I have not found Neil's music to be unlistenable at all. I think this is more than likely a system thing and not a recording one. I own almost all of Neil's stuff and although the sessions and greatest hits reveal the different studios and mastering signatures, it's not that hard to make the adjustments needed to get things focused in. You just have to have the tools and practice to get there.

Don't give up on Neil, all the magic is there.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Here are some comparisons of the different formats available for that particular album……

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=neil+young&album=greatest+hits

Remember that just because an album is marketed as ‘Remastered’ …….
It is no guarantee the end product is better.
It only indicates it will sound ‘different’.

In my half century of listening & purchasing music I rarely have found ‘Greatest Hits’ albums to be of equal or better quality than the originals.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please

Rust Never Sleeps is a LIVE album with everything you could possibly want, great songs, great playing, unbelievable recording with a soundstage the size of Kansas and dynamic range up the ting yang. Get it today!

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Bill brings up something about greatest hits that is very important. There are two issues here. One being that the original masters are different per session settings so the songs are going to reflect those differences. Second, the engineer might try to play the "make things equal" game to attempt to bring synergism to the whole. When this is done some or all the tracks may be compromised to make the selections sound like they are meant to be played together as in an original setting.

For myself it's fun to compare the different recording and mastering techniques.

Bill, also brings up the remastering issue. Remastering is a buzz word that can be very misleading. Sometimes it almost implies that the original guys did it wrong, but I have found many originals that I like better than the re-do. This is where you can become masters of your systems and your music collections. Exploring the best copy for you can be a lot of fun.

Bill also gives reference to the loudness wars, which I have been paying more attention to as far as looking up the recordings. Even though I have not found this to be all that accurate when it comes to the listening part some of the time it is helpful to see what you are hearing is the same as what has been tested and reported. These test however should be used against the testing of a particular systems dynamic range as well.

I was talking with a designer buddy of mine who has spent a lot of time exploring dynamic ranges, and his take is pretty interesting and fits pretty much with my findings. He has seen that the loudness wars has not only been happening in some mastering but has also taking place with audio products. He has been comparing the dynamic ranges of vintage, 80's-90's and todays audiophile products and the least dynamic of the 3 in the "high end audio" class were todays products. This fits in with what I have been finding over the past 15 or so years as well. I'm excluding the mass production products along with some of the smaller product designs as I'm finding plenty of dynamic range, but the big over built products on both the speaker and amp side have lost the dynamic edge. Even many products "rated" as high efficiency are not delivering the content with the same vibrant attack as some of the more simply built products of the past and as I said some of the smaller units and massed produced ones.

As I have been saying this is a recording thing but also an equipment one.

Since I've been bringing this up on the forum here it has been nice getting the responses back from listeners hearing the same thing. BTW use my regular email address and my forum for responding I'm not checking my mail here as much and hate missing your comments.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Think I just saw that in the bargin bin at my record/CD shop. Might have to swing by again.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Your point is well taken.

DVD as a format certainly has the ability to offer better sound quality due to its higher resolution.

However, if the source is compressed or not engineered to take advantage of the higher resolution, then the end end result can be inferior to other formats that utilize that so-called 'lower' quality format.

As an example, I have many redbook 16/44 files ripped from CD that sound far better than other Hi-Rez products.

It all comes down to the care taken in the engineering along with which master tapes or files were used to produce the product.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please

Personally, I think redbook 16/44 had something pretty special going on. There is less clutter and more life. I'm not a numbers freak but I am a listening freak, and I have heard many Hi-Rez that sound sterile and cold, shifted up.

good call Bill

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I do not doubt that Michael & I both have some mono recordings from the late 50's that can put shame to anything you care to put up against it.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

I was born in "59" so by the time I was a studio brat it was all stereo, but my heart is with the 50's and 60's studio gear, even up to the early 80's, but the old stuff had the body & soul I like.

I like following the guys that started mono then things went stereo during their career. Being a student of stereo I like the transition years. There's some crazy recordings around then both in mono and stereo.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Hi David

This is a good post, and tells a story that a lot of listeners have gone through and still are. I get tons of mail asking me what I think is going on. Why is the music not sounding as good today as it did back years ago? In my answers I give some news that is taken well and some not so well, but it's my answer based on research all the same.

This particular industry has moved so fast the physics has not caught up to the technical changes. If we look back to those days we find simply built products used in recordings and playback. Most things were built by listening and a physical hands on tayloring of the the sound. When CD's came along it was a great thing but at that same time changes started to be made in both recording and playback (in expensive products), and the physical designing engineers changed their approaches (for the most part) in the way products were to be built. This is when things started going down hill in the high end audio. Instead of designers looking at the physics going on things became a digital numbers game. Now that computers are involve the game will continue until the industry stops and takes a serious look at why the sound was the way it was back in the days of simple and vinyl. Vinyl itself will not solve the problem. The problem will not be corrected until the industry sees that they have over built themselves into a corner, and instead of looking at audio as a whole they have been trying to make components as stand alone achievers instead of part of a system that involves everything in the chain. The sound is there as it always has been, but the industry, both recording and home, have got to get back on the physics wagon and stop pretending numbers make sound. Vinyl and tape made great sound because it was a physical thing. High end audio for years has been more focused on eye candy and this is why a simply built setup blows away the more complicated one.

Sometimes moving like lightening speed can end up slowing the whole train track down. Defenders of this speed are taking the industry further away from the magic that happened back in the simple days. The music train will not stop but the folks who are buying into the facade are paying their way to the short end of the musical stick.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

That was a very informative post. Financial experts have generally advised against giving gift certificates previously. They are cash-like commodities, but with more limitations. So why not just give money instead? However, their reputation is on the rise, unaffected by that logic. So, if we are likely to keep giving them, there are some things we ought to know. You can use a short term loan to help pay for your holiday gifts.

Of the word length and sampling rate. Here's a very "to the point" explanation.
http://faq.yamaha.com/us/en/article/music-production/recorders/pocketrak_c24/4747/6888

Agreed

"One thing I have not seen in any of these forums is the use of the optical inter-connect.Does nobody use this input/output? I was told by a best-buy tech that this connection is superior to any other cable connection. How come no one seems to use it?"

Interesting isn't it?

High end audio is not always driven by performance.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Optical was initially thought to offer great advantage over other types of digital connections because of its immunity to electrical problems such as ground loops and RF interference.

The effective range of plastic optical cables is limited to around 15- 30 feet & they can be damaged if tightly bent. Glass cable is both a better (less restrictive) transmitter of light & also more expensive.

But what many are not aware of is the necessity to have accurate converters that change the digital signal to light & then back again (the devise that both ends plug into). This conversion is just as critical as the digital to analog conversion which takes place in the DAC. The quality & accuracy of these converters varies greatly & is seldom mentioned.

The potential for induced jitter due to spurious anomalies in both conversions (digital to optical & back to digital) is audibly significant.

Also, you seldom, if ever, see optical connections being used in the professional environments of recording & broadcast. Humm…..

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

It's not uncommon for the unbalanced connections to offer better sonics...at least from a subjective point of view. Sometimes there is a variance in gain between the two or the balanced connections aren't truly balanced. But, even with that, you need to listen to both if it's available...just don't assume that one is going to be superior by default.

From the preponderance of reviews, the RCA connection usually comes out on top so don't sell it short.

David Harper wrote:

I've been switching back and forth between the analog signal path and the digital signal path.What I hear is the analog path rolls off the high end and the digital path maintains linear frequency response all the way up to over 20000 hz.
Maybe this is what audiophiles mistake for "better sound" It's the same phenomenon as vacuum tube amps.Because they're incapable of linear frequency response, (at the extreme ends) some mistake this for superior sound.

Huh? I'm not sure where you got that from, but that is far from true for tube amps. At least as a generalization. They actually have superior high frequency response as well as low frequency response compared to most solid state amps. But I suppose you can always find a solid state amp somewhere that might possibly beat a poor excuse for a tube amp. It's a little like comparing apples and watermelons.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Catch22 wrote:

....you need to listen to both if it's available...just don't assume that one is going to be superior by default.

First, RCA's are my favorite by far, if used with 22 guage solid core. I've been making my own for years now and they have developed a bit of a cult following. I do some treatment to mine but I think that even if a person made their own version they will sound better than most out there. I'm happy to share some secrets on this if anyone is interested.

Second, amps have gone though some changes over the last 5 years or so that has changed the game in my book. I would either go with vintage gear tube or solid state from 90 and back, or try some of the lower mass amps being made now. The amps being made now on the lower mass side of things have a much better size ratio between the transformer and rest of the parts. Marantz started this with the ma700 (shockingly good sounding) back in the 90's but most didn't pick up on it. There were a few amps that took the time to match parts size wize like Parasound on a couple of models, but for the most part there was a lack of balance in a lot of designs with both tube and solidstate between the 90's-2010. A lot of amps did somethings really well but would lack in other areas, range extention being one of them. They even measured good but sound wise had rolled off sounds on one end or the other do to over dampening and over build.

Before I got to crazed on the high end audio names I would take a serious look at the lower mass and mass production amps being produced, even if you end up looking at receivers. These, all in one, units are not like the ones built in the 90's-2010. You open up a Sherwood 4105 for example and you will find a masterpiece in design. I would imagine that Sony and Yamaha little receivers have done their homework too. In fact I wouldn't be surprised at all if smaller receivers started getting raved reviews from Stereophile and some of the other Mags.

My advice for anyone listening these days is not to be looking at the expensive products only, passing by some gems that are pennies, and with a little care in matching mass wise and balancing the "whole" system will do things that are more than surprising. I've had high end audio dealers come to my place and after listening say "what am I going to do with these boat anchors now".

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

David Harper wrote:

Geoffkait- you may be right, I thought I read(a long time ago) that tubes FR only goes up to about 16000 hz.

The Woo Audio WA6 frequency response is around 1 dB down from 0 dB from 15 kHz all the way out to 20 kHz and beyond. The actual FR various a little bit depending on type of load the headphones provide. I doubt any real contender in tube amps would have any problem getting out to 20 kHz. I have had tube amps for eons and never found them lacking in high frequency extension or bass response for that matter. Sometimes people have a tendency to think of tube amps lacking bass performance. Also an old wives tale.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Agreed,

both DVD-A and SACD are superior formats. Newly Pure Blu-Ray Audio discs are excellent as well.

Those are fightin' words. lol

Where did the post about The Hell Freezes Over CD go? That is one well recorded CD.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Sherwood made a little stereo reciever and sold it at Radio Shack for I think a hundred bucks. It was really really good. I don't remember the model.

Agreed jgossman,

every blue moon a real 'sleeper' product slips under the proverbial radar. I love this kind of gear BTW.

I received a Maxell Jazz album when I purchased my Heresy's in 79 at Listen Up in Denver. What a great sounding low noise album at the time. Also I have a direct to disc of Dixieland music and it really is a great listen. Some of the Blu Ray music by Porcupine Tree is really a treat to listen to.

David Harper wrote:

The Audio Engineering society conducted exhaustive year long double-blind testing of SACD and concluded " there is no audible difference between SACD and CD. Audiophiles hear what they want to hear. I even read someone here said changing the color of a surface will change the sound. That is patent nonsense. It's a fact of physics that changing the color of a surface,or coloring the edge of the disc CANNOT, WILL NOT and NEVER DID change the sound. No matter what anyone thinks they heard. I used to read "The Absolute Sound", but there is so much stupid nonsense in it that I stopped reading it. It's all psychology.

Hmmm, isn't AES the same outfit that believes all cables sound the same? With respect to your comment on coloring the edge of the CD you're actually wrong on both counts - whether it works or not as well as the physics. When people use the expression "it's a fact of physics" I generally find that's a tip off that the person actually doesn't know anything about physics. That's an old pseudo skeptics trick. It's a logical fallacy. You know, like saying, "everyone knows that's not true." Know what I mean, jelly bean?

The new President of AES if I'm not mistaken is the due from Harman Kardon who is cuckoo for coco puffs about controlled blind testing, which is after all the last refuge of the fellow who cannot trust his own ears.

Some logical fallacies for your consideration. These are only some, there are many more.

Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.[54]
Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.[55]
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.[56]
Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality.[57]
Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same.[58]
Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.[59][60]
Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.[61]

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Nirvana 'Unplugged' CD from 1994 is an outstanding recording, for a live album.

Allen Fant wrote:

Nirvana 'Unplugged' CD from 1994 is an outstanding recording, for a live album.

For some reason there are many really well recorded Unplugged CDs, Eric Clapton is another one, so is the Plant Page Un Ledded, and would you believe Kiss Unplugged. Yeah, I know what you're thinking. But that CD is killer. No, I'm not shitting you.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I just got Mapleshade Classical's Alan Gampel: Chopin and Liszt Sonatas on CD. It sounds as close to a real piano as anything I have heard on my stereo. Mind you, it sounds like listening to someone (capable) playing it - right over there - rather than me sticking my face right down next to the strings. But the performance and recording are both top notch.

For a rather different change of pace, consider Anciients - Heart of Oak on double 45 LP (aside from the bonus tracks, don't bother with the cd - it is mixed far hotter and less dynamic). It is rocking riff Fest, and the drums' metalwork sounds tangible. Some may complain about the less-clean vocals, but I would take them over Dylan or Young any day, personally. Especially with the face-melting music...

I just got Mapleshade Classical's Alan Gampel: Chopin and Liszt Sonatas on CD. It sounds as close to a real piano as anything I have heard on my stereo. Mind you, it sounds like listening to someone (capable) playing it - right over there - rather than me sticking my face right down next to the strings. But the performance and recording are both top notch.

For a rather different change of pace, consider Anciients - Heart of Oak on double 45 LP (aside from the bonus tracks, don't bother with the cd - it is mixed far hotter and less dynamic). It is rocking riff Fest, and the drums' metalwork sounds tangible. Some may complain about the less-clean vocals, but I would take them over Dylan or Young any day, personally. Especially with the face-melting music...

Pardon the double post. Like a sucker, I figured I should hit "save" again since I couldn't tell the inner workings of my ipad were already moving.

Whew!

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I love getting a new record and having it actually sound great. There are plenty that don't, and I have plenty of those. But vinyl done right is so right.