Actually the Genesis reissues are a perfect example of what we are sort of refering to. If you are familiar with the original vinyl LP's they sound quite good despite the format issues. Duke had issies of noise and compressoin as well as the noisy vinyl on almost every copy of Abacab. I bought at least 1o copies of each with only one sounding acceptable. I also have the SACD copies and they are LOUD and missing much detail. But... Yea to the untrained ear they sound excellent compared to.....
My last statement above is I thing part of Steven's point. If you have nothing to use as a base how can you state an AC3 is better or worse than DTS or RBCD or what have you? And then why make a bold statement such as you will never buy anything unless it is MLP high rez as all other formats are inferior?
Another point not made. Part of this hobby was to get to the best sound you could get from recordings made on software and with technology availiable. Unfortunately not only have we gone backwards in that manner, we also seem to as a society and hobbiest given up on that idea claiming most current technology is the best there will be when in effect to most past technology seems to sound better to most I.E. vinyl and surround/Quadraphonic sound.
This is however the most interesting discussion we seem to have here on this site so we should for sure continue it without getting personal of course :)
On Monday, June 18, 2012 1:33:49 PM UTC-5, Grayhawk wrote:
On Monday, June 18, 2012 1:33:49 PM UTC-5, Grayhawk wrote:
On Monday, June 18, 2012 8:26:18 AM UTC-4, Britre wrote:I think it was mentioned before, this thread was started in regard to people who claimed they would only purchase so called "Hi Rez" material and DTS, AC3, Ect... was taboo. Steven claimed most subjects could not tell the difference, Looks created a test where a certain percentage could on their own gear identify the files correctly, Steven admitted there is an audiable difference but the test is not scientific enough to have realistic conclusions. bottom line is all agreed what sounds good to the individual is good. If some choose to avoid certian resolution it is a free world. I personally have given up on most modern releases as to me they siply are dissapointing regardless of format and resolution.I must have missed the part where all agreed that all that matters is what sounds good to the individual. Can't argue with that. Just hard for me to imagine passing on e.g. the Genesis surround releases simply because they are DTS (bad example, since you could always search out the sacd, but my point being that these sound so good to me, I find it hard to believe others who like Genesis would pass on them if the sacd's weren't available). But then there are many things I find hard to believe that are true. I find it hard to believe that some would prefer to listen to the stereo layer of an sacd over the mch layer, even when they have a mch system. Perhaps if I had a high-end system, it might make more sense, but to me mch (assuming a good mix) blows stereo out of the water. Different strokes.When you say modern releases, do you mean new music releases or all modern releases? That is, do you find even modern releases of back catalog disappointing (e.g. Genesis, Aqualung, KC, Talking Heads, etc)? I agree that the loudness wars have ruined many new releases- and some remasters- but there are a lot of modern re-releases that sound awesome to me.
On Monday, June 18, 2012 1:33:49 PM UTC-5, Grayhawk wrote:
--
On Monday, June 18, 2012 8:26:18 AM UTC-4, Britre wrote:I think it was mentioned before, this thread was started in regard to people who claimed they would only purchase so called "Hi Rez" material and DTS, AC3, Ect... was taboo. Steven claimed most subjects could not tell the difference, Looks created a test where a certain percentage could on their own gear identify the files correctly, Steven admitted there is an audiable difference but the test is not scientific enough to have realistic conclusions. bottom line is all agreed what sounds good to the individual is good. If some choose to avoid certian resolution it is a free world. I personally have given up on most modern releases as to me they siply are dissapointing regardless of format and resolution.I must have missed the part where all agreed that all that matters is what sounds good to the individual. Can't argue with that. Just hard for me to imagine passing on e.g. the Genesis surround releases simply because they are DTS (bad example, since you could always search out the sacd, but my point being that these sound so good to me, I find it hard to believe others who like Genesis would pass on them if the sacd's weren't available). But then there are many things I find hard to believe that are true. I find it hard to believe that some would prefer to listen to the stereo layer of an sacd over the mch layer, even when they have a mch system. Perhaps if I had a high-end system, it might make more sense, but to me mch (assuming a good mix) blows stereo out of the water. Different strokes.When you say modern releases, do you mean new music releases or all modern releases? That is, do you find even modern releases of back catalog disappointing (e.g. Genesis, Aqualung, KC, Talking Heads, etc)? I agree that the loudness wars have ruined many new releases- and some remasters- but there are a lot of modern re-releases that sound awesome to me.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
No comments:
Post a Comment