or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Surround Music Formats › What are your most recent Hi-Res purchases?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What are your most recent Hi-Res purchases? - Page 259

post #7741 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by gloco View Post

I'm more irritated with the shipping fees at the moment. I want to buy a stack of In Living Stereo SACD's and moviemars has a lot of them for a solid price. So I emailed them about combining the shipping fees and they declined. Real lame to pay $3.99 per disc, when the discs are only $7-8 a pop.

Shipping fees are (yet!) another pet peeve of mine. AFAIAC, they are a way for the seller - and it especially applies to eBay - to avoid paying fees to the venue (Amazon, eBay, etc) as the fees are calculated on the selling price and not the total paid.

Jeff
post #7742 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I have only ever seen two titles in hi-res where the STEREO mix had been re-done - ELP and ELP Tarkus. In all other instances, the stereo mix was the original mix - maybe remastered - and upconverted to a hi-res format. Re-mastering can improve an old stereo mix, but only re-visiting the multitrack masters and moving forward from there with today's digital technology can unlock all of the quality that is available. In the analog domain, the original stereo mix has lost some sound quality present on the multitrack masters. This is my major pet peeve with all of these stereo SACD releases. Better than Redbook? OK, probably. But only incrementally so. My theory will likely be verified or refuted when MoFi Eat A Peach shows up. I think the downmixed 5.1 Eat A Peach will sound best, the remastered stereo MoFi will be next with the stereo layer from the Merc/Polydor coming in third.

I think the downmixing must happen in the receiver/processor ... I think. Trying to output stereo from the player will probably result in the stereo layer being outputted. I need to look into it more.

Jeff

edit: Remixing from the original multtrack masters means, along with the original performance being preserved in its highest state, all of the effects, reverb, echo, thickening, etc, are done on today's gear. Remastering the original stereo mix cannot improve those things any more than the incremental overall improvement. And there was some very crude effects gear back in the day.

I'll be honest and say that I have just about zero knowledge about remixing or remastering music. But I just found this interview with Steve Hoffman. In the interview he was asked about a new trend to go back multi-track tapes and remixing them. Below is the question and Steve's answer which I found quite interesting.

MR: There seems to be a new trend, however small a trend it is, of going back to the multi-track tapes, cleaning them up, and then remixing them into a “new” product. Steve Wilson, who is a rising star in remastering and re-mixing progressive classics, re-mixed Jethro Tull's Aqualung to amazing results. How do you feel about re-mixing versus remastering?


SH: Can’t stand it. Usually what happens is that eventually the remix replaces the original beloved version until the remix is heard on the radio and is the only version that one can buy unless one collects an old LP or something. Hate the trend. The original mix is the work of art.

One doesn’t add hot pink to a da Vinci just because it’s the color of the month. And if someone says that all they are trying to do is reproduce the old classic mix but with better sound, I say: Remaster the old classic mix and don’t try to tamper with music history. I wish this trend would GO AWAY. Can’t blame the record companies and artists for trying to make some money on their catalog in a new way though.


Bill
post #7743 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

I'll be honest and say that I have just about zero knowledge about remixing or remastering music. But I just found this interview with Steve Hoffman. In the interview he was asked about a new trend to go back multi-track tapes and remixing them. Below is the question and Steve's answer which I found quite interesting.

MR: There seems to be a new trend, however small a trend it is, of going back to the multi-track tapes, cleaning them up, and then remixing them into a “new” product. Steve Wilson, who is a rising star in remastering and re-mixing progressive classics, re-mixed Jethro Tull's Aqualung to amazing results. How do you feel about re-mixing versus remastering?


SH: Can’t stand it. Usually what happens is that eventually the remix replaces the original beloved version until the remix is heard on the radio and is the only version that one can buy unless one collects an old LP or something. Hate the trend. The original mix is the work of art.

One doesn’t add hot pink to a da Vinci just because it’s the color of the month. And if someone says that all they are trying to do is reproduce the old classic mix but with better sound, I say: Remaster the old classic mix and don’t try to tamper with music history. I wish this trend would GO AWAY. Can’t blame the record companies and artists for trying to make some money on their catalog in a new way though.


Bill

Ahhh, what's he know? biggrin.gif

And he's never added hot pink to anything he's done, neither has anyone else whose work I have heard. the original mix may very well be a work of art, but every 5.1 mix I have heard has been faithful to the original mix. Never has anything been altered balance-wise. The songs sound essentially the same, but now I am in the band during the performance. And, because of the new transparency and impact, sounds as good as what the original mixing engineer heard when creating the original mix.

Mr. Wilson has just dropped several notches in my eyes. smile.gif

And what a bunch of BS, a 5.1 mix will never replace the original mix ON THE RADIO.
Edited by pepar - 5/30/13 at 2:20pm
post #7744 of 9848
While I will gladly take new high resolution 5.1 remixes, I do still agree with the sentiment above. There are times when these new mixes differ too far from the original mix. One example of this for me was Fleetwood Mac Rumours - On a couple of tracks they added in new elements that were not in the original mix. Being so familiar with that album, I found the new elements distracting. While I cant think of any examples of a beloved album being remixed and having the new remix replacing the original, I can see that it could be disturbing if this happened on a widespread basis to a song or album that I loved. In the case of remasters, its true that these do replace the original masters on the radio and elsewhere and often the remasters are worse than the original masters and are victims of the loudness wars.
post #7745 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Ahhh, what's he know? biggrin.gif

And he's never added hot pink to anything he's done, neither has anyone else whose work I have heard. the original mix may very well be a work of art, but every 5.1 mix I have heard has been faithful to the original mix. Never has anything been altered balance-wise. The songs sound essentially the same, but now I am in the band during the performance. And, because of the new transparency and impact, sounds as good as what the original mixing engineer heard when creating the original mix.

Mr. Wilson has just dropped several notches in my eyes. smile.gif

And what a bunch of BS, a 5.1 mix will never replace the original mix ON THE RADIO.


When you say the original mix do you mean the stereo mix? In all honesty how do you know for sure that a 5.1 mix is faithful to the original multi-tracks which most likely were in stereo. In other words unless you were the original engineer how would you know? The person doing the 5.1 mix could make a specific instrument louder or place it in the surrounds when it might be better in one of the LCR speakers. "Never has anything been altered balance-wise", again how do you know this to be certain? Also how do you know for certain that "a new transparency and impact, sounds as good as what the original mixing engineer heard when creating the original mix" at all times? I mean you are making a statement as if it is a given for every title that would be mixed to stereo or 5.1 from the original multi-track masters. As far as being a bunch of BS I believe SH was referring to an original stereo mix not a 5.1 mix. In that question and answer I posted it doesn't mention 5.1 at all.

Bill
Edited by Bill Mac - 5/30/13 at 2:53pm
post #7746 of 9848
Its been a while since I listened to Rumours stereo mix - but If I recall, the new elements (instruments that were recorded as part of the original recording sessions but left out of the original mix) that were added back in were included in the stereo mix on the DVD audio. They also added in an additional song (Silver Springs) on the DVD audio - not present in the original recording. Silver Springs has also been included on subsequent re-releases of Rumours also. Both might sound out of place to someone who listened to the original album hundreds of times. While I actually like the version with Silver Springs, it would be a mistake if future generations grew up to believe that this is the way it was originally.
post #7747 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

When you say the original mix do you mean the stereo mix? In all honesty how do you know for sure that a 5.1 mix is faithful to the original multi-tracks which most likely were in stereo. In other words unless you were the original engineer how would you know? The person doing the 5.1 mix could make a specific instrument louder or place it in the surrounds when it might be better in one of the LCR speakers. "Never has anything been altered balance-wise", again how do you know this to be certain? Also how do you know for certain that "a new transparency and impact, sounds as good as what the original mixing engineer heard when creating the original mix" at all times? I mean you are making a statement as if it is a given for every title that would be mixed to stereo or 5.1 from the original multi-track masters. As far as being a bunch of BS I believe SH was referring to an original stereo mix not a 5.1 mix. In that question and answer I posted it doesn't mention 5.1 at all.

Bill
Much of my 5.1 hi-res library is of old and familiar music, so I have a well-founded opinion on the songs sounding essentially the same in 5.1 as in the original stereo mix. stockmonkey2000's comment about some Rumours songs being distracting is a little concerning, but then maybe I have never mentally cataloged mixes and don't have the detailed memory ... or the sensitivity to minor changes. (I'd add that, if the artist was involved in adding new elements, is that not their right to reinterpret their work?) Anyway, to me, nearly all of the songs I have heard in 5.1 sound essentially the same as I remember them in stereo.

Pretty much by definition - the digital storage they use is LOSSLESS ... DSD/MLP are lossless - cleaning up the original multitrack masters and remixing in the digital domain yields a product that we buy having exactly the sound quality found on those multitrack masters.

As for his comments being or not being on 5.1, how many remixes do you know of that are stereo?

Jeff
post #7748 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockmonkey2000 View Post

Its been a while since I listened to Rumours stereo mix - but If I recall, the new elements (instruments that were recorded as part of the original recording sessions but left out of the original mix) that were added back in were included in the stereo mix on the DVD audio. They also added in an additional song (Silver Springs) on the DVD audio - not present in the original recording. Silver Springs has also been included on subsequent re-releases of Rumours also. Both might sound out of place to someone who listened to the original album hundreds of times. While I actually like the version with Silver Springs, it would be a mistake if future generations grew up to believe that this is the way it was originally.

smile.gif Alright I'll bite, why would it be a mistake?

Jeff
post #7749 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by grubadub View Post

i bought it off of all the glowing recommendations here. should've listened to her music on youtube first. i agree that the sound quality is awesome but the music.......not digging it. maybe i'll try and listen some more and see if it grows on me.

I am getting pickier on purchases and prelisten to a new-to-me artist whenever possible.

The SQ on Pat Barber's discs is indeed superb. But I do quickly tire of her style sometimes. And somebody needs to tell her to get a lyricist. Oops, did I just type that out loud? How snarky! redface.gif
Edited by SoundofMind - 5/30/13 at 5:18pm
post #7750 of 9848
OT but guys I need some help. I purchased this DVD concert video:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000ACX80/ref=oh_details_o02_s01_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
advertised as region 1 NTSC (but apparently made in europe by B&W as part of their Nautilus concert series)

The disc case itself says Regional Code Free Disc format DVD-5 Picture 4:3
It is DD 5.1 and is reputed to have very nice SQ. Alas....

The Denon univ Bluray player says:"Media not supported. Resolution not supported, change resolution of external device." HDMI goes to the AVR where I tried changing some settings on scaling, conversion, etc to no avail. I can't seem to find any relevant user-changable settings in the 1080p TV menu.

My Samsung 3D BluRay player says: Video format of the disc does not meet required video output format. Discs from abroad may not play."
Both players were purchased in USA.

I'm thinking this disc is not NTSC but rather is PAL. If so, I'll get a refund but miss the concert.
frown.gif

Any ideas? TIA
Edited by SoundofMind - 5/30/13 at 6:40pm
post #7751 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

OT but guys I need some help. I purchased this DVD concert video:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000ACX80/ref=oh_details_o02_s01_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
advertised as region 1 NTSC (but apparently made in europe by B&W as part of their Nautilus concert series)

The disc case itself says Regional Code Free Disc format DVD-5 Picture 4:3
It is DD 5.1 and is reputed to have very nice SQ. Alas....

The Denon univ Bluray player says:"Media not supported. Resolution not supported, change resolution of external device." HDMI goes to the AVR where I tried changing some settings on scaling, conversion, etc to no avail. I can't seem to find any relevant user-changable settings in the 1080p TV menu.

My Samsung 3D BluRay player says: Video format of the disc does not meet required video output format. Discs from abroad may not play."
Both players were purchased in USA.

I'm thinking this disc is not NTSC but rather is PAL. If so, I'll get a refund but miss the concert.
frown.gif

Any ideas? TIA

SOM, don't you have an Oppo? I thought you did at one time. If you did there is a simple region free SW mod for DVDs, no hardware required.
post #7752 of 9848
^Great memory, thnx for the idea. I never modded my Oppo83SE. I sold it because
1. I really had no use for the fancy analog DACs as I apply Audyssey to everything and
2. DenonLink CAT5 connection from Denon player to Denon AVR provides jitter-free/improved SQ for music off shiny discs.

The SACD version of this concert is quite pricey. I have the RBCD version and it is pretty good so I thought I'd enjoy nicer SQ, DD5.1surround sound, and video as well.

BTW the disc plays fine in my old media-oriented laptop that I use for Audyssey Pro calibrations. As it has an HDMI out, I'll try that route into my main HT system. That's a bit of a hassle so I was hoping there was a better fix, such as uploading it and "fixing" the file, then burning a properly readable copy.

I've googled and read on this-I don't know that this is a Region issue, it may really be a PAL issue. Sorry for the thread hijack-if anyone else has an idea please PM me.
post #7753 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

^Great memory, thnx for the idea. I never modded my Oppo83SE. I sold it because
1. I really had no use for the fancy analog DACs as I apply Audyssey to everything and
2. DenonLink CAT5 connection from Denon player to Denon AVR provides jitter-free/improved SQ for music off shiny discs.

The SACD version of this concert is quite pricey. I have the RBCD version and it is pretty good so I thought I'd enjoy nicer SQ, DD5.1surround sound, and video as well.

BTW the disc plays fine in my old media-oriented laptop that I use for Audyssey Pro calibrations. As it has an HDMI out, I'll try that route into my main HT system. That's a bit of a hassle so I was hoping there was a better fix, such as uploading it and "fixing" the file, then burning a properly readable copy.

I've googled and read on this-I don't know that this is a Region issue, it may really be a PAL issue. Sorry for the thread hijack-if anyone else has an idea please PM me.

If it plays in a laptop, it sounds like a PAL issue.

I have a 95. I've contemplated a new AVR, the X-4000 with denon link, the 3311ci, I'm currently using doesn't have it. In that case I'd spring for a denon universal as well. But I do like my 95!
post #7754 of 9848
Toys in the Attic was the album that began my foray into rock 'n roll back in the late 70's.

I bought Aerosmith O Yeah (best of) SACD about ten years ago and was extremely disappointed with the disk. Cold and lifeless is how I would describe it. As such I promptly passed on the Toys in the Attic SACD as I assumed it would be more of the same. Only after it went out of print did I start reading the reviews on how good of a disk it was.

So for $50 I got Aerosmith - Toys in the Attic coming from Mexico. Hopefully it makes it here.

And yes, I'm the guy who would never pay $50 now for a $20 disk then wink.gif But than again, I didn't realize that when you hit the 'make an offer' button on Ebay, that if the seller agrees then your locked into that price eek.gif
post #7755 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockmonkey2000 View Post

Its been a while since I listened to Rumours stereo mix - but If I recall, the new elements (instruments that were recorded as part of the original recording sessions but left out of the original mix) that were added back in were included in the stereo mix on the DVD audio. They also added in an additional song (Silver Springs) on the DVD audio - not present in the original recording. Silver Springs has also been included on subsequent re-releases of Rumours also. Both might sound out of place to someone who listened to the original album hundreds of times. While I actually like the version with Silver Springs, it would be a mistake if future generations grew up to believe that this is the way it was originally.

the dvd-audio doesn't replace the original album. let's be real here; considering the size of the multichannel music market, there's no way it could. personally, i'm thrilled with the inclusion of silver springs on the dvd-a and i like the changes to "never going back again".

here's a snippet of an article on the subject:

The most notable difference is on the song Never Going Back Again. The song originally was called Brushes and consisted of just Lindsay Buckingham's acoustic guitar and backup vocal harmony, a short electric guitar solo and soft drumming by Fleetwood. But when it was mixed into two-channel stereo for the original release, the group felt the drums and electric guitar were intrusive. So listeners just heard voice and acoustic guitar, and the name was changed.

But isn't that like repainting the Mona Lisa in a different position or recutting Star Wars with different camera angles? ''The listener has the choice of listening to either version, both of which are on the DVD,'' Fleetwood says.

''The original mix was an artistic decision based on a technical reason,'' he says. ''This is our way of having fun with the new format. The integrity of the work is still there. Hopefully, fans will find that we're in satisfactory command of our faculties.''
post #7756 of 9848
We're not going to get all wrapped around the axle fussing over new mix/original mix differences, are we? I never did get a reply on why it would be a mistake for "future generations" to hear a song that wasn't on the original album, and now I'm thinking that I really don't want an answer. rolleyes.gif

Jeff
post #7757 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by weekendtoy View Post

Toys in the Attic was the album that began my foray into rock 'n roll back in the late 70's.

I bought Aerosmith O Yeah (best of) SACD about ten years ago and was extremely disappointed with the disk. Cold and lifeless is how I would describe it. As such I promptly passed on the Toys in the Attic SACD as I assumed it would be more of the same. Only after it went out of print did I start reading the reviews on how good of a disk it was.

So for $50 I got Aerosmith - Toys in the Attic coming from Mexico. Hopefully it makes it here.

And yes, I'm the guy who would never pay $50 now for a $20 disk then wink.gif But than again, I didn't realize that when you hit the 'make an offer' button on Ebay, that if the seller agrees then your locked into that price eek.gif



Hopefully the customs guys aren't Aerosmith fans biggrin.gif
post #7758 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

We're not going to get all wrapped around the axle fussing over new mix/original mix differences, are we? I never did get a reply on why it would be a mistake for "future generations" to hear a song that wasn't on the original album, and now I'm thinking that I really don't want an answer. rolleyes.gif

Jeff

To understand the present you need to know the past. When suddenly you change the past or peoples perception of the past, you have to ask yourself what is the truth when the truth is lies. That's a little Carl Sagan and X-Files all rolled into one tidy package.

Personally I love the 5.1 mix and wouldn't change a thing, but I felt like you wanted a reply.
post #7759 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by weekendtoy View Post

And yes, I'm the guy who would never pay $50 now for a $20 disk

You'd pay more if you can get your hands on that elusive Aerosmith "Rocks" SACD
post #7760 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

We're not going to get all wrapped around the axle fussing over new mix/original mix differences, are we?
Jeff

Jeff,

In all due respect you are the one that keeps bringing up the remixing and mastering topic. So I find the above to be kind of ironic wink.gif.

Bill
post #7761 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockmonkey2000 View Post

Its been a while since I listened to Rumours stereo mix - but If I recall, the new elements (instruments that were recorded as part of the original recording sessions but left out of the original mix) that were added back in were included in the stereo mix on the DVD audio. They also added in an additional song (Silver Springs) on the DVD audio - not present in the original recording. Silver Springs has also been included on subsequent re-releases of Rumours also. Both might sound out of place to someone who listened to the original album hundreds of times. While I actually like the version with Silver Springs, it would be a mistake if future generations grew up to believe that this is the way it was originally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weekendtoy View Post

To understand the present you need to know the past. When suddenly you change the past or peoples perception of the past, you have to ask yourself what is the truth when the truth is lies. That's a little Carl Sagan and X-Files all rolled into one tidy package.

Personally I love the 5.1 mix and wouldn't change a thing, but I felt like you wanted a reply.

Huh? Wha? It's called BONUS MATERIAL, ALTERNATE VERSIONS.

I shudder for the generations yet to come having to unwrap the enigma that is Rumours. rolleyes.gif
post #7762 of 9848
Exactly - I am not the one that brought the topic up - I just offered an example of where the original recording might be replaced by the new remix as brought up by the Steve Hoffman article. I also was not referring exclusively to the DVD audio replacing the original album of Rumours - All of the new re-releases of Rumours on CD have the song Silver Springs included. Bonus Material is one thing but this is changing the track list of the album.
post #7763 of 9848
I think the whole mixing and mastering topic should be for a separate thread. That way things stay on the topic of "What are your most recent Hi-Res purchases" smile.gif.

Bill
post #7764 of 9848
Fair enough. My opinion is that if non-hi-res music can be discussed in the context of comparing them to hi-res - or as we have here sometimes, just lumped in with hi-res music with no comparison whatsoever, then mastering/mixing/remastering/remixing as it contributes to the thread topic can be discussed as well. After all, the only way we have most of our 5.1 content is from someone remixing, and all of the stereo SACDs are the result of remastering.

I'm just sayin' ... smile.gif ... sauce for the goose ...

Jeff
post #7765 of 9848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

Jeff,

In all due respect you are the one that keeps bringing up the remixing and mastering topic. So I find the above to be kind of ironic wink.gif.

Bill

Sure, mostly in the context of the differences in sound quality. WRT, the mixes themselves, I think that the songs are "essentially" the same in surround as in stereo except, of course that the sounds are surrounding the listener(s). It is only recently that someone complained about a mix, a complaint that, I will add, came about from someone quoting SW and *his* position on titles being remixed.

AFAIAC, this is all ON topic.

Jeff
Edited by pepar - 6/1/13 at 11:52am
post #7766 of 9848
Just picked up Jeff Beck: Performing This Week... Live at Ronnie Scott's on BR. Jeff plays with a incredible 20-year female bassist and Eric Clapton and Joss Stone make guest appearances as well. Really good stuff-here's a YouTube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3ZPWFKrocc
post #7767 of 9848
^^^

OMG, Tal Wilkenfeld ... !!!
post #7768 of 9848
Yeah she's a cutie and plays a mean bass.
post #7769 of 9848
She's a good bassist, but Robbie separates the boys from the girls biggrin.gif



via McTube for YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quj9r8XAWd4
Edited by comfynumb - 6/1/13 at 12:30pm
post #7770 of 9848
At that level, there's no way of ranking one above or below another. IMO.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Surround Music Formats
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Surround Music Formats › What are your most recent Hi-Res purchases?