Tell Me :
Talk
For me it's not about quality difference. It's only about collecting. I just do not want to collect lossy files. Give this album a listen through lossy files and enjoy it - absolutely fine. But would prefer to get it for free. Then delete lossy ones and look for a lossless version to burn it on a CD-R, print covers, put on dedicated place in my shelf
And a silver CD would be more than welcome even then.
It's just coming down to the question about how much money I have to spend on a single release. If it's available in many formats I can choose what best suits me and avoid extra expenses.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-30 10:50 by AP.
I did the test (on a Lou Donaldson lp) and yeah the 24bit has more depth and thickness.
And much to my surprise the difference also lays in the sustain : with the 24bit version a note played fades and dies in a much nicer way. With the 16bit file it was much more abrupt and sterile.
But hey... music is the only field where ppl will tell you, right in the eyes, that a HD file is not better than a SD file. Try tell a movie buff his Blurays don't look better than his old DVDs...
As a 24 bit won't have compression, the sustain will ring longer and more dynamic.
However, the nuances are microscopical, and with a live recording of a loose band (also sound-wise) like the Stones, it would boil down to splitting hairs, imo.
But I get what you're saying
I agree the price asked for it is crazy. The rpice of last year's Archive releases was just perfect for this kind of product.
This said once you have bought something on Qobuz you can download it from their website as many times you want. So even if you loose you download by accident you still can get it back easily.
True, when it comes to audio, irrationality is all over the place.
Double blind listening tests have shown that e.g. 24 bits "HD audio" does not sound distinguishably different from redbook CD. If both are mixed in the exact same way ofcourse and played back at equal volume.
Listen for example to e.g. the B&W audiophile recordings on regular redbook CD's. These sound insanely perfect and showcase what you can squeeze out of a regular CD. Taken that into account, people praising shabby live recordings on SACD really have lost it.
With regards to MP3, at 256kbps and 320kbps people in a double blind testing setup were not able to hear difference between CD and MP3. Unless - strangely - they had hearing deficiencies! The "psycho-acoustical" compression in e.g. MP3 apparantly does only work when you have "normal" hearing.
The terms lossy and non-lossy can be confusing. Bot CD audio (and SACD audio) are ofcourse also lossy, as they consist of discreet bits of recorded sound. But make the dscreet bits small enough and built enough dynamic range into these bits and you have perfect audio. That's what they have done with regular CD (16bits, 44,1kHz).
I don't think even CD's strongest advocates have claimed that since about 1985
"Pure Perfect sound for ever" was the tag line.
The thing with digital audio is that it distorts music in a very sinister way, by omission.
Analogue sytems distort primarilly with additive distortions, be it electronically generated noise and harmonic distortion, or mechanically induced resonances.
The music signal itself remains pretty much intact. The ear and brain are then pretty good at sorting it out, and we enjoy a rewarding musical experience when we listen.
Inadequate digital formats distort by not having enough "digits" to capture all the signal and, once the musical imformation is lost, your ear can't put it back !
The big mistake with CD was in accepting the scientific arguments that its resolution was good enough. [It was launched too soon by a greedy industry ]
The format has no air, no sense of a recorded acoustic and no "soul". Music sounds like it was recorded in a vacuum .
[-Ry Cooder commented to this effect of digital recording in the the late 70's when recording "Bop Til You Drop". He went as far as to say that he found it hard to tune up or sing in tune with digital recordings ! ]
Pro digital equipment has come a long way since CD, and [putting my obvious prejudices aside ] I'm sure it will ultimately be good enough .
The damage, however, is done. We're all now conditioned to accept low resolution Digital sound [be it CD or MP3] as the norm and most domestic playback equipment is designed to paper over its cracks.
[MP3 & i-tunes type formats are quite clever. They'be been optimised to sound "nicer" and "warmer" than CD...but that's just cosmetic . Vital detail,together with subtleties of timing and pitch all remain missing ]
With advances in digital and computer technology, there's no reason why the industry can't give us a format that is truly lossless when compared to the improved digital masters.
It hasn't happened because so few of us can remember how good recorded music can sound and what a buzz it can give you. The industry has no motivation.
end of rant ;^)
Zero arguments and zero proof. That's the world of high end audio, who need science and listening tests when you have your own subjective opinion?
Unless people do a very controlled A/B comparison on high end audio equipment I can almost guarantee you the average person cannot hear the difference between an MP3 ripped at 256 or 320Kps compared to the original CD source. I have taken audio classes at work where this was done and it wasn't until you got down to 192Kps that it was really noticeable. You may see the difference on an spectrum analyzer but to the average person using average audio equipment they can't tell the difference.
Ears can be trained. I can make the difference between a AAC file from iTunes and WAV or Flac file from a CD, and also between a 16 bit file and a 24 bit file. But as pointed out above if the mastering is bad it won't make much difference anyway...
Of course you can be trained to hear the differences once they are pointed out to you and you are listening in a quiet environment on high end audio equipment but that is not the point of this discussion.
JMO but the majority of people here who are complaining about paying for M3's would never know the difference unless someone told them they bought MP3's even if they had a CD quality recording to compare it too.
Now I don't blame them as I would prefer the highest quality recording I can get but in all honesty in every day listening the higher resolution gets lost in the noise.
The average person cannot tell the difference between a high bit rate MP3 and the original CD. I have seen this experiment done with my own ears in a class at work which included other design engineers.
I just wish they give people a choice. For example I like to listen to music in a quiet environment or with good headphones. And I don't want to listen to mp3 because I can hear the loss.
Also I think mp3 is in part responsible for current state of music where everything is highly compressed, very bright and sounding the same.
At least with having a choice between mp3 and CD quality, there's a hope that music will sound good again someday...
I hear you and agree but unfortunately lossy downloads are where the money is.
Personally I think a CD mixed and mastered properly are superior to vinyl and was a step foward. If record companies really cared about sound quality DVDs and better yet buray discs are the perfect media to offer high quality lossless music but there is no money in it I think
Quite so, A bluray standard for stereo music reproduction might have been a good way forward for hard copy product....but there's no commercial/massmarket demand.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 30, 2013 10:21
Do you guys all have $10.000 stereo systems? If so, I'm happy for you If not, I doubt you'll hear much difference in sound quality between 24 b and 16 b, even between AAC and 256 MP3.
It's a live recording, and as Drake points out it is the mixing and mastering of that recording that decides how listenable the recording is.
Luckily, this is a well-mixed and mastered recording, albeit a little treble heavy, imo - hence you will all enjoy good quality mp3s and AACs of this one.
If not, I doubt you'll hear much difference in sound quality between 24 b and 16 b, even between AAC and 256 MP3.It's a live recording, and as Drake points out it is the mixing and mastering of that recording that decides how listenable the recording is.
Luckily, this is a well-mixed and mastered recording, albeit a little treble heavy, imo - hence you will all enjoy good quality mp3s and AACs of this one.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
Doc
()
Date: July 30, 2013 10:29
paying over €10 for on-line music seems too much for me.
20 on Qobuz is a shame
There's no booklet, you have to store it safely somewhere, and the extra cost for just encoding files in different formats seems exagerated IMHO
[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]
20 on Qobuz is a shame
There's no booklet, you have to store it safely somewhere, and the extra cost for just encoding files in different formats seems exagerated IMHO
[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
AP
()
Date: July 30, 2013 10:40
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Do you guys all have $10.000 stereo systems? If so, I'm happy for you
For me it's not about quality difference. It's only about collecting. I just do not want to collect lossy files. Give this album a listen through lossy files and enjoy it - absolutely fine. But would prefer to get it for free. Then delete lossy ones and look for a lossless version to burn it on a CD-R, print covers, put on dedicated place in my shelf
And a silver CD would be more than welcome even then.It's just coming down to the question about how much money I have to spend on a single release. If it's available in many formats I can choose what best suits me and avoid extra expenses.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-30 10:50 by AP.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: July 30, 2013 10:52
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Do you guys all have $10.000 stereo systems? If so, I'm happy for you
I did the test (on a Lou Donaldson lp) and yeah the 24bit has more depth and thickness.
And much to my surprise the difference also lays in the sustain : with the 24bit version a note played fades and dies in a much nicer way. With the 16bit file it was much more abrupt and sterile.
But hey... music is the only field where ppl will tell you, right in the eyes, that a HD file is not better than a SD file. Try tell a movie buff his Blurays don't look better than his old DVDs...
Re: Hyde Park Live available on French Amazon and in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
Powerage
()
Date: July 30, 2013 11:14
With Pierre de Beauport Start me Up intro.
Quote
AP
It is available in lossless quality on musicme also:
[www.musicme.com]
I believe this offer is not limited to France only.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 30, 2013 11:23
Quote
dcbaQuote
DandelionPowderman
Do you guys all have $10.000 stereo systems? If so, I'm happy for you
I did the test (on a Lou Donaldson lp) and yeah the 24bit has more depth and thickness.
And much to my surprise the difference also lays in the sustain : with the 24bit version a note played fades and dies in a much nicer way. With the 16bit file it was much more abrupt and sterile.
But hey... music is the only field where ppl will tell you, right in the eyes, that a HD file is not better than a SD file. Try tell a movie buff his Blurays don't look better than his old DVDs...
As a 24 bit won't have compression, the sustain will ring longer and more dynamic.
However, the nuances are microscopical, and with a live recording of a loose band (also sound-wise) like the Stones, it would boil down to splitting hairs, imo.
But I get what you're saying
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: July 30, 2013 12:19
Quote
Doc
paying over €10 for on-line music seems too much for me.
20 on Qobuz is a shame
There's no booklet, you have to store it safely somewhere, and the extra cost for just encoding files in different formats seems exagerated IMHO
I agree the price asked for it is crazy. The rpice of last year's Archive releases was just perfect for this kind of product.
This said once you have bought something on Qobuz you can download it from their website as many times you want. So even if you loose you download by accident you still can get it back easily.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
bennyboy
()
Date: July 30, 2013 12:33
I really like the itunes recording - its cheap and accessible and hits the spot. I couldnt give a monkeys whether its MP3 / 16 /24 bit / whatever. In my own experience, any difference you can hear between top rate lossy and lossless files is just placebo.
What matters is the music, ultimately - we live in a society where we are spoilt by the convenience of technology, yet we increasingly lose touch with the soul and spirit of what is important.
Audiophilia and its associated obsessional, nonsensical search for perfection often completely misses the wood for the trees. And from where I'm listening, there were some damn beautiful trees and only one Wood at Hyde Park.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-30 12:35 by bennyboy.
What matters is the music, ultimately - we live in a society where we are spoilt by the convenience of technology, yet we increasingly lose touch with the soul and spirit of what is important.
Audiophilia and its associated obsessional, nonsensical search for perfection often completely misses the wood for the trees. And from where I'm listening, there were some damn beautiful trees and only one Wood at Hyde Park.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-30 12:35 by bennyboy.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 30, 2013 12:37
Quote
bennyboy
I really like the itunes recording - its cheap and accessible and hits the spot. I couldnt give a monkeys whether its MP3 / 16 /24 bit / whatever. In my own experience, any difference you can hear between top rate lossy and lossless files is just placebo.
What matters is the music, ultimately - we live in a society where we are spoilt by the convenience of technology, yet we increasingly lose touch with the soul and spirit of what is important.
Audiophilia and its associated obsessional, nonsensical search for perfection often completely misses the wood for the trees. And from where I'm listening, there were some damn beautiful trees and only one Wood at Hyde Park.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
Alef
()
Date: July 30, 2013 14:39
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Do you guys all have $10.000 stereo systems? If so, I'm happy for you
It's a live recording, and as Drake points out it is the mixing and mastering of that recording that decides how listenable the recording is.
Luckily, this is a well-mixed and mastered recording, albeit a little treble heavy, imo - hence you will all enjoy good quality mp3s and AACs of this one.
True, when it comes to audio, irrationality is all over the place.
Double blind listening tests have shown that e.g. 24 bits "HD audio" does not sound distinguishably different from redbook CD. If both are mixed in the exact same way ofcourse and played back at equal volume.
Listen for example to e.g. the B&W audiophile recordings on regular redbook CD's. These sound insanely perfect and showcase what you can squeeze out of a regular CD. Taken that into account, people praising shabby live recordings on SACD really have lost it.
With regards to MP3, at 256kbps and 320kbps people in a double blind testing setup were not able to hear difference between CD and MP3. Unless - strangely - they had hearing deficiencies! The "psycho-acoustical" compression in e.g. MP3 apparantly does only work when you have "normal" hearing.
The terms lossy and non-lossy can be confusing. Bot CD audio (and SACD audio) are ofcourse also lossy, as they consist of discreet bits of recorded sound. But make the dscreet bits small enough and built enough dynamic range into these bits and you have perfect audio. That's what they have done with regular CD (16bits, 44,1kHz).
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 30, 2013 14:57
Hear, hear!
Thanks, Alef
Thanks, Alef
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
bennyboy
()
Date: July 30, 2013 15:08
Yeah - nothing wrong with CD and nothing wrong with MP3. They are just different formats used to market the same music as technology changes. MP3 for example only exists because of the paradigm shift that was the ipod and it's successors. People now listen more and more on the move.
Hi-res audio on the other hand is more of a smoke and mirrors scam designed to fleece the well heeled punter who already has 12 copies of his (invariably his not her) favourite albums. Science does not back up the claims behind 24bit being superior to 16 as far as human hearing goes. It's the same snake oil sales psychology behind high end speaker cables, hdmi interconnects or any number of other lofty claims for better sound. Except hi-res audio is on a whole new level of fleecing. Watch it become the new big thing and be prepared to see those wallets bleed.
Remastering and remixing are entirely different though - give me the best quality dynamic remaster of music I love on a CD or in MP3 and I will kiss you on the lips. Try and sell me the same thing i already have but with more bits in it, and I will kick your ass.
Hi-res audio on the other hand is more of a smoke and mirrors scam designed to fleece the well heeled punter who already has 12 copies of his (invariably his not her) favourite albums. Science does not back up the claims behind 24bit being superior to 16 as far as human hearing goes. It's the same snake oil sales psychology behind high end speaker cables, hdmi interconnects or any number of other lofty claims for better sound. Except hi-res audio is on a whole new level of fleecing. Watch it become the new big thing and be prepared to see those wallets bleed.
Remastering and remixing are entirely different though - give me the best quality dynamic remaster of music I love on a CD or in MP3 and I will kiss you on the lips. Try and sell me the same thing i already have but with more bits in it, and I will kick your ass.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: July 30, 2013 15:56
Quote
Alef
The terms lossy and non-lossy can be confusing. Bot CD audio (and SACD audio) are ofcourse also lossy, as they consist of discreet bits of recorded sound. But make the dscreet bits small enough and built enough dynamic range into these bits and you have perfect audio. That's what they have done with regular CD (16bits, 44,1kHz).
I don't think even CD's strongest advocates have claimed that since about 1985
"Pure Perfect sound for ever" was the tag line.
The thing with digital audio is that it distorts music in a very sinister way, by omission.
Analogue sytems distort primarilly with additive distortions, be it electronically generated noise and harmonic distortion, or mechanically induced resonances.
The music signal itself remains pretty much intact. The ear and brain are then pretty good at sorting it out, and we enjoy a rewarding musical experience when we listen.
Inadequate digital formats distort by not having enough "digits" to capture all the signal and, once the musical imformation is lost, your ear can't put it back !
The big mistake with CD was in accepting the scientific arguments that its resolution was good enough. [It was launched too soon by a greedy industry ]
The format has no air, no sense of a recorded acoustic and no "soul". Music sounds like it was recorded in a vacuum .
[-Ry Cooder commented to this effect of digital recording in the the late 70's when recording "Bop Til You Drop". He went as far as to say that he found it hard to tune up or sing in tune with digital recordings ! ]
Pro digital equipment has come a long way since CD, and [putting my obvious prejudices aside ] I'm sure it will ultimately be good enough .
The damage, however, is done. We're all now conditioned to accept low resolution Digital sound [be it CD or MP3] as the norm and most domestic playback equipment is designed to paper over its cracks.
[MP3 & i-tunes type formats are quite clever. They'be been optimised to sound "nicer" and "warmer" than CD...but that's just cosmetic . Vital detail,together with subtleties of timing and pitch all remain missing ]
With advances in digital and computer technology, there's no reason why the industry can't give us a format that is truly lossless when compared to the improved digital masters.
It hasn't happened because so few of us can remember how good recorded music can sound and what a buzz it can give you. The industry has no motivation.
end of rant ;^)
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
Alef
()
Date: July 30, 2013 16:44
Quote
Spud
Inadequate digital formats distort by not having enough "digits" to capture all the signal and, once the musical imformation is lost, your ear can't put it back !
The big mistake with CD was in accepting the scientific arguments that its resolution was good enough. [It was launched too soon by a greedy industry ]
The format has no air, no sense of a recorded acoustic and no "soul". Music sounds like it was recorded in a vacuum .
Zero arguments and zero proof. That's the world of high end audio, who need science and listening tests when you have your own subjective opinion?
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
bennyboy
()
Date: July 30, 2013 16:46
I was listening to music throughout the seventies. I wouldnt argue it sounded any better back then.
If you really think digital music lacks soul, then I really dont know what to say. By extension you're dissing all recorded music thats not coming from a vinyl record player.
Wow, I've never met anyone who has heard everything. Where do you find the time?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-30 16:49 by bennyboy.
If you really think digital music lacks soul, then I really dont know what to say. By extension you're dissing all recorded music thats not coming from a vinyl record player.
Wow, I've never met anyone who has heard everything. Where do you find the time?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-30 16:49 by bennyboy.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
sjs12
()
Date: July 30, 2013 17:08
The entire idea of "lossless" in audio is a nonsense. Whenever you record something you lose a certain amount of information and gain additional artifacts. Even using analogue tape you have limited bandwidth and headroom so you have to lose some of the information.
The argument about analogue vs. digital to me is more about the character of the sound. Analogue just sounds better in my opinion and for many others too. For all the reasons Spud said and in particular because the recording mechanism adds colour and natural saturation/compression.
I can make do with CDs, though I prefer vinyl. I mix and match and have been for years.
However, the real issue with mp3 is about compression. By this I'm talking about compression in the sense of reducing digital file size, as opposed to analogue compression which is totally different and refers to altering the dynamic range.
A high sample rate mp3 is listenable and the itunes release of the stones is also listenable. However, if I am buying music, I would prefer to have it in the best possible format with the least possible compression and then re-sample compress it myself to place on a mobile device. That way I always have the original to go back to.
For that reason, I bought the stones archive releases on flac and converted to mp3 to go on my mp3 player. However, I can also burn off a CD or indeed listen to the flac on the appropriate devices. It is my choice.
The argument about analogue vs. digital to me is more about the character of the sound. Analogue just sounds better in my opinion and for many others too. For all the reasons Spud said and in particular because the recording mechanism adds colour and natural saturation/compression.
I can make do with CDs, though I prefer vinyl. I mix and match and have been for years.
However, the real issue with mp3 is about compression. By this I'm talking about compression in the sense of reducing digital file size, as opposed to analogue compression which is totally different and refers to altering the dynamic range.
A high sample rate mp3 is listenable and the itunes release of the stones is also listenable. However, if I am buying music, I would prefer to have it in the best possible format with the least possible compression and then re-sample compress it myself to place on a mobile device. That way I always have the original to go back to.
For that reason, I bought the stones archive releases on flac and converted to mp3 to go on my mp3 player. However, I can also burn off a CD or indeed listen to the flac on the appropriate devices. It is my choice.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: July 30, 2013 17:14
So folks don't mind that we're still asked to buy and listen to CDs and MP3s when we could easily have the best and current FLAC quality for everything ?
My comments re Digital recording are primrailly with regard to CD and other mass market media . I've heard digital recordings that do sound very good and musically rewarding... but not via a CD or MP3 file !
Digital masters played from a pro source sound fantastic via my own analogue based system . The relative shortcomings of CD are obvious to even the most cloth eared listener through that same system. Just try singing along to hear the proof.
[Pro engineer aquaintances have commented that they would happily use my kit for digital monitoring and mastering...so it's not because it was put togrether to play vinyl records]
Although I instictivelty feel that music is an analogue entity and should possibly remain as such, I'm not a complete anti digital ludite.
I've just always been against CD and MP3 because they're not good enough formats to do justice to a good recording, be it originally analogue or digital.
My comments re Digital recording are primrailly with regard to CD and other mass market media . I've heard digital recordings that do sound very good and musically rewarding... but not via a CD or MP3 file !
Digital masters played from a pro source sound fantastic via my own analogue based system . The relative shortcomings of CD are obvious to even the most cloth eared listener through that same system. Just try singing along to hear the proof.
[Pro engineer aquaintances have commented that they would happily use my kit for digital monitoring and mastering...so it's not because it was put togrether to play vinyl records]
Although I instictivelty feel that music is an analogue entity and should possibly remain as such, I'm not a complete anti digital ludite.
I've just always been against CD and MP3 because they're not good enough formats to do justice to a good recording, be it originally analogue or digital.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: July 30, 2013 17:16
Really love you guys and agree with both sides...
1. There is a difference between FLAC/WAV and AAC/MP3. It is much less of a difference between tape and vinyl, but the difference is there. You probably wont notice it driving in your car or riding on the subway, but if you have a great system and pay attention to high end frequencies, it will really bug you.
2. The sound MIX is what bugs me on this release. Every single instrument is too compressed. The snare has no crack and instead sounds like a thud. Aside from Mick Taylor on Rambler, the guitars are thin. WAY too much bass guitar in the mix. Cymbals too low in the mix, and way too much ambiance in the mix. It muddies up the recording... All of those factors contribute to this being a recording I will never return to, regardless of whether it is FLAC or not. Being lossless will not change the bad mix.
3. Its all about the music. Unfortunately I feel slightly burned out on this tour. Maybe it is the setlist, maybe not. The Hyde Park show, with the exceptions of Emotional Rescue, Doom and Gloom and Midnight Rambler, is actually fairly tame. Street Fighting Man, which I was looking forward to hearing, doesn't move me. Ruby Tuesday is TERRIBLE!! Did Keith and Ron fall asleep?? Start Me Up, Satisfaction, JJFlash, Brown Sugar, are all very boring. Jagger does great, but if you care about the guitars (which is why I love the Stones) this show is a sleeper... TO ME. Don't kill me for having an opinion but feel free to tell me I am dead wrong.
1. There is a difference between FLAC/WAV and AAC/MP3. It is much less of a difference between tape and vinyl, but the difference is there. You probably wont notice it driving in your car or riding on the subway, but if you have a great system and pay attention to high end frequencies, it will really bug you.
2. The sound MIX is what bugs me on this release. Every single instrument is too compressed. The snare has no crack and instead sounds like a thud. Aside from Mick Taylor on Rambler, the guitars are thin. WAY too much bass guitar in the mix. Cymbals too low in the mix, and way too much ambiance in the mix. It muddies up the recording... All of those factors contribute to this being a recording I will never return to, regardless of whether it is FLAC or not. Being lossless will not change the bad mix.
3. Its all about the music. Unfortunately I feel slightly burned out on this tour. Maybe it is the setlist, maybe not. The Hyde Park show, with the exceptions of Emotional Rescue, Doom and Gloom and Midnight Rambler, is actually fairly tame. Street Fighting Man, which I was looking forward to hearing, doesn't move me. Ruby Tuesday is TERRIBLE!! Did Keith and Ron fall asleep?? Start Me Up, Satisfaction, JJFlash, Brown Sugar, are all very boring. Jagger does great, but if you care about the guitars (which is why I love the Stones) this show is a sleeper... TO ME. Don't kill me for having an opinion but feel free to tell me I am dead wrong.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: July 30, 2013 17:43
Well said Flac.
Too right it's about the music.
And I think the industry should hvae a duty to provide as much of that music as it can via a good domestic format...
Too right it's about the music.
And I think the industry should hvae a duty to provide as much of that music as it can via a good domestic format...
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
straycatuk
()
Date: July 30, 2013 17:50
I mean this in the nicest way Flacvinyl......IMHO , YOU ARE DEAD WRONG !
Compressed - yes , as is everything nowadays, unfortunately .
A sleeper - er , I don't think so. SFM rocks.
You are of course entitled to your opinion , although I've found that expressing it here can be painful !
sc uk
Compressed - yes , as is everything nowadays, unfortunately .
A sleeper - er , I don't think so. SFM rocks.
You are of course entitled to your opinion , although I've found that expressing it here can be painful !
sc uk
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
bennyboy
()
Date: July 30, 2013 18:44
Want to upgrade your sound system for free?
Cup your hands behind your ears.
Try it.
Cup your hands behind your ears.
Try it.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: July 30, 2013 18:54
LOL.
Certainly alters the EQ curve
Going a stage further, try pulling your ears further way from your head and/or pushing them back onto it. Subtle diiferences in sound which evidence one way in which we all inevitably hear things a bit differently !
[Don't let anybody catch you doing it though...you'll look a complete pillock !]
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-30 18:59 by Spud.
Certainly alters the EQ curve
Going a stage further, try pulling your ears further way from your head and/or pushing them back onto it. Subtle diiferences in sound which evidence one way in which we all inevitably hear things a bit differently !
[Don't let anybody catch you doing it though...you'll look a complete pillock !]
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-30 18:59 by Spud.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: August 4, 2013 20:52
Despite its price, Hyde Park Live is #5 on Qobuz download charts : [www.qobuz.com]
Re: Hyde Park Live available on French Amazon and in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
oldschool
()
Date: August 4, 2013 21:28
Quote
kowalskiQuote
studioramboQuote
kowalski
Most likely it was recorded in 24 bits/48kHz. That's how are recorded most albums nowadays. But even if it was recorded on a 24/96 format, a resampled file at 16bits/44.1kHz will still sound better than a compressed file at 256kbps (like the iTunes files).
There is a loss of information when the 24 bit source is reduced to 16, so the CD is a lossy format, but nobody cares as they can't hear it. Just as nobody can tell a CD from an iTunes AAC file.
The last time the industry made a push with high res audio ( SACD, DVD-A), 99.99% of audible improvement came from the improved mastering by the sound guys preparing the re-releases, and consumers buying upgraded audio gear to try and hear it. People would be far better off advocating for better mastering than throwing away their bandwidth on inaudible noise.
I totally agree with you about the importance of a proper mastering. Nowadays mastering are just absurd as they remove every bit of life from music by compressing dynamics to death.
This said, a 24 bit file sounds better than a 16 bit file. It's smoother, less harsh on the ears. So, again, it's a matter of comfort.
Also, on a good equipement, some people can hear the difference between iTunes AAC files and CD quality files. That's why I think we should have the right to choose what is best for our ears.
Unless people do a very controlled A/B comparison on high end audio equipment I can almost guarantee you the average person cannot hear the difference between an MP3 ripped at 256 or 320Kps compared to the original CD source. I have taken audio classes at work where this was done and it wasn't until you got down to 192Kps that it was really noticeable. You may see the difference on an spectrum analyzer but to the average person using average audio equipment they can't tell the difference.
Re: Hyde Park Live available on French Amazon and in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: August 4, 2013 21:49
Quote
oldschoolQuote
kowalskiQuote
studiorambo
The last time the industry made a push with high res audio ( SACD, DVD-A), 99.99% of audible improvement came from the improved mastering by the sound guys preparing the re-releases, and consumers buying upgraded audio gear to try and hear it. People would be far better off advocating for better mastering than throwing away their bandwidth on inaudible noise.
I totally agree with you about the importance of a proper mastering. Nowadays mastering are just absurd as they remove every bit of life from music by compressing dynamics to death.
This said, a 24 bit file sounds better than a 16 bit file. It's smoother, less harsh on the ears. So, again, it's a matter of comfort.
Also, on a good equipement, some people can hear the difference between iTunes AAC files and CD quality files. That's why I think we should have the right to choose what is best for our ears.
Unless people do a very controlled A/B comparison on high end audio equipment I can almost guarantee you the average person cannot hear the difference between an MP3 ripped at 256 or 320Kps compared to the original CD source. I have taken audio classes at work where this was done and it wasn't until you got down to 192Kps that it was really noticeable. You may see the difference on an spectrum analyzer but to the average person using average audio equipment they can't tell the difference.
Ears can be trained. I can make the difference between a AAC file from iTunes and WAV or Flac file from a CD, and also between a 16 bit file and a 24 bit file. But as pointed out above if the mastering is bad it won't make much difference anyway...
Re: Hyde Park Live available on French Amazon and in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
oldschool
()
Date: August 4, 2013 23:10
Quote
kowalskiQuote
oldschoolQuote
kowalskiQuote
studiorambo
The last time the industry made a push with high res audio ( SACD, DVD-A), 99.99% of audible improvement came from the improved mastering by the sound guys preparing the re-releases, and consumers buying upgraded audio gear to try and hear it. People would be far better off advocating for better mastering than throwing away their bandwidth on inaudible noise.
I totally agree with you about the importance of a proper mastering. Nowadays mastering are just absurd as they remove every bit of life from music by compressing dynamics to death.
This said, a 24 bit file sounds better than a 16 bit file. It's smoother, less harsh on the ears. So, again, it's a matter of comfort.
Also, on a good equipement, some people can hear the difference between iTunes AAC files and CD quality files. That's why I think we should have the right to choose what is best for our ears.
Unless people do a very controlled A/B comparison on high end audio equipment I can almost guarantee you the average person cannot hear the difference between an MP3 ripped at 256 or 320Kps compared to the original CD source. I have taken audio classes at work where this was done and it wasn't until you got down to 192Kps that it was really noticeable. You may see the difference on an spectrum analyzer but to the average person using average audio equipment they can't tell the difference.
Ears can be trained. I can make the difference between a AAC file from iTunes and WAV or Flac file from a CD, and also between a 16 bit file and a 24 bit file. But as pointed out above if the mastering is bad it won't make much difference anyway...
Of course you can be trained to hear the differences once they are pointed out to you and you are listening in a quiet environment on high end audio equipment but that is not the point of this discussion.
JMO but the majority of people here who are complaining about paying for M3's would never know the difference unless someone told them they bought MP3's even if they had a CD quality recording to compare it too.
Now I don't blame them as I would prefer the highest quality recording I can get but in all honesty in every day listening the higher resolution gets lost in the noise.
The average person cannot tell the difference between a high bit rate MP3 and the original CD. I have seen this experiment done with my own ears in a class at work which included other design engineers.
Re: Hyde Park Live available on French Amazon and in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: August 4, 2013 23:33
Quote
oldschoolQuote
kowalskiQuote
oldschool
Unless people do a very controlled A/B comparison on high end audio equipment I can almost guarantee you the average person cannot hear the difference between an MP3 ripped at 256 or 320Kps compared to the original CD source. I have taken audio classes at work where this was done and it wasn't until you got down to 192Kps that it was really noticeable. You may see the difference on an spectrum analyzer but to the average person using average audio equipment they can't tell the difference.
Ears can be trained. I can make the difference between a AAC file from iTunes and WAV or Flac file from a CD, and also between a 16 bit file and a 24 bit file. But as pointed out above if the mastering is bad it won't make much difference anyway...
Of course you can be trained to hear the differences once they are pointed out to you and you are listening in a quiet environment on high end audio equipment but that is not the point of this discussion.
JMO but the majority of people here who are complaining about paying for M3's would never know the difference unless someone told them they bought MP3's even if they had a CD quality recording to compare it too.
Now I don't blame them as I would prefer the highest quality recording I can get but in all honesty in every day listening the higher resolution gets lost in the noise.
The average person cannot tell the difference between a high bit rate MP3 and the original CD. I have seen this experiment done with my own ears in a class at work which included other design engineers.
I just wish they give people a choice. For example I like to listen to music in a quiet environment or with good headphones. And I don't want to listen to mp3 because I can hear the loss.
Also I think mp3 is in part responsible for current state of music where everything is highly compressed, very bright and sounding the same.
At least with having a choice between mp3 and CD quality, there's a hope that music will sound good again someday...
Re: Hyde Park Live available on French Amazon and in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
oldschool
()
Date: August 5, 2013 02:27
Quote
kowalskiQuote
oldschoolQuote
kowalskiQuote
oldschool
Unless people do a very controlled A/B comparison on high end audio equipment I can almost guarantee you the average person cannot hear the difference between an MP3 ripped at 256 or 320Kps compared to the original CD source. I have taken audio classes at work where this was done and it wasn't until you got down to 192Kps that it was really noticeable. You may see the difference on an spectrum analyzer but to the average person using average audio equipment they can't tell the difference.
Ears can be trained. I can make the difference between a AAC file from iTunes and WAV or Flac file from a CD, and also between a 16 bit file and a 24 bit file. But as pointed out above if the mastering is bad it won't make much difference anyway...
Of course you can be trained to hear the differences once they are pointed out to you and you are listening in a quiet environment on high end audio equipment but that is not the point of this discussion.
JMO but the majority of people here who are complaining about paying for M3's would never know the difference unless someone told them they bought MP3's even if they had a CD quality recording to compare it too.
Now I don't blame them as I would prefer the highest quality recording I can get but in all honesty in every day listening the higher resolution gets lost in the noise.
The average person cannot tell the difference between a high bit rate MP3 and the original CD. I have seen this experiment done with my own ears in a class at work which included other design engineers.
I just wish they give people a choice. For example I like to listen to music in a quiet environment or with good headphones. And I don't want to listen to mp3 because I can hear the loss.
Also I think mp3 is in part responsible for current state of music where everything is highly compressed, very bright and sounding the same.
At least with having a choice between mp3 and CD quality, there's a hope that music will sound good again someday...
I hear you and agree but unfortunately lossy downloads are where the money is.
Personally I think a CD mixed and mastered properly are superior to vinyl and was a step foward. If record companies really cared about sound quality DVDs and better yet buray discs are the perfect media to offer high quality lossless music but there is no money in it I think
Re: Hyde Park Live available on French Amazon and in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: August 5, 2013 10:36
Quote
oldschool
If record companies really cared about sound quality DVDs and better yet buray discs are the perfect media to offer high quality lossless music but there is no money in it I think
Quite so, A bluray standard for stereo music reproduction might have been a good way forward for hard copy product....but there's no commercial/massmarket demand.
Re: Hyde Park Live available in true lossless quality on Qobuz
Posted by:
pike bishop
()
Date: August 5, 2013 13:32
Check out Kickass torrents,Flac download available.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
alexander paul , britstones , CJFP , daspyknows , downagain , gativubi , keefmick , mickv , quarkie , Sockers56 , tiffanyblu , tommycharles , Tonstone , TooTight , TW2019
Guests:
1679
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10