Being taken for a ride

[insider9]

I've listened to music till half past midnight last night. Everything sounded gorgeous. No, I don't drink, so it's as objective as it gets.

More listening commenced today. Started the day with some Foo Fighters. Not listened to them for a while. Oh dear it sounds awful. No, it's not supposed to (let's leave musical taste out of it). How could it be? Played a track from last night (Keb' Mo') still sounds gorgeous. Then I've realised that Foo Fighters album was lossy mp3. Promptly deleted all lossy music from my library. Surprisingly quite a few albums. It all adds up when you buy here and there. It's just not worth improving your hifi and listen to lossy formats. On top of which you eventually pay for lossless anyway.

This could probably be taken as an elitist rant if it wasn't for couple of things. First, I've not spent a lot on my setup. Second is a little bit more interesting... I just put on another album that I've not listened to for a long time this time Kate Bush and this time lossless.

Oh dear, it sounds bright and thin... this time 4 songs in I though I'd compare it against Tidal version. No such issue via Tidal *shok* All sounds as it's supposed to.

I feel royally conned. How many versions are out there? Which one should I own? How could I know which to buy? How can there be so much difference? Is there anything we can do to stop this? I won't even go into 24bit, MQA, remasters etc.

How many times in the past I've decided that I must not be in the mood as it just doesn't sound that good. When it could've simply been a poor recording.

Rant over

 

[Blacksabbath25]

I've listened to music till half past midnight last night. Everything sounded gorgeous. No, I don't drink, so it's as objective as it gets.

More listening commenced today. Started the day with some Foo Fighters. Not listened to them for a while. Oh dear it sounds awful. No, it's not supposed to (let's leave musical taste out of it). How could it be? Played a track from last night (Keb' Mo') still sounds gorgeous. Then I've realised that Foo Fighters album was lossy mp3. Promptly deleted all lossy music from my library. Surprisingly quite a few albums. It all adds up when you buy here and there. It's just not worth improving your hifi and listen to lossy formats. On top of which you eventually pay for lossless anyway.

This could probably be taken as an elitist rant if it wasn't for couple of things. First, I've not spent a lot on my setup. Second is a little bit more interesting... I just put on another album that I've not listened to for a long time this time Kate Bush and this time lossless.

Oh dear, it sounds bright and thin... this time 4 songs in I though I'd compare it against Tidal version. No such issue via Tidal *shok* All sounds as it's supposed to.

I feel royally conned. How many versions are out there? Which one should I own? How could I know which to buy? How can there be so much difference? Is there anything we can do to stop this? I won't even go into 24bit, MQA, remasters etc.

How many times in the past I've decided that I must not be in the mood as it just doesn't sound that good. When it could've simply been a poor recording.

Rant over

this is the issue I’ve noticed myself it’s a complete mind field finding the best example of a album or recording as the other day I read that pink floyd the wall album which I already owned on cd but had it a long time but read that the deluxe experience version was better then the copy that I brought years ago

so I brought the remastered deluxe experience version of the wall thinking it will be better then my old copy but when I listened to it and then tried my old copy I couldn’t tell the difference .

 

[insider9]

I don't know if online retailers would take returns based on poor sound quality... I doubt it. You could probably already ripped the CD and send it back. It's a ridiculous scenario.

I could understand they could be different although both acceptable quality. But not if one is unlistenable. Again selling a remaster that sounds the same is also a con.

I really enjoyed Ten Redux (Pearl Jam) when it came out. It sounds nothing like the original but it's great in its own right. On the other hand remaster of Temple of the Dog was just not to my liking and all I've left of the original is the CD case and no FLAC rip

 

[Blacksabbath25]

I also brought a secondhand copy of pink floyd dark side of the moon on sacd which I got for £15 but new your looking at £80 and wish you where here on sacd is £150 which is silly money .

 

[davidf]

I feel royally conned. How many versions are out there? Which one should I own? How could I know which to buy? How can there be so much difference? Is there anything we can do to stop this? I won't even go into 24bit, MQA, remasters etc.

This is one of the things MQA is looking to clear up - getting the best, authorised master, and not one that’s been butchered over the years.

 

[insider9]

I agree David, it was one of the most promising features for me when it was introduced. I like the format and hope they went with completely lossless codec from the begining. It looks like there could be lossless MQA version down the line (just speculating) once and if the format will gain foothold in the market. Even with no encoding into non MQA DAC tracks from Tidal sound very good indeed. Fingers crossed Roon will be able to replicate some of the software unfold that Tidal desktop app does.

 

[davedotco]

I have mentioned many times that all my music listening is from Spotify.

I am perfectly aware that this is of sub optimal quality but heres the thing, when I compare Spotify to a flac of the same version of the same recording, the differences are musically trivial. Yes the ambient cues are less precise, some reverberent notes are a bit 'grainy' but, given that, these days, I listen rather than analyse, it matters little.

Far more important is the point made above, the variation of sound quality from recording to recording, some stuff is simply unlistenable. Fortunately I have not invested in a particular recording, so if it sounds crap I simply move on and play something else. That is the beauty of Spotify, there is simply so much to investigate, I pick up recomendations from everywhere, sometimes even from here.

Recently tried some extremely naff jazz and several fantastic classical pieces, the good stuff leads to more recordings by the same musicians or composer, which in tern leads to something else.

Just love it...*dirol*

 

[insider9]

Initially I thought it was mp3 but after listening to a poor FLAC it's very much the version that's being used. Poor recording is a poor recording sure if you can compare a lossy file with lossless one there will be a difference. Assuming codec that Spotify uses it's like you say mostly to do with size of precision os spatial cues, etc. but as long as they use best available master than the difference may actually be in favour to the lossy Spotify.

As a consumer we're being conned and sold same product multiple times. Lossy, lossless, 24bit, etc. I know some don't like streaming for the reason that some content can be removed at no notice and sure it's not an ideal scenario but if they take care of having the best sounding versions I'm all for it. I just wish I didn't buy any music in lossy formats prior to putting a system together as earlier convenience now means some of it is just not good enough to be played back.

 

[davedotco]

Initially I thought it was mp3 but after listening to a poor FLAC it's very much the version that's being used. Poor recording is a poor recording sure if you can compare a lossy file with lossless one there will be a difference. Assuming codec that Spotify uses it's like you say mostly to do with size of precision os spatial cues, etc. but as long as they use best available master than the difference may actually be in favour to the lossy Spotify.

As a consumer we're being conned and sold same product multiple times. Lossy, lossless, 24bit, etc. I know some don't like streaming for the reason that some content can be removed at no notice and sure it's not an ideal scenario but if they take care of having the best sounding versions I'm all for it. I just wish I didn't buy any music in lossy formats prior to putting a system together as earlier convenience now means some of it is just not good enough to be played back.

The Ogg Vorbis codec used by Spotify is generally considered pretty listenable, I prefer it to the more modern AAC codec used to stream Apple Music, for example.

Once again, the differences are tiny compared to the differences in recording quality and for me this is much more important. Fortunately I do not have favourites that I have to have, my listening doesn't work like that but if I had forked out for something I really had to have and it was naff, I would be pretty p!ssed off.

 

[ellisdj]

can you give us some examples of the naff recordings your referring to please?? I want to check them out out of interest

 

[davedotco]

can you give us some examples of the naff recordings your referring to please?? I want to check them out out of interest

To be honest, if I try something and think it is poorly recorded, I just move on. A couple of times recently I have tried new things that have been 'recommended' that I considered very poor but I rapidly loose interest and forget about them.

Comparing different versions of the same recording (on Spotify) is easy enough and this is something I did a few times a year or two back when I was trying different streaming services. Some recordings have the 'Original', 'Remastered' and 'Delux' versions and it can be fun to compare but I havn't done this for a while, I usually just play the Original where I can.

Mostly though this is not analytical, quite often, as described earlier, I play something that leads to something else but if the 'something else' sounds naff then I move on pretty rapidly. I was trying some vintage Hendrix recordings recently, unusually the two versions of 'Are You Experienced' are quite similar but there is a difference between some songs on these albums and the same recordings on the 'Collection' issues.

There is so much good, well recorded music available that I no longer waste my time on music that isn't.

 

[ellisdj]

I am personally interested to test if its the recording or the system.

only way to do it is try what people think sound bad and see how it sounds.

for example coldplay adventure of a lifetime I have always thought poor but its not really its intensely layered and gets smeared easily. whats your thoughts on that track??

 

[davedotco]

I am personally interested to test if its the recording or the system.

only way to do it is try what people think sound bad and see how it sounds.

for example coldplay adventure of a lifetime I have always thought poor but its not really its intensely layered and gets smeared easily. whats your thoughts on that track??

Although I enjoy their live shows, I find their studio recordings since Mylo Zyloto to be pretty much unlistenable in all respects. I havn't bothered at all with that album containing the track you mention.

Too much going on today to give it a proper listen but I will give it a try when I can.

 

[ellisdj]

thumbs up emoji if I could do it on my phone

 

[Blacksabbath25]

Not sure if tidal has both versions of pink floyd the wall but the experience remastered version is meant to sound better then the older version which I have as well done by harvest but when I’ve played them both back the only thing I can tell is they have increased the bass a little on the remastered version where the harvest version has less bass .

 

[davedotco]

thumbs up emoji if I could do it on my phone

Just found a few moments to play the track, twice, once on my speakers once on phones.

Generally speaking I thought it was ok recording wise, lots going on and the bass/drums a little high in the mix making everything else a little subdued. Still the various strands could be followed despite the awful Chris Martin vocal, background vocals a bit close to the edge on occasions. Overall an acceptable recording of a not very good song, very modern Coldplay, lots af 'production', not much music.

That said, apart from the background vocals, I thought the recording ok technically without being at all special.

 

[MajorFubar]

Loads of albums have various versions, and it can be a minefield buying the best sounding one. This was more prevalent with abums originally recorded on analog tape. When you bought an older album that had been re-issued on a cheap label, the master tapes used could be several generations removed from the original. It's less of an issue with albums recorded digitally, because it's so easy to make countless identical copies and distribute them worldwide without quality loss.

 

[ellisdj]

thumbs up emoji if I could do it on my phone

Just found a few moments to play the track, twice, once on my speakers once on phones.

Generally speaking I thought it was ok recording wise, lots going on and the bass/drums a little high in the mix making everything else a little subdued. Still the various strands could be followed despite the awful Chris Martin vocal, background vocals a bit close to the edge on occasions. Overall an acceptable recording of a not very good song, very modern Coldplay, lots af 'production', not much music.

That said, apart from the background vocals, I thought the recording ok technically without being at all special.

not a good example then cheers

 

[insider9]

I'll be honest before I got the measurement mic I blamed my system just about every time something didn't sound right. Following some measurements and being able to repeat them almost instantly I blamed my mood.

Listening to predominantly FLAC and Tidal I didn't question the recording. It always had to be something that I could tweak or upgrade. Could it be all along that I listened to some poorly recorded music? Is it a widespread phenomenon with people upgrading equipment simply because the source material is rubbish?

 

[davedotco]

thumbs up emoji if I could do it on my phone

Just found a few moments to play the track, twice, once on my speakers once on phones.

Generally speaking I thought it was ok recording wise, lots going on and the bass/drums a little high in the mix making everything else a little subdued. Still the various strands could be followed despite the awful Chris Martin vocal, background vocals a bit close to the edge on occasions. Overall an acceptable recording of a not very good song, very modern Coldplay, lots af 'production', not much music.

That said, apart from the background vocals, I thought the recording ok technically without being at all special.

not a good example then cheers

Back when I was doing some comparisons, one that really stood out were the various digital versions of Brubeck's Time Out. The original CD release compared quite favourably with the vinyl even managing to duplicate the near holographic soundstage. Later versions lost elements of the soundstage and strangely made the timing sound pretty imprecise.

It really is difficult to give specific examples as I really do not dwell on these issues these days, but just dodging around, playing a track or two here and there, from different albums (as is my occasional want) really does show up differences.

 

[Deleted member 108165]

I'll be honest before I got the measurement mic I blamed my system just about every time something didn't sound right. Following some measurements and being able to repeat them almost instantly I blamed my mood.

Listening to predominantly FLAC and Tidal I didn't question the recording. It always had to be something that I could tweak or upgrade. Could it be all along that I listened to some poorly recorded music? Is it a widespread phenomenon with people upgrading equipment simply because the source material is rubbish?

I would say definitely. I have one particular artist who I have collected avidly over some years, all album versions from original vinyl/CD through mp3 remasters, through CD remasters, through CD deluxe editions, to hi-res downloads, hell if they released an SACD I would get that version too. My own personal preference has to be the original vinyl followed by the original CD. I find anything released after the mid-90's sounds poor in comparison, strange that this happens to coincide with the beginning of the loudness wars!

 

[ellisdj]

ok dont worry if any stand out let me know.
It will be interesting to torture test the different kit I am testing with poor content and see how it holds up or punishes it.
Be interesting to see.
I currently use Muse Reapers as a torture test but thats very well made so its not the same

 

[drummerman]

In every other walk of life, from cosmetics to food to pharmaceuticals there are regulations. It seems there are none when comes to selling music. The point of content always seems to be artist pay, not what the end users gets for their hard earned.

 

[insider9]

If the bulk of money went to artists I wouln't mind so much. Would rather have a little more transparency to better describe what certain versions offer and warnings on lossy formats so people can make informed decisions.