XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player
September 30, 2016, 01:46:00 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Dec. 31, 2012 : XXHighEnd + Phasure NOS1 DAC receive 6moons Blue Moon Award !
** "Lonely at the very top" **
Search current board structure only !!  
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10
 on: September 11, 2016, 07:40:10 pm 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by esimms86
Hi Peter. I'm referring to the Crosby Stills and Nash album that begins with "Suite Judy Blue Eyes"(that is, the album with the three of them on the cover sitting on an old sofa outside a house). The Hoffman version has the better highs. It can be found at www.audiofidelity.net and also likely on Amazon.

Yes, Barry did do the original CD masters for most if not all the LZ albums. A listing of his masters can be found here: https://www.discogs.com/artist/389175-Barry-Diament?sort=year%2Casc&limit=250&page=1.

And, yes, he did master Houses of the Holy for CD. It is what it is but at least Barry did not use compression in any of his masters. I don't have a Diament master of HOTH so I can't otherwise compare with anyone else's.

You would need to check the back covers to determine who did the CD masters for each disc. As you know, different versions have appeared over the years, usually with the release of boxed sets.

Diament masters turn up here and there on ebay. I have the first LZ album and Physical Graffiti in Diament masterings(the latter having been picked up on ebay).

Jimmy Page takes producer credit for all versions of all LZ recordings. The 24/96 hi res remasters were credited to Page though I'm not sure who the engineer(s) was/were and to what extent Page was actually involved. The Page hi res remasters were, per Page, all treated with some degree of EQing.

If you really want to make a trip down the rabbit hole start reading various forum discussions of which were the best Hendrix CD masters!

 on: September 11, 2016, 01:33:21 pm 
Started by Tore - Last post by PeterSt
Ha !
Tore, very well done !


 on: September 11, 2016, 12:40:29 pm 
Started by Tore - Last post by Tore
Oops! Windows 10 distribute updates :-(

My Music PC runs Windows 10

How to stop this: http://lifehacker.com/windows-10-uses-your-bandwidth-to-distribute-updates-d-1721091469


 on: September 11, 2016, 11:40:14 am 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by PeterSt
Hi there Esau,

Which Crossby, Stills and Nash would that be ? and sorry to be thick (language thingy) but which version would be the better one with more highs ? I think you say the Hoffman one, right ?

many Led Zeppelin fans would seek out the Barry Diamond remasters of LZ and LZ II.

This one is interesting for me, because where comon talk is indeed about "the Barry Diament remasters", I'd say that only one person mastered for CD (at first) and it was Barry. So for CD, for me, one version exists as "original" and this is Barry's.
Of course he did not do the original like those which ended up on vinyl. But I tend not to call any mastering for CD (a first time) a "remaster".
Still another original for CD can exist. So please enlighten me because I would hunt it down. Happy


PS: I once asked him directly which LZ albums he actually mastered for CD and I still don't have a clear answer. Maybe you recall my stipulation of him NOT doing Houses of the Holy any more because from there on things started to sound different. But the man always feels attacks from every possible angle and answers went like "I can't change the master tapes !". So it is all super vague to begin with.
Btw, I just looked, all of the LZ CD's I have (dozens in the various versions) are all "Produced by Jimmy Page".
Still I recall BD appearing somewhere on the back (cover) and this must have been my own early purchases. Point here is : I only scanned the front cover of the CD's I ripped myself, and the phycial CD's (thousands) are stowed away somewhere. So I can't really check it and maybe I am not correct at all.

 on: September 10, 2016, 09:24:17 pm 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by esimms86
Listen to the original mastering of "Crosby Stills and Nash" and then listen to the Steve Hoffman remaster(both in rebook BTW). I played them back to back for a non-audiophile friend of mine and he commented, without any prior information or prompting from me, "where did the highs go?"

A professional recording engineer/producer friend of mine tells me that Altec Lansing monitors were used for mixing the album at Wally Heider studios. He goes on to tell me that those particular monitors were deficient in high frequency output, therefore, the mixing engineers were effectively going to work with one arm(or ear!) tied behind their backs. Given the original master tapes and better balanced speakers, Hoffman almost could not fail to come up with an improved remastering.

At least up until the Jimmy Page remasters, many Led Zeppelin fans would seek out the Barry Diamond remasters of LZ and LZ II.


 on: September 10, 2016, 02:58:30 pm 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by AlainGr
Peter, I can't answer your question for the moment. I may be back home somewhere today (still morning here) and for sure I will play Machine Head under 14393 to check what is happening, after listening to 10586 for comparison purposes.

I am aware that talking about my experience with the high-res version was kind of OT, because this is not what you are interested in. I do have a few other albums with muffled HF, but I suspect they would be so because either the tapes used were worn out or there are no good original tapes.

Do you know Charlie ? They had a few albums like "No Second Chance" and "Lines". They are awful to listen to on CD, but were quite good on vinyl. I got rid of my TT and my vinyls also a few years ago, but have kept those albums to ask for a needle drop. For these two albums, the SQ is definitely better in analog. It does not make me happy, because of the surface noise (and the state of the vinyl is unknown), but it should be better than what I am hearing with the remastered CDs. The worse by far is "Lines". Steve Gadd was the drummer on these albums by the way.


 on: September 10, 2016, 02:30:28 pm 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by PeterSt
the “mixing” of the recording was done in such a way that some instruments were arriving from nowhere and disappearing, as if there was a missing channel.

Alain, I noticed that on the "normal" (?) version I played yesterday just the same. But I don't pay attention to it because I am used to it ... (I forgot about vinyl).
But with the more clear sound this also now is more apparent ?


 on: September 10, 2016, 01:30:05 pm 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by AlainGr

This reminds me of a download I made not even one month after I subscribed to Phasure (it was in July 2011).

At the time, I was buying some high resolution files, in a “discovery mode”.

See this:

It is about Deep Purple “Machine Head”. The sound was surprisingly good for that album and I was stunned by the amounts of HF that had always been lacking before. Would I never have heard that album before, I would have not thought that HF were lacking.

But there was something else and this was really annoying: the “mixing” of the recording was done in such a way that some instruments were arriving from nowhere and disappearing, as if there was a missing channel. It was so weird that I think I ditched the album finally, because it was almost unlistenable from what I was used to hear from that album.


 on: September 10, 2016, 11:51:32 am 
Started by PeterSt - Last post by PeterSt
PS: There is something else I noticed yesterday which could even be more strange, and tonight I am going to check that for its merits (better). If I can confirm what I noticed already, I will open a new topic for that tomorrow.

So ...

If you search for "Machine Head" you will find a few posts from me about the "stuffed ear" lacking highs on that album.
And now this has suddenly changed ...

I was playing a track from Animals (Pink Foyd) and that too has miserably failed for the highs. Maybe with the exception of one remaster of it I found the other day (I think I put that to the forum as well) but still far from on par. Thus, day before yesterday I played that track, checked whether it was from the original mastering (it was) and thought that something must have changed somewhere regarding the highs output. This readily made me look for the Machine Head album which is always THE example of way way lacking highs and such a shame (because an album from my really younger years).

Into the second track I seemed to be sure ... where are those lacking highs now ?
Then dinner was ready and I had to stop.

So I played it again yesterday and I have been wondering for 40 minutes in a row how this can be. The album sounds the best "on par" as can be, and beyond.
It is also the best version I heard ever and I can really talk about "beautiful". I actually never heard a thing of what's on it, as it now appears.

If you search for "stuffed ear", you also find a couple of posts from me and a few of them are from lately (2016). This is because I start to notice that albums can quite explicitly exhibit the stuffed ear encouraging feeling and this happens with albums which did not exhibit that before.
Of course, we can envision what all can happen (without really understanding it) to cause such a thing. But in the very same physical setup/environment it now also works the other way around.


So the one album exhibits a roll off suddenly and the other has completely removed its even super huge roll off.
I don't get it.

Maybe people have hints for what to look into or try. Maybe people have failing examples themselves which I could try over here and possibly we are able to reason out what is happening. Mind you, the failing as such can also be at the other end of the spectrum : way too lean and too much highs. Regarding this, the example of Year of The Cat which only until just over a year was way to lean for me (from computer playback). But listen to it now - all in perfect balance and unbelievable lows. So yes, that too adds to the strangeness - the one album receives way more of the lower frequencies (which should kill the highs, theoretically) while in the same setup a next album lifts the highs like crazy.

For the crucial components, this is what I use :
- Stealth PC with linear power supply, 2640v4, 14393.0.
- Self constructed USB isolator (yeah, you guessed that - wait for yours);
- Clairixa USB (2x);
- XXHighEnd 2.06b, SFS=0.12, Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1. Clockres=1, Driver Buffer 4ms.
- Custom filtering - High-2nd, 705600.
- NOS1a;
- B'ASS buffer/amplifier;
- Blaxius Interlink (2x);
- And a set of amps/speakers of which I'm quite sure it won't matter for this "issue".

The least this post/topic can do is serve as reference for later.

 on: September 09, 2016, 06:31:27 pm 
Started by AlainGr - Last post by PeterSt

I see that I posted my last post in this topic already one week ago.
Well, still going strong !

Actually it is so that the other day I had to look what version I was using, becase it started to occur to me that nothing had annoyed me and/or nothing comes across as "rough" any more. But I saw it was still 14393.0, so all as intended (people who don't have the RAM-OS "mechanism" really don't know what thy are missing).

I noticed something else too, and it is as explicit as it is strange :
Rock works out so well now;

Let's say that Rock can have the general consensus of being "not nice" or "not beautifully sounding" the least. But this is not so any more.
It is also quite difficult to detect what actually causes it, because it kind of goes unnoticed. Think like : hey, by this time into the track I should have been annoyed to some degree ... so where's that part now ?? did I miss it or what ?

So with 14393.0 and the lower SFS etc. settings again (!!), the highs receive a smoothness but as metal as 14393.0 inherently is (or seems to be). This gives Rock exactly what it needs (according to my ears that is). The slap together with snap and "hardness" Rock is supposed to be, without it sounding ugly like in a "ohh, that is a bad recording because it is Rock". No !

Several times I talked about Progressive Rock in the context of that so much being able to show its era when the playback is "right", and I am sure that this is partly so because often this music is more gentle (take "Talk to the Wind" (King Crimson) and everybody will understand what I mean). But these days I get in the stage of being able to hear the deeper messages in/of Rock as well. Maybe hard to explain, but say that any track/song/piece has its meaning and it originated from something somewhere. So a violin player can put his heart to his instrument and we will see the mood of the violin player, but a group of artists (like a rock band) does the same and possibly more explicitly (they rehearse (for) it to bring across the whatever message best). This is what now suddenly starts to work for Rock.

Of course it can be so that I am getting old.

PS: There is something else I noticed yesterday which could even be more strange, and tonight I am going to check that for its merits (better). If I can confirm what I noticed already, I will open a new topic for that tomorrow.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.301 seconds with 15 queries.