Sound quality over the years

[Gazzip]

Having read your post earlier this afternoon I have had an 80's/early 90's evening. By Jove you are right!

 

[MeanandGreen]

Anything touched by Rick Rubin sounds rubbish. *boredom*

I had to google what he's been involved with. Quickly looking at the list of discography I own 4 albums he's been involved with.

Melanine C - Northern Star, I would say if I was being polite about the sound quality of that album I'd say it sounds shyte.

Red Hot Chillies - By The Way, It's so long since I played it I can't really remember what it's like.

The same goes for their greatest hits, which surely is just bits from various albums thrown together anyway. I don't remember those albums being terrible, not as bad as some anyway.

Lada GaGa - Art Pop, it's actually not a badly produced album to be fair. Not her best album musically, but the production is ok on this one.

 

[MeanandGreen]

I agree the 70's also had some good quality recordings too.

I'll have to check out ECM, thanks for the recodomendation!

The compression and loudness debate of the 90's definitely started it all going downhill.

 

[MeanandGreen]

Lol! Glad you have had a good 80's/early 90's night too!

 

[Overdose]

Bass heavy tracks are usually produced that way because that is the style of the music.

I own a lot of music which you could regard as orientated around bass from the 80's, 90's 00's etc... however nothing is as bloated as the stuff in the last 10 years or so.

It's not something that I've noticed particularly, but it's still down to how the tracks/albums were meant to be. It's more of a trend thing.

Perhaps your system isn't best set up for the room? A 'bloated' or boomy bass is usually system and or room acoustics related.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Lol

I have to agree with Overdose.

While tracks may be eq'd louder the quality on more than a few of them is good. It's what I've found going back and fourth through the decades.

One example is comparing Pharrel Williams 'girl' (the album with 'Happy' on it) 2014 with my reference CD from 1996 D'Angelo's 'Brown Sugar'.

The 2014 recording is eq'd pretty loud. Around +3db average the 96 eq'd around 0db peaking around +3db on the vu

Both albums are well recorded and dynamic.

But for Girl not to sound overly aggressive requires me having to turn it down.

Say for standard listening you set your volume to 9 o'clock - try it at 8 instead.

We all get used to stuff and it's the same with the settings on our kit. If over the years you have become use to having your amp set to a certain level and in your mind it is the optimum setting for your perfect sound. Break out of it, re-adjust your mindset.

Lol....that may sound silly - the control of the loudness is in your hands.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Modern recordings are better today on CD.

Well for the type of music I own and listen to.

Been playing Laura Mvula's - sing to the moon.

It's a jazz/folk/pop sound the production on the CD is top notch.

Initially I did think I had wasted my cash but with time some of the tracks are cool.

Its eq'd loud so don't forget to turn it down a little.

Track I find myself playing over and over 'Diamonds' track 12.......

If you're into comparing see how it stacks up against those 80's CD's and old vinyls

 

[BigH]

Lol

I have to agree with Overdose.

While tracks may be eq'd louder the quality on more than a few of them is good. It's what I've found going back and fourth through the decades.

One example is comparing Pharrel Williams 'girl' (the album with 'Happy' on it) 2014 with my reference CD from 1996 D'Angelo's 'Brown Sugar'.

The 2014 recording is eq'd pretty loud. Around +3db average the 96 eq'd around 0db peaking around +3db on the vu

Both albums are well recorded and dynamic.

But for Girl not to sound overly aggressive requires me having to turn it down.

Say for standard listening you set your volume to 9 o'clock - try it at 8 instead.

We all get used to stuff and it's the same with the settings on our kit. If over the years you have become use to having your amp set to a certain level and in your mind it is the optimum setting for your perfect sound. Break out of it, re-adjust your mindset.

Lol....that may sound silly - the control of the loudness is in your hands.

yes but many systems have a sweet spot but it's not usually at 8 o'clock. Ever heard about hifi dealers having the volume at 10 o'clock?

 

[Vladimir]

If a system is loud at 10 o'clock its made in the marketing board room, not in the engineering room. A typical domestic system should get loud after 12 o'clock.

 

[BigH]

Modern recordings are better today on CD.

Well for the type of music I own and listen to.

Been playing Laura Mvula's - sing to the moon.

It's a jazz/folk/pop sound the production on the CD is top notch.

Initially I did think I had wasted my cash but with time some of the tracks are cool.

Its eq'd loud so don't forget to turn it down a little.

Track I find myself playing over and over 'Diamonds' track 12.......

If you're into comparing see how it stacks up against those 80's CD's and old vinyls

You have just picked 1 album, does not mean much. Yes some recent albums are well produced, ie Melody Gardot, Malia but these tend to be exceptions rather than the rule, many are over compressed for the mobile/car market.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Naah, a few of the albums I've bought recently sound good in terms of sq.

Just listed this one because I'd been playing It alot.

Just an example. But going back there has definitely been improvement over the years.

My music choices rarely include chart tracks though.

Modern recordings are better today on CD.

Well for the type of music I own and listen to.

Been playing Laura Mvula's - sing to the moon.

It's a jazz/folk/pop sound the production on the CD is top notch.

Initially I did think I had wasted my cash but with time some of the tracks are cool.

Its eq'd loud so don't forget to turn it down a little.

Track I find myself playing over and over 'Diamonds' track 12.......

If you're into comparing see how it stacks up against those 80's CD's and old vinyls

You have just picked 1 album, does not mean much. Yes some recent albums are well produced, ie Melody Gardot, Malia but these tend to be exceptions rather than the rule, many are over compressed for the mobile/car market.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Most amps today peak at 9o'clock - sure your Roksan does too.

I've mentioned this a few times aswel

If a system is loud at 10 o'clock its made in the marketing board room, not in the engineering room. A typical domestic system should get loud after 12 o'clock.?

 

 

[Vladimir]

Most amps today peak at 9o'clock - sure your Roksan does too.

I've mentioned this a few times aswel

On a CD Player, absolutely. All amps today start clipping very fast because digital sources are too loud. 2Vrms is just too much. They are doing to gear the same thing that is done to music production with loudness.

This Roksan is of lower sensitivity actually, at 510mV. I have yet to hear it bottom out as speakers are going sooner than the amp. I use an audio interface with manual volume gain and I have it at arround 50% , the amp at 50%. So it really never gets 2Vrms to the amp, it is much lower and no issues so far. It's an oldschool amp, unlike the Caspian M2 that is much more along with today's ideas of sound quality.

It's really simple: as long as there are technically illiterate (and I mean that in a factual, kindly way) audio equipment consumers who write such nonsense on forums like " .... amplifier XYZ really punches above its weight despite its small case size", an opinion arrived at with absolutely no technical insight as to how it operates, then we are going to have manufacturers mining that rich seam of consumers. One way to create that illusion - and it costs nothing to implement - is to arrange the volume control to bunch the power towards the bottom end of the volume control rotation. That is all it takes to give the illusion that the user has the reins of a mighty, powerful shire horse of an amp, when in fact, it is a puny, effete beast. It would fool 99.9% of so called audiophiles. You get the general ideahere.

The core issue is that the microphone to the speaker and on to the room itself are technical subjects which require a minimum of technical knowledge, or at least technical respect, to get the best out of them. When the science of audio evaporated in the 80s, the void was filled with junk pseudo-science. And that's when the marketing men really cleaned up. As far as I can see, there is hardly a single statement made anywhere in audiophile land that stands up to even high school science level scrutiny. How to restore some sensibility? Demand that those who mould opinions and warp minds get off their back sides and prove whatever point they wish to make. The tools are readily available in the internet communication age. Then decide for yourself.

"No proof? No listen."

Alan A. Shaw, Harbeth Audio

 

[steve_1979]

...You get the general ideahere...

Random pointless fact alert!

Proportionally Shetland ponies are actually much stronger than shire horses size for size.

A 1000kg Shire is not 5 times stronger than a 200kg Shetland.

 

[Vladimir]

That alert thingy didn't work...

 

[Vladimir]

Here's another one for you Steve. Clicky

Whilst I hear the generic word "300B" I am not really sure what type of power output that is usually associated with. I have been told that it could be around 7W per channel. My definition of a 'decent valve amp' would be one with an adequate amount of power to create quasi-lifelike loudness shades between the quietest elements in live music as we would experience in the concert hall, and the instantaneous peaks, or an acceptable domestic approximation to them. That needs power[/i], for which there is no[/i] substitute and it is vital to fully grasp that concept. A dog can pretend to be a shire horse until the heavy load is coupled-up, when the power limitation is obvious.

Amp, or indeed muscle power, is needed not for some machismo reasons but because speaker cones are heavy and to capture the fast transients in live music have to be accelerated, because their position in space determines the peak loudness they generate. If they cannot demand the power from the amp, because it's underpowered or clipping, the cones cannot take up their correct position as the music demands fore and aft of the rest, and what you hear is therefore not a faithful representation of the music waveform. It's that simple which is why strangling the speakers with a small amp, or a big on that is clipping, is complete and utter madness.

It has to be accepted that it is not safe or practicable to reproduce the true loudness of the concert hall at home; nothing remotely like that level is possible, so all home listening is about creating a sound-in-miniature that gives enough mental cues that we can suspend disbelief and kid ourselves that we are really there. In effect, our audio set-up and our room at best approximates to a dolls house version of sonic reality: complete in the details, but at a tiny sonic scale.

How much power you actually need depends upon numerous factors, including your type of music, how far you are away from the speakers, how loud you like to play on average, time of day, neighbour/children considerations, speaker efficiency and so on. I gave careful though (as you would expect) to what I consider sensible minimum power recommendations for the speaker driving amps, based upon a lifetimes of listening to live concerts and listening at home, with equipment that shows me how much power is being demanded by the music from the amplifier (yes: it is that way round). We could though disagree to disagree over power minima, but what we cannot surely disagree over is the simple fact that a full orchestra, playing at an average plus loudness, needs one hell of a lot of amplifier power at home to begin[/i] to reproduce it with passable fidelity.

How many watts of human muscle effort are being converted to sound in this clip? Can that total wattage be reproduced as faithful sound over normal 1% efficiency speakers with a handful of amplifier watts? You must decide how lifelike your home audio realism expectations are. My guess is that the conductor alone is probably expending much more than 7W and remember: normal speakers waste about 99% of the electrical power that flows into them as soundless heat[/i].

Alan must have gotten sick of car analogies and switched to horses. *biggrin*

 

[Vladimir]

So basically a Shetland pony is a Ferrari and a thoroughbred is stiff straight line only american muscle car.

Well, few brain cells that could have been usefull remembering to turn off the gas stove at old age are now reserved for Shetland pony trivia.

 

[steve_1979]

So basically a Shetland pony is a Ferrari

More like a Chaterham 7 I'd say.

 

[steve_1979]

That alert thingy didn't work...

Here's another...

Shetland's can also (literally) run rings around a thoroughbred racing horse. A thoroughbred has a higher top speed (but not by much) but a Shetland can out accelerate, stop and change direction far quicker. When they play together in a field the Thoroughbred doesn't have a chance of ever catching a Shetland.

 

[Happy_Listner]

I think a big part of it is that albums recorded in the 1980's were recorded on analogue tape. Just about anything sounds better on Vinyl if it was recorded before 1990. CD's will sound different as well from how they were recorded. Take a look at the back of each CD and you will see AAD, or DDD ect. Analogue to Digital will sound different than if it was recorded in Digital then transfered to Digital CD. Digital recordings were pretty awful in the late 1980's through the 1990's.

I find anything recorded on Analogue and then trasfered to Analogue will usually sound better than if it was transfered to Digital. Early Digital recording was not very good. I also find that modern digital recordings can sound very good, especially in 24/192. Transferring these modern digital recorders back into analogue vinyl makes no sense to me. That is why I will only buy older records, pre 1995 or so, and with modern recodings I will try to find a good FLAC file or just use a CD.

 

[Glacialpath]

Think you might have disturbed the nest there. Either that or some guys may have got sick of these discussions.

If they did the transfer right from the Analogue source then the digital version should be exactly the same. It will more likely be the conversion back to analogue on an old CD system that changed the way it sounds but the same CDs (old ones) on one of todays systems would sound more like the old Analogue versions. Another reason I think an Analogue version of an album played back on an Analogue system will sound different to the same album on a digital format is the analogue playback set up might distort the sound even more. Giving it that warm feel people tent to like, thus they then feel the digital version sounds wrong even though it's the more accurate representation of the masters it came from.

 

[Happy_Listner]

[quote=Glacialpath

"If they did the transfer right from the Analogue source then the digital version should be exactly the same."

No, I disagree with you. A digital copy of a recorded analogue tape is not the same as the original tape. Only in a perfect world and digital is not perfect. There is a reason people are so excited about this new Beatles Mono Box Set that just came out. The reason being is that this is the first Beatles Vinyl Box Set to be recorded using the original Analogue Master Tapes and not the Digital copies of those tapes. If you think Record players are all about distortion then I suggest you go to a fancy Audio shop and listen to an expensive Turntable. You will be blown away by the sound.

 

[Vladimir]

Everything on vinyl was previosly recorded on studio magnetic tape as a master tape. Vinyl is mass storage media and master recording tape is of a higher fidelity. Problem with tape is it degrades with age, and vinyl degrades after each play.

As discussed many times before, digital music sucks because it has the large dynamic headroom and gets abused during mastering and production, making it too loud. Further on hi-fi manufacturers make loudness driven "hi-fi", shouting CD player, clipping amps at just 10 o'clock volume position, smiley curve boomy speakers etc.

People want loud. Vinyl can't do it, digital can so here we are with rubbish digital music despite it's advantages. Tortoise and the Hare situation.

As for transfering vinyl on digital and it sounding different, that is debunked. A well ripped digital recording of vinyl reproduction with capture all the surface noise, pops, wow, flutter, etc. and reproduce it. The difference will come from the gear that will play the digital recording. If played reasonably loud through most 2Vrms CD players, it is probably making the amplifier clipping, sounding worse that it should.

Finally there is the "experience". People don't want high fidelity, they want an experience, and vinyl reproduction gives you that. Digital playback is boring as a black-no-product-display vending machine. Thanks to the "experience" vinyl will pump more endorphins during the ritual than anything digital would. More endorphins = more happiness.

bla bla bla, it's all been discussed before.

 

[Happy_Listner]

Vlad, you would have liked Julian Hirsch's Stereo Review where all things sound the same at matched levels sort of reviews.

Debunked? I disagree. A digital copy of Analogue is not the same as the original. You have brick walls, filters and high frequency cut offs in the 1980's and 1990's 16 bit 44.1kHz was and is inferior.

I have listened to master tape and compared it with an expensive vinyl rig and there is very little difference between the two. But when we compared it to a good CD player the difference was night and day, we all found it inferior sounding.

24/192 is now getting closer to what Vinyl has to offer but back in the day CD's perfect sound forever did not and does not cut it. The same goes for a digital camera back in 2002, 3 mega pxl cound not stand up to a film camera.

I think Vlad you need to listen to more records. Sit back, smoke a cigar, have some 16 year old Lagavulin Whisky, and relax. Not wory about specs and measurments.

Cheers Buddy

 

[cheeseboy]

.... and 1990's 16 bit 44.1kHz was and is inferior.

oh god, here we go again.... (facepalm)