Reference CDs

What type of music?

I'm a classic rock fan as well, but I think that Beck/Sea Change is one of the better sounding discs out there. Beck is typically alternative or funky but this album is totally different (it's a sad album with lots of acoustic guitar). A lot of people regard the multichannel SACD as one of their reference discs and I recently picked up the MoFi release and it's outstanding as well.

Steely Dan/Gaucho is another excellent choice.

I was specifically referring to Sea Change, but I have some other Beck discs as well. I think I paid $24 for a new & sealed MoFi version recently. The multichannel SACD/DVD-A versions are amazing but not cheap. Here's the MoFi I picked up:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Beck-Sea-Change-...item3f0b7d8388

This is something I've given a great deal of thought to, and something I value greatly; superbly recorded/mastered rock releases.

Steely Dan, Gaucho in SACD is superb, reference quality work
Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon SACD
Donald Fagan, The Nightfly
Bonnie Raitt, Luck of the Draw
AC/DC, Back in Black (the peak/ave ratio of this release is unbelievably dynamic, easily gobbles up amp reserves)
Sting, Brand New Day


Good luck

FOH-every once in a while I hear someone slam the DSOTM SACD, but I think it's outstanding. Then again, I'm a huge Floyd fan. I'd like to hear what LIVE rock you personally recommend.

I always refer to the 90s Doug Sax re-mastering of Pink Floyd's The Wall. Technically, it is the best sounding of their entire catalog as far as I'm concerned.

How do I get this?

You can get the 2000 re-issue of it from Capitol.

If that's the one I'm on it. Thanks.

In my opinion, nothing can touch The Who, Live at Leeds. It's a phenomenal capture of a rock band at their peak, ...a band that excelled at the art of the full tilt, leave nothing on the table, rock concert. It's the greatest live rock release of all time.

Live at Leeds is somewhat of a perfect storm scenario. Someone had their $hit together, because the audio quality is fantastic. It's simple, straight ahead guitar, drums and bass,...and a Rock God front-man singer that had a swagger and the pipes necessary to front the wildest, loudest, live act of the period. I've seen thousands of rock shows (I've recorded many as well),...I've seen The Who many times, and their stage volume, which is the total SPL of their back-line and whatever fold-back or monitoring is present, is excessive. This is a quality one can delineate in the recording via bleed thru or lack of isolation of the different elements. I think in this case, it's quite an attribute. It's a raw sound that's pure energy.

If one hasn't had the pleasure of enjoying Live at Leeds at realistic levels in one's home, do yourself a favor and pick it up. Even the original 35 minute version is stellar. The Who is an entirely different animal live, as opposed to their studio releases.


Other solid live rock releases, I mean really good are Allman Bros., Live at the Fillmore, it's performance and quality is outstanding.

Others are a Doors live release that I don't recall the name,..it's very good, Hendrix, SRV, Pink Floyd, even the Frampton Comes Alive release. The live U2
release at Red Rock is nice. Most live releases suck, some are good, only a few are outstanding. I did enjoy the Cream, live at the Royal Albert Hall reunion DVD quality,...suprisingly nicely mixed and nice sound.

I know there are others, but Live at Leeds, is at the top for me, with the Live at the Fillmore right up there in second.

Good luck

Good info, thanks FOH. I have several versions of ABB/Live At The Fillmore East but do not own Who/Live At Leeds.

FWIW (but see disclaimer below) I'll suggest Little Featfor auditioning purposes, maybe my favourites would be "Let it Roll" album, "Representing the Mambo", and "Time Loves a Hero" album. Plenty of different muscial styles/instruments (excellent musicianship BTW)

I have to qualify my choices however. I'm quite familiar with these albums, and I think that's the most important aspect. In my view, its much better to go with something you really like and know well - then you can pick out the subtle differences and nuances while you're trying different equipment. I recently got some nice new speakers, a modern receiver and good CD player, and am constantly surprised by some new "detail" that I haven't heard before. But that only happens when you know the music intimately.

We could be related when it comes to musical taste and appreciation . I used both of these ^ during the couple of years I made several sets of speakers.

I only finally picked up Nightfly this past year, but I'm a lifelong SD fan. I agree on the dynamics of BIB. While it's not the best, I must say that I find If You Want Blood You've Got It pretty impressive for its time (and with Bonn Scott), and for a live album.

To add to the list, a few others I used over 20+yrs ago to test speakers;

Al Di Meola - Elegant Gypsy (his second album, and the first instrumental album to almost go Gold). Jan Hammer, Paco De Lucia, Steve Gadd play on this, along with others.

Jan Hammer - Among many others, don't laugh, but the Soundtrack for Miami Vice is excellent to check out speaker performance!

Don Henley - End of The Innocence (all) and some cuts of Building the Perfect Beats. Excellent productions.

There's nothing funny about good 80s music. How can anyone not like getting caught in a serene trance listening to Jan Hammer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPrgRjxsZRo&feature=fvst

LOL, yep. And though I've always kind of considered myself a mostly 70's hard/prog rock kinda guy, I actually liked a few segments of the 80's synthesized sound. Most notably, Hammer (already mentioned), and especially Steve Winwood, who I've liked since the late 60's. I actually find the 80's synth sound almost a perfect vehicle for his Style.

As for Hammer; Like many other musicians who aren't guitarists or vocalists, are often gone unappreciated. Hammer is legendary and had played with a myriad of artists of different genres.

Di Meola has done the same, though most know him under the banner of "jazz", which has really been a misnomer since the mid 80's. He's so eclectic, as well as versatile, that there isn't a single genre category for him. Jazz fusion, Latin, Cuban-African, Brazillian, Flamenco, New World, Classical...just a few to tryto capture what he plays. I own over 35 of his albums that span from age 19 (Chick Corea's & Return to Forever days) to current day, Al @ age 56, and his newest, just released Pursuit of Radical Rhapsody. Phenomenal guitarist and composer. But I digress....

You're not crazy. The whole point of developing MP3s was to compress the data to take up less space; so information is thrown away. I think an apt analogy is making a color copy of a picture; the copy won't look as good as the original. You CAN make a bit for bit copy of a CD; but then it wouldn't be an MP3 file.

Download foobar2000 and do a ABX test. My bet it that you will not make it

Tiesto in search of sunrise 7
the Black keys brothers
Kelly sweet we are one
Oakenfold- A lively mind
Gucci mane the burrprint 2 in HD - Track Coca cola (bass)
Kaskade in the moment
Kaskade Dynasty
Kaskade strobelight seduction
Hans Zimmer -Angels and demons score

+1 (if nothing else, it won't be "obvious")

I take it you mean the original release, not the remaster?

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/inde...=back+in+black

Interesting, I'd have to see which versions I've got. what I do know is subjectively, it's got a feel that's quite appealing. Also, viewing clip indicators, it gobbles up headroom fast. At quite a modest level relative to some material, it clips easily and somewhat earlier on the dial than one would expect. How's that for a technical justification?

When it was popular, I mean the year it was released, man,.. album rock stations burned it up. Everywhere you went, parties etc., the Back in Black release was everywhere. It gets to you and one burns out on the material. However, I began appreciating it again a decade or two later and realizing what incredibly solid material and stellar production effort it was. So today, I can appreciate it for what it is; one of the biggest rock releases of all time. I think it gets the "short end of the draw", as it were, because perhaps the apex of some of the other greatest rock releases had happened years earlier. Punk and Disco were huge when it came out, it had to fight for it's spot in history. Who am I, hell at the time I liked Lipps Inc Funkytown just as much as You Shook Me All Night Long The Village People were just as big as The Wall, ..right then. Actually, Molly Hatchet woulda been my answer if you asked me who my favorite act was at the time.

What the hell was I thinking?


I digress.....

I'll check what version I've got, thanks for the heads up and sorry for the rant.

I won't argue with a man who likes to flirt with disaster.

Yea, I kinda burnt out a long time ago on Back in Black, but of course it's a classic.

From your description, it sounds like you have the remaster. Especially if it stays up in the clipping region most of the time with the needle seldom dropping down for momentary "breathers", which would be visual evidence of nice dynamics.

Looking into Live at Leeds, it appears that the old bootleg recording (Live at Leeds: Complete) is the best sounding version of all, with the '95 remaster being the next best alternative. For some reason, I thought there was an official dvd release? I couldn't find it in a quick search.

It's funny that both of you mention getting a little burned out by this great album as I feel exactly the same way. To this day I have a hard time listening to AC/DC anymore because of Back In Black, yet I still listen to everything else today that I did back then (Floyd, Zeppelin, Rush, etc.) The first piece of music I ever bought as a kid was the 45 of "You Shook Me All Night Long."

The thing here, is that dynamic sound (even simple chord arrangements, like we have here that lend such), along with actual dynamic range, can give the impression of production excellence, even when they're as far from that as can be. Many simple songs have gained note because the mixing guy really emphasized some key chords/phrases.

Even my beloved Gaucho, beside being technically superior in over a billion ways than anything AC/DC could ever even dream to create, counts on pro production....on top of consummate professional performers who are playing extraordinary combinations of complex and beautifully joined notes, chords and rhythms. Hell, go back and revisit Can't Buy A Thrill. Beside Do it Again's mesmerizing lock step intro, all the other...lesser known songs are equally in check, and produced with near shear perfection. And this was early 70's, when such recording magic was damn near unheard of. Seriously, take the recording excellence out of Do it Again, and it becomes a song that nobody ever heard of, or one that died out simply as a "somewhat catchy tune". Forget Fagan's brilliant, his "over most people's head" and intellectual lyrics, they just... flat out.. have excellent production, on top of brilliantly written, played, and well matched musical material.

Then, we also have a "raw vs defined" contrast here between AC/DC and SD. And to be totally candid, I really only agreed with your BIB assessment because you were so close to me on others, lol, and the fact that there is indeed, great dynamic parsing going on there in mixing.

Lastly, to bring the production side even further to the forefront; DSOTM - The dynamics are incredible. The music is unbelievable. The lyrics are deep and quite haunting. And as I'm about to push the point further.....the production is amazing.

To bring the point home the best I can at the moment; I was never specifically a fan of Alan Parsons, but after even being drawn in by the "lame" high-airplay radio song, Wouldn't Want to Be Like You when I was a teen, I soon realized that it wasn't the funky and very unusual lyrics, as much as it was the production itself. For those here who may not know, Alan Parsons produced DSOTM for Floyd. I purchased several of the Alan Parsons Project's works as time went on. My point? Even though Parson's music was nowhere near as "epic" as someone like Floyd's....their production alone is seductive all by itself, and a further testament to what I'm trying to tie in here from the beginning. I think we all gravitate toward great production (I know that I do), even when the "song" wouldn't normally grab our attention if recorded in a lesser way.

Sorry for the length .