[Varejao17]

IMHO Martin Logan are not ESL's they're hybrids, that something quite fifferent in my book.

Given your avatar I respectfully ask for your pardon.

Yes, they are definitely hybrids; the ESL panel handled frequencies above 450Hz in my model.

ed

 

[Derrick Swart]

Alright question for you all.

So I’m an idiot and thought that the Mjolnir v1 also has SE pre outs as the amp I’m running currently does not have balanced inputs for running my speakers.

I ended up buying the Mjolnir v1 before realizing this and was curious if anyone has used XLR to RCA adaptors on this before and the results. I know Moon sells just these adaptors (female XLR to female rca) but just want to be careful as I know using a SE headphone cable won’t work but never tried for when running a line source out of that will cause issues or not. I would think there might be a ground issue? But wanted to check. Either way, I plan on upgrading probably in the next few months to the v2 if I like the v1 but would really like to also use this for my pre in the meantime.

Radial J-ISO work great, in my case also improved sound (passive, coversion and isolation in one case) even gain trimmer too. great little box i believe i paid less than €250

 

[Les Strat]

There is an important distinction between remastering and remixing. Remastering is done by a mastering engineer who is using the 2 track recording mixed by the recording engineer, and doing everything possible with that recording to get it sounding as "good" as possible.

Remixing, which is Steven Wilson's working domain, is when an engineer receives the multitrack recordings that are mixed to a final 2 track form (yes, I'm ignoring 5.1 for simplicity), and then creates a new mix of an album, like Tull's Benefit. Wilson is very attentive to keeping the same basic mix as the original, while using current tech to extract greater musical and vocal clarity from the original multitrack recording. This is very different than starting with a completed mix and polishing its sound, since any issues in sonics found in the original mix cannot be wholly restored. In a remix, the sonic issues inherent in the mix can often be corrected, certainly to a greater degree than remastering offers.

Steven Wilson has become highly regarded for his remixes of a lot of albums he grew up listening to with his father. He loves the music and is very devoted to improving the sonics while staying true to the original mix and feels of the albums he works with.

Mastering engineers like Bob Ludwig, Steve Hoffman, and the like, excel at taking the final mix of an album and polishing the gem.

As listeners we can appreciate the dedication of these individuals whose fanaticism for the music has become their life's work.

Thanks for this excellent explanation, US Blues.
I hadn't really understood the distinction before reading this!
If I have now understood correctly, it is not necessary to remix an album in order to remaster it , but if an album is remixed it will also require remastering.
I suspect that some remasters were just a cynical ploy by record companies to sell new versions of old albums, and unfortunately, some sounded worse than the originals.
Fortunately, this is not the case with really good mastering engineers, like Bob Ludwig and Steve Hoffman.
I also appreciate the dedication and painstaking work done by individuals who really care about music, where their sole aim is to produce the best-sounding recordings they possibly can.

 

[ev666il]

I suspect that some remasters were just a cynical ploy by record companies to sell new versions of old albums, and unfortunately, some sounded worse than the originals.

Oh, yes. That, and to compete in the Loudness Wars.

Remasters have grown into sort of a pet peeve of mine, lately. Back in the day, albums would mostly be reissued with the same mastering. Nowadays, if an album is reissued it is typically also remastered. But isn't remastering an implicit admission that you screwed it up the first time around? "Hey, guys, remember when we put out this album and you thought we were giving you the best product possible? Yeah, no. It was not the best possible by far. Here's an improved version but a couple years after the original shipped." It's like we can't have reissues anymore; it has to be remastered.

 

[Roy G. Biv]

Oh, yes. That, and to compete in the Loudness Wars.

Bingo!

 

[438555]

Oh, yes. That, and to compete in the Loudness Wars.

Remasters have grown into sort of a pet peeve of mine, lately. Back in the day, albums would mostly be reissued with the same mastering. Nowadays, if an album is reissued it is typically also remastered. But isn't remastering an implicit admission that you screwed it up the first time around? "Hey, guys, remember when we put out this album and you thought we were giving you the best product possible? Yeah, no. It was not the best possible by far. Here's an improved version but a couple years after the original shipped." It's like we can't have reissues anymore; it has to be remastered.

My favorite re-issue re-mix of late is the box set they put out for the Replacements' "Don't Tell a Soul. Though that's not really a remix, but was the original mix that the producer did prior to Warner Brothers bringing in the big guns to put shiny gloss on it back in 1989.
I much prefer the Matt Wallace mix they released in the box set. Apparently found the master tapes from that mix in the basement of the late lead guitarist after his death.

 

[liamo]

I

Bingo!

The first remix I ever purchased was The Cure’s “Mixed Up” which I loved but the ridiculous glut of remixes since has turned me off. If I were forty years younger in Ibiza pre-corona virus I’d get over it.

Was actually replying to Dana

 

[RickB]

My favorite re-issue re-mix of late is the box set they put out for the Replacements' "Don't Tell a Soul. Though that's not really a remix, but was the original mix that the producer did prior to Warner Brothers bringing in the big guns to put shiny gloss on it back in 1989.
I much prefer the Matt Wallace mix they released in the box set. Apparently found the master tapes from that mix in the basement of the late lead guitarist after his death.

Thank you for posting this. I have a copy of Dead Man's Pop, but never got around to listening to it. Time to rectify that.

 

[Timster]

I think this just demonstrates that recording differences, including mastering/mixing, really do have a huge impact on sound quality.

^ This

 

[GearMe]

IMHO Martin Logan are not ESL's they're hybrids, that something quite fifferent in my book.

Given your avatar I respectfully ask for your pardon.

Yes, they are definitely hybrids; the ESL panel handled frequencies above 450Hz in my model.

ed

Ha...had Quads and Acoustats back in the day in my 'Acoustic Music' listening room; never got the opportunity to try Martin Logans. ESL speakers can be special with certain music!

That said, I eventually made them Hybrids by adding a subwoofer (an abomination to some)

Eventually moved on to Maggies for Acoustic...probably...also...an...abomination

So glad for Headphones with different sound signatures, technologies, etc. I now own several awesome 'sound rooms'...for waaaayyyyy less coin overall...that are a blast to listen to music with!

 

[White Noise]

To my amazement, my old CD which was made from a vinyl transfer, sounds waaaay better than the new, remastered CD.
This is after the convoluted process of coming off an old vinyl record, going through an ADC to get it on a CD, and then a DAC to get it back to analogue!
I think this just demonstrates that recording differences, including mastering/mixing, really do have a huge impact on sound quality.

I'm not surprised. The issue is the recording medium. Yes, vinyl isn't as good as tape in terms of noisefloor and distortion, but it preserves much better much more easily. My layman's amateur mastering engineer understanding of it is that, when CD first came around, and you got some of the earlier re-releases of work recorded in the 60s and 70s released in the 90s or so, we had the benefit of having much better tape machines to read the tape with than we had to record with. So, we could genuinely pull more detail off the tape with less noise just because the machines were better and the tape had aged reasonably well. Fast forward another 20-30 years, the tape is really starting to show its age, but we can also do a lot more DSP in the studio now to remove a lot of the noise and other artifacts of tape Not really going to claw back any dynamic range that was lost, but we can definitely still make it listenable. If you were the Beatles. Or Led Zep. Or Pink Floyd.

But if some or all of those tapes are lost, or damaged beyond digital repair, or they were never maintained because the album didn't do well, or it never got distributed by a major label and the masters rotted in the drummer's basement for 30 years while he went on to become an accountant. Then, you're just schiit outta luck.

Some of these remasters are done with a modern audience in mind, so it needs to sound like a modern album for it to perform in the way the label hopes (because god knows they didn't get enough money out of it the first time around). Some are such a niche thing that they sound like straight digital transfers - Donovan jumps out as an example to me. I shifted the bit register of one of the tracks I like to give myself 6db of headroom to do my own little master, just to see what it would be like to work on something like that. And in 2 minutes I had something with a lower noisefloor, a more full sound, and almost no loss of dynamic range (after giving up 6 db of the existing recording to be able to mess around with it). And that was without something like Izotope RX to get rid of the noise, that was just some basic EQ.

Realistically, I think you want to land somewhere between straight transfer from tape and modern re-working. Some noise removal and a little digital EQ to shift the tone a little bit, tilt it slightly towards a more contemporary sound, is fair game in my book. I'm not intimately familiar with the original albums, but the Led Zepellin remasters seem fine to me. Definitely doesn't sound crushed or anything, but there are now some nice high-res options for those albums. The most recent Beatles remasters push things a little bit for my taste, some of the gating is a bit aggressive to me, but most people call those the definitive cuts.

 

[Les Strat]

I'm not surprised. The issue is the recording medium. Yes, vinyl isn't as good as tape in terms of noisefloor and distortion, but it preserves much better much more easily. My layman's amateur mastering engineer understanding of it is that, when CD first came around, and you got some of the earlier re-releases of work recorded in the 60s and 70s released in the 90s or so, we had the benefit of having much better tape machines to read the tape with than we had to record with. So, we could genuinely pull more detail off the tape with less noise just because the machines were better and the tape had aged reasonably well. Fast forward another 20-30 years, the tape is really starting to show its age, but we can also do a lot more DSP in the studio now to remove a lot of the noise and other artifacts of tape Not really going to claw back any dynamic range that was lost, but we can definitely still make it listenable. If you were the Beatles. Or Led Zep. Or Pink Floyd.

But if some or all of those tapes are lost, or damaged beyond digital repair, or they were never maintained because the album didn't do well, or it never got distributed by a major label and the masters rotted in the drummer's basement for 30 years while he went on to become an accountant. Then, you're just schiit outta luck.

Some of these remasters are done with a modern audience in mind, so it needs to sound like a modern album for it to perform in the way the label hopes (because god knows they didn't get enough money out of it the first time around). Some are such a niche thing that they sound like straight digital transfers - Donovan jumps out as an example to me. I shifted the bit register of one of the tracks I like to give myself 6db of headroom to do my own little master, just to see what it would be like to work on something like that. And in 2 minutes I had something with a lower noisefloor, a more full sound, and almost no loss of dynamic range (after giving up 6 db of the existing recording to be able to mess around with it). And that was without something like Izotope RX to get rid of the noise, that was just some basic EQ.

Realistically, I think you want to land somewhere between straight transfer from tape and modern re-working. Some noise removal and a little digital EQ to shift the tone a little bit, tilt it slightly towards a more contemporary sound, is fair game in my book. I'm not intimately familiar with the original albums, but the Led Zepellin remasters seem fine to me. Definitely doesn't sound crushed or anything, but there are now some nice high-res options for those albums. The most recent Beatles remasters push things a little bit for my taste, some of the gating is a bit aggressive to me, but most people call those the definitive cuts.

That's really helpful. Thanks White Noise
I agree that some of the recent Led Zeppelin remasters which were done by Jimmy Page sound very good.. I had all the albums on vinyl, then first issue CD. I think the recent remasters are the best of the lot.
A few other remastered albums which I have really enjoyed are:

Exile on Main Street which was remastered by Andy Johns in 2010. I think it sounds waaay better than the first CD and also the original vinyl.

All of Free's remastered albums, issued as 'Island Remasters'. In particular, the 5 CD boxset 'Songs of Yesterday' sounds fantastic and also includes some previously unreleased versions of songs.
(Unlike some remasters, these bonus tracks are not just 'filler' they are really good and, in my opinion, are well worth having for any Free fan)

 

[wout31]

That said, I eventually made them Hybrids by adding a subwoofer (an abomination to some)
Eventually moved on to Maggies for Acoustic...probably...also...an...abomination

True and True.

 

[macdonjh]

Alright question for you all.

So I’m an idiot and thought that the Mjolnir v1 also has SE pre outs as the amp I’m running currently does not have balanced inputs for running my speakers.

I ended up buying the Mjolnir v1 before realizing this and was curious if anyone has used XLR to RCA adaptors on this before and the results. I know Moon sells just these adaptors (female XLR to female rca) but just want to be careful as I know using a SE headphone cable won’t work but never tried for when running a line source out of that will cause issues or not. I would think there might be a ground issue? But wanted to check. Either way, I plan on upgrading probably in the next few months to the v2 if I like the v1 but would really like to also use this for my pre in the meantime.

My pre-pro has only balanced outs, and my main left-right amps are SE only. I first had a pair of Neutrik adapters, but eventually had a pair of cables made, XLR on one end, RCA on the other. Either worked just fine. Of course, I couldn't compare any sound differences between "adapted" and "unadapted", since my amps are SE only.

@Cstmar01 as far as I know, the Mjolnir (orig gen) is balanced out only (circlotron style topology). trying to use an XLR to RCA adapter in this situation is a bad idea and could result in hardware damage.

like the other poster said, get a Freya S to go between the source and the Mjolnir (orig gen).

??? I've used either an XLR-RCA adapter or an XLR/ RCA cable between my balanced pre-pro and SE main amps for several years without electrical troubles.

I'm seriously considering ditching all recorded music and getting into live acoustic music as my only music source. Kinda like a paleo diet, but this would be a pre-electronic age diet.

Funny stuff.

 

[GumbyDammit223]

I have had similar experiences with different CD issues of the same album; some sound awful.
One of the great things about Qobuz is that it is often possible to find several versions of favourite albums and give them all a try to decide which sounds 'best'.
In my experience, the differences are huge. The worst sounding are almost always the 'High Resolution' versions.
All of the Steven Wilson albums I've listened to have sounded really, really good.
I also love live acoustic music, and it is very hard to recreate. Fortunately, I have many recordings which sound really 'natural', but I had to look hard to seek them out.
A great DAC, like the Yggy, certainly helps to recreate lifelike music, as do really good speakers, but none of the kit matters a jot if the recordings are rubbish!
I have a '70s album by a British band called Blue. I bought this debut album on vinyl when came out in '73. It didn't sell very well, but it is a great album.
It went out of print in the 90s and was unavailable on CD, so 12 years ago, I paid for a Pro Recording engineer to transfer my vinyl to CD as I no longer have vinyl playback.
I recently found that the album is available on CD (but only direct from a company connected with the songwriters in the UK,) so a few weeks ago, I bought a copy of this 'remastered' CD.
I bought it direct, so at least the artist got something back. .
To my amazement, my old CD which was made from a vinyl transfer, sounds waaaay better than the new, remastered CD.
This is after the convoluted process of coming off an old vinyl record, going through an ADC to get it on a CD, and then a DAC to get it back to analogue!
I think this just demonstrates that recording differences, including mastering/mixing, really do have a huge impact on sound quality.

While it's hard for me to articulate how bad I think a lot of CDs made today sound, I can say that pretty much every single CD I purchased between '83 and the mid-90's sound amazing compared to the new ones. Yeah, vastly different genres, artists, etc., but I've been disappointed by what I thought would be "better" because of newer technology, methods, yada yada. I think the most obvious example I have comes from Ozzy Osbourne's catalog. For completeness, I purchased Ozzy's whole "remastered" catalog off of Amazon, because, well, remastered should be better. While I didn't have anything to compare against, those CDs just didn't sound good to me, only moderately adequate. I agree that with services such as Qobuz you can test drive albums before purchasing them and just hope that what you hear streaming matches what the CD sounds like. Just my thoughts.