open up to the idea that EQ isn't only about ruining the "true sound" or other nonsense like that, then I'd be inclined to see this as a positive event.

But it's inevitable, the industry is going the EQ/DSP route. Just look at the Audeze iSine thread. When they were initially released, it was a very polarizing product. Two camps formed at the extreme opposites. Those who liked it very much and those who hates it very much. Then, the consensus that it sound excellent using the cipher cable which has built-in DSP/EQ to correct the response curve. People started playing with EQ on non-IOS device and voila, Audeze made very good sounding product overall.