Sound quality . . . ?

[CJSF]

I listen to a lot of 'Spotify free service' . . . they offer a 'premium service' for £9.99. Saying no ads, but the main thing that interests me is better quality, streamed at 320kbps. As I use the signal direct from computer USB to DAC to Amplifier and a classic 2 channel set up. Is the 'better quality' an an vantage in this type of set up? A lot of the music I choose is 50's, 60's and selected 80's - 90's, I wonder if the old recordings will benefit? Although some are superb IMHO . . . with the simple technology of the time, multi tracking is limited allowing better access to the real performance? CJS

 

[MajorFubar]

I've never used Spotify but in reference to the question about do old recordings benefit from better bit rates: most certainly. As you said, plenty of really good quality recordings were made in the 50s and 60s.

 

[Anonymous]

I can't imagine older recordings being much better, you can't upscale a poor source very well... but what I would describe as a poor source others would disagree.... I'm not sure about the original source of older recordings... those big black Frisbees come to mind! As for the 320kbps, not all the songs are available at that bitrate. I am a subscriber to the premium service and mostly only newer tracks are available on the higher bitrate but they are 'working' on the older tracks. I would try it for a month and see how you like it; you can cancel if you don’t get the improvement you are expecting.

If you search on the net you could probably score a trial period!

 

[krazy_olie]

You'd probably notice a difference, but as mentioned above you should be able to get a trial. At least try it for a month, if you can't tell the difference you can go for the unlimited which is ad free but without the high bitrates/mobile playback etc.

160kb/s ogg bunches a fair bit above what it's bit rate might suggest.

 

[CJSF]

Thanks for the replies people . . . with this and another thread; '320' . . . I have been able to get the head around it. Spotify are doing 7 days trial on their 'premium' service? I take the point about limited availability on bit rate. I am going to download a few tracks from various sources at different qualities and do the comparisons.

At the moment I'm right in the middle of decorating my study/music room, after which, I will be doing listening tests choosing the new amp/CDP? . . . the next few week are going to be very interesting, lots of variables . . . :dance: . . . take it steady.

 

[CJSF]

I've never used Spotify but in reference to the question about do old recordings benefit from better bit rates: most certainly. As you said, plenty of really good quality recordings were made in the 50s and 60s.

I was talking to an old colleague the other day about recording quality in the 50's and 60's, his take on it was similar. Master recordings could be to a high standard, it was reproduction equipment that often let them down. Finding untouched or sensitively remastered recordings from the era can be very rewarding.

 

[Lee H]

If you can, look for modern re-masters of the track you like. If done from the original studio master then you can get a big improvement.

 

[Anonymous]

I can't imagine older recordings being much better, you can't upscale a poor source very well... but what I would describe as a poor source others would disagree.... I'm not sure about the original source of older recordings... those big black Frisbees come to mind! As for the 320kbps, not all the songs are available at that bitrate. I am a subscriber to the premium service and mostly only newer tracks are available on the higher bitrate but they are 'working' on the older tracks. I would try it for a month and see how you like it; you can cancel if you don’t get the improvement you are expecting.

If you search on the net you could probably score a trial period!

If you listen to a lot of Jazz recordings from the 1950s and 60s and compare it to the very loud heavily compressed noise that is often produced now then I think you will hear a huge difference. A lot of modern recordings sound terrible on a decent system. There is still a lot of music that isn't cranked up to 11, but the more popular releases tend to be terrible these days.

 

[Anonymous]

If you can, look for modern re-masters of the track you like. If done from the original studio master then you can get a big improvement.

Although some of the re-masters are awful. For example, the re-master of The Stooges Raw Power is bordering on unlistenable

 

[Lee H]

If you can, look for modern re-masters of the track you like. If done from the original studio master then you can get a big improvement.

Although some of the re-masters are awful. For example, the re-master of The Stooges Raw Power is bordering on unlistenable

Very tue. One of the joys of Spotify is that you can compare and contrast before deciding which one to add to your library/cache

 

[Anonymous]

I can't imagine older recordings being much better

Not necessarily so. Try the Decca Ring Cycle from the 1950's (Solti etc, John Culshaw engineered), it blows all the competition away without a trace. And this is not an isolated case at all.

Some, but not all, modern pop/rock recordings are just dreadful even with all the technology at their disposal. To a large extent its what went on in the studio and subsequent editing that defines what you hear. I'm sure some companies think that because its Kylie Minogue anything will do as fans will buy it anyway, (thats a random example by the way as Kylie is not on my listening list although she is probably on a number of different wish lists!).

 

[Anonymous]

They also know that most music is played on sub £100 ipod docks, in cars etc and the loudness issue isn't as apparent in that context. Only a tiny proportion of the people who buy music even give this issue a second thought.

 

[Anonymous]

They also know that most music is played on sub £100 ipod docks, in cars etc and the loudness issue isn't as apparent in that context. Only a tiny proportion of the people who buy music even give this issue a second thought.

And this is indeed very worrying as inadvertantly the expectations of the listening public are being driven down and does this maybe encourage some labels to cut corners in terms of the recording/mastering process. Of course i have no proof it does but it is a worrying possibility.

Don't get me wrong as I think iPods, MP3 players are brilliant devices, my wife spends much more time at the gym because she can relieve some of the boredom with some music, similarly when she goes for a run. Best thing about this is I get an hour to myself to pulverise my speaker cones with some decent resolution music whilst she is out. But she really notices the difference when I play the same MP3 track but at a higher resolution through some decent kit. Shame really that many downloaded tracks are somewhat compromised in terms of quality. Internet bandwith has increased so I don't know why mainstream labels and particularly HMV don't offer bettwer quality downloads as an option. True Linn etc do and HD Tracks also but there isn't exactly bucketloads of the stuff available.

In some ways its kind of a passive (or maybe active) dilution of quality over time as many people actually don't know the difference. Shame really but lets hope that the HD Tracks of this world flourish to counteract this trend

 

[CJSF]

Very interesting response, makes me feel much more at home . . . me coming from those golden hifi days of the 80's.

Having not touched hifi since 1995! the past few months has been a culture shock, but I'm getting my head around it now. Staying in the 80's for musical quality and making the best of modern technology where I see it fitting my appreciation of music and my life style. 'Lee H' got it right, Spotify allow one to listen to lots of variation of the same tune by various artists and presentation, I though it was me at first, hearing some beautiful sounds coming from those old recordings, especially as my system is very much a hotch-potch of what I could find in the loft after 2 house moves and 15 years of depression and inactivity?

However old habits die hard, I trust my ears, there are some gems available in amongst the frying bacon! . . . and as has been said, modern offerings are so often 'just noise', adding to the heap of dross that so many accept as 'music'?

Going to be out of it for a few days, as from tomorrow, painting and re modeling the study to a music room, very small but beautifully formed Be looking at vinyl next year . . . dig out the few LP's I kept from my 2000 album collection spanning 1970 to 1995, I wonder how warped they are . . . one step at a time?

Thanks for the help, a secondary question, where can I get quality downloads from accepting Linn as a no brainier. Seems there are some available on Amazon, ordered Miserere by the Tallis Scholars yesterday, I have the quality down load from Linn, went to get the Studio CD . . . they dont list it any more?

CJSF

 

[nopiano]

Very interesting response, makes me feel much more at home . . . me coming from those golden hifi days of the 80's.

I bought my first system in 1973, so that makes me feel old! But glad you liked it.

...ordered Miserere by the Tallis Scholars yesterday...

Which reminds me, Gimell also do Studio Master downloads on their website. [How could I forget? I went to school with a great chap called Steve C. Smith, who was the Recording Engineer of the original Tallis Scholars recording of Miserere, which was produced long before they created the Gimell label. It was originally released on CfP, Classsics for Pleasure, and I still have the LP, as well as the later Gimell CD, made when they bought the licence back from EMI for their recording!].

<<< Digression mode - OFF >>>

 

[CJSF]

Very interesting response, makes me feel much more at home . . . me coming from those golden hifi days of the 80's.

I bought my first system in 1973, so that makes me feel old! But glad you liked it.

...ordered Miserere by the Tallis Scholars yesterday...

Which reminds me, Gimell also do Studio Master downloads on their website. [How could I forget? I went to school with a great chap called Steve C. Smith, who was the Recording Engineer of the original Tallis Scholars recording of Miserere, which was produced long before they created the Gimell label. It was originally released on CfP, Classsics for Pleasure, and I still have the LP, as well as the later Gimell CD, made when they bought the licence back from EMI for their recording!].

<<< Digression mode - OFF >>>

Hay Nopiano, my vinyl copy was a CFP, remember I bough it from Smiths, 'on offer', a bargain or what; how to turn your listening room into a 'Cathedral' . . . It was one of my standard test records in the 80's. I will look at Gimell, thank you. My late wife's uncles were all hifi nuts, radio grams custom built, would have been mid 60's? Quad amps built in, state of the art in those days. Cid had a custom built, teak cabinet by 'Lanskys' and separate horn speakers . . . cant remember the name of the speakers, (might have been Leek?) they were 4-5ft tall floor standing with internal grooves to project the sound out of the top of the speaker?

I married Kathy in 68, no TV, we bought a Bush record player and plug in active stereo speaker unit, that would have been 1969, 1972 I purchased a Marantz receiver and a pair of Scott speakers, cant remember what the deck was, might have been a Dual? The rest is history as they say, until 1995 . . . Kathy died of cancer, I had a total breakdown, fell apart and destroyed much of my hifi, some physically with a sledge hammer, memorable were two reel to reel G36's that went that way!

Nothing significantly interesting happened until early this year, still fighting depression to this day . . . a spark light my hifi fire . . . :?

CJSF

 

[MajorFubar]

With regards to how current albums are mastered, especially mainstream rock/pop, I really don't think that it's a question of engineers' skills having slipped or that they don't care as much as they used to, as some people have suggested. It's more to do with the fact that the client wants them to produce a 'certain sound' (aka production style) which at the moment is instantly commercial.

Maybe, as some have suggested, the reason why 'that' sound is instantly commercial is because most consumers listen on cheap iPod docks or nasty headphones which sound no better than 70s AM radio. I can't say. But whatever the reason, rest assured that the sound we cringe at is not a result of apathetic engineering or a decline in technical ability in the studio. The production has been expertly crafted to sound exactly how the client wants it to sound, because the client knows 'that' certain sound sells downloads, CDs and records to their fans.

 

[CJSF]

With regards to how current albums are mastered, especially mainstream rock/pop, I really don't think that it's a question of engineers' skills having slipped or that they don't care as much as they used to, as some people have suggested. It's more to do with the fact that the client wants them to produce a 'certain sound' (aka production style) which at the moment is instantly commercial.

Maybe, as some have suggested, the reason why 'that' sound is instantly commercial is because most consumers listen on cheap iPod docks or nasty headphones which sound no better than 70s AM radio. I can't say. But whatever the reason, rest assured that the sound we cringe at is not a result of apathetic engineering or a decline in technical ability in the studio. The production has been expertly crafted to sound exactly how the client wants it to sound, because the client knows 'that' certain sound sells downloads, CDs and records to their fans.

That may be the case, however, we as hifi enthusiasts want what we want . . . I certainly do. I hanker after the old classic style, I will pay for it . . . Unfortunately, it seems, standards have slipped these days, in many walks of life, who dictates those standard, that is another question. Certainly, the 'modern' hifi enthusiast does not seem to have the same level of ideals I remember? personal opinion and interpretation of course . . . the saying 'two wrongs dont make a right' comes to mind.

Two channel stereo reproduction, 'presenting a performance to me to savour' is my goal . . .

Very much in these modern times, a personal opinion . . . CJSF

 

[Mr Morph]

I do agree with MF, because what we see on this site is probably not a reflection of what most people demand from their listening. Now the Ipod has become a way of life, is it really so surprising?

And back to CJ’s ‘Miserere’, I was totally taken in by that ‘Cathedral’, and this was on Classic FM (DAB) at a meagre 160Kbps. I don’t usually find myself able to sit through 15 minutes of choir work, but on that particular occasion it really was a pleasure.

 

[CJSF]

I do agree with MF, because what we see on this site is probably not a reflection of what most people demand from their listening. Now the Ipod has become a way of life, is it really so surprising?

And back to CJ’s ‘Miserere’, I was totally taken in by that ‘Cathedral’, and this was on Classic FM (DAB) at a meagre 160Kbps. I don’t usually find myself able to sit through 15 minutes of choir work, but on that particular occasion it really was a pleasure.

Morning Mr Morph, (afternoon now, its taken so long to put this together, so many interruptions) "What most people demand . . . "? Sitting, thinking about the 'modern way' . . . I admit to preferring things in general, 'how they used to be' . . . but then I'm of that generation. However, I do wonder why 'modern', seems to requires what one perceives as an 'ear bashing, of head splitting proportions, from all sides and in all rooms' . . . :rant:

Listening to music is, in my book, a focused experience, akin to a live performance on a stage in an auditorium . . . ? Am I getting past it, is it change I'm fighting:?

Miserere is almost an argument against myself as it can be an enveloping sound . . . one explains this by the echo type acoustic experienced in church buildings captured on the recording, magic . . .

CJSF

 

[nopiano]

In some ways its kind of a passive (or maybe active) dilution of quality over time as many people actually don't know the difference. Shame really but lets hope that the HD Tracks of this world flourish to counteract this trend.

I agree, but I do think this has always been the case to some extent. The Decca 'Ring' cycle was mentioned above - a landmark in audio recording of opera. But then there was Dynagroove (added distortion), and LPs so thin they warped easily, and 'best of' albums with reduced dynamics to, and audio cassettes needing Dolby B to reduce hiss, not to metion graphic equalisers, etc, etc. And all the time ideas about the importance of the source, the attractive sound of valves/tubes, Moving-coil cartridges, the significance of power supplies and support tables - and more - advanced the state-of-the-art.

So, I think we have areas which are advancing and those trading sound for convenience. Today, hi-fi amplifiers and speakers have surely never been better (absolutlely, or for the money), while we have mp3 and DAB doing nothing for quality. With, as you say, Linn, Chesky, and others advancing the art in digital recording.