Steven Wilson's remasters of Jethro Tull's albums are absolutely amazingly good. He also managed to salvage the sound on Opeth's "Damnation" album, where they had some issues with drum mics during the recordings, AFAIK they simply didn't have anything from the overhead mics.
Compared to the original compromised release, his remaster is a revelation.
I don't doubt it. Steven Wilson is quite the digital restoration artist (among other things!). I am forever glad most of my precious prog music from the 70s and 80s is in his capable hands. There are a few of his mixes where I have some minor quibbles; but all-in-all, he does a bangup job!
Of particular note is his remix of In The Court of the Crimson King (King Crimson). It sounds SOOOOO much better than the original vinyl, that it sounds like it was recorded/mastered DDD. And speaking of drums and overheads, you can really hear the "air" around Michael Giles' drums, the after-ring of the snare-head, and even the nylon tips of the drumsticks on the cymbals. Pretty good for an analog recording done in 1968-69!
I know not of this Opeth of which you speak, however. Should I check them out? I'm not too much of a Death Metal fan; but their Wikipedia page makes me think they are more akin to Dream Theatre (but maybe a bit less "Proggy"), which I quite enjoy in limited doses... As for metal for metal's sake, I'm more of a Rammstein fan.
Because it's bollocks. A good digital recording of the signal from a turntable will be indistinguishable from direct analogue playback. Done right, digital will outperform analogue. It isn't always done right, especially these days thanks to the loudness war, but that isn't an inherent problem with digital. Anything else is just nostalgia - you like it because it sounds like the things you like.
Hear, Hear! (pun intended)
Bad recording/mastering sounds bad. Good recording/mastering sounds good.
But all things being equal, a good digital recording will beat the pants offa good analog recording, every time.
Alan Parsons disproved this. I have an instructional video from him and he demonstrates both analog and digital to awesome effect. Not all digital is created equal. You can absolutely have good digital. 44.1k/16 is not it though.
Supertramp - Crime of the Century - my CD sounds better, of course they mastered the remastered vinyl off of CD so go figure.
however
Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms - CD originally recorded DDD. Remaster by mobile fidelity on vinyl puts it to absolute shame.
Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon - that heartbeat at the beginning um, the vinyl makes you feel like you're inside that chest, the CD sounds like it's coming from across the street.
XTC - Skylarking - remastered vinyl is awesome the Blu-ray audio is also awesome I can't tell which is better. One analog, one digital, not CD.
Wait!
You're saying that the MFSL vinyl remaster of Brothers in Arms, which was one of the best sounding early CDs (and pretty much in everyone's collection) actually sounds better? How much do you have to spend on a turntable/tonearm/cartridge combo to make that a true statement? And how many plays do you get before that is no longer the case?
I will agree with you wholeheartedly on DSOTM. Even the original vinyl pressings sound better than the three different digital versions I have. But we're talking about a 1974 analog master tape that was digitized back when there simply weren't any decent digital mastering decks.
Now with Skylarking: You are talking about the "phase-corrected" version, right? I got a CD of that this past year and it sounds pretty stellar. Other than the phase-inversion snafu, Todd Rundgren did a frickin' spectacular job of mixing that highly-underrated album! Did they release the corrected version in DVD-A, too? My Oppo player doesn't do BD discs, and I do like (most) DVD-A remasters...
There is one exception I know of after 89. The Smashing Pumpkins' 1993 album "Siamese Dream" took full advantage of CD's high available dynamic range.
Annnnnnd of course, on the 2011 reissue/remaster of the album they compressed the shit out of it.:/
Peter Gabriel CDs also had impressive amounts of dynamic range.
And anything that has been touched in any way by Steven Wilson has spectacular dynamic range as well.
Bottom line: As long as you avoid the Pop-du-Jour acts, most digital recordings are mastered pretty well, and some actually take advantage of that wonderful 96 dBm of dynamic range (and even (much) more with 24 bit DVD-A/SACD recordings).
God, you may as well give someone a cellphone from the 1980s too.
Vinyl is crap, those that believe it is better are right up there with those that think not giving your kids autism with a vaccine is better.
We have to have qualifiers around all sorts of "quality" metrics for both mediums; but at the peaks of their respective technologies, I will take a 24/96 digital recording over even the best turntable/tonarm/cartridge/direct-to-disc vinyl recording every single time.
Now. Let the format-flamewars and sample-rate/bit-depth wars begin!
The only thing I miss about vinyl is the packaging. Some truly wonderful art got commissioned for Album Covers.
I really miss speakers that are made with real wood enclosures they sounded so much fuller, crisper, and bigger. Then again I have a tube stack with a 4x12 oak slant back offset classic and greenback Celestions that sounds like it's a crisp 300 watts (it's only 200) compared to the new stuff anyway.
Particle Board is MUCH better for enclosures, specfically because it doesn't have a easily-definable resonance frequency.
Rap your knuckles on a "real" wood speaker cabinet. Notice it has a sort of "ring" to it. Particle board cabinets (properly braced), not so much.
I want my speakers to sound like MUSIC, not a dining-room tabletop.
So are you suggesting that they're not selling great? That they're making a loss on them? Hiding the bad sales figures by lying?
That sounds like Left Wing Media bias, totally unfair, Apple's watch business really is worth $10 billion! And just ignore the borrowing of small amounts at prime rates.... that in no way suggests the watch business is bankrupt. That's the nasty nasty media and their nasty nasty lies.
Apple carries ZERO debt. Hasn't had any in DECADES. So quit lying. If they would be borrowing for anything, it would be to complete their new headquarters.
It's clearly going strong inside of Apple, but it's clear it no longer leaves Cupertino. It's the only thing that explains things like the new MacBook Pros, throwing away the AirPort line, the existence of the "Apple TV," or the reason the Apple Watch is still being made.
I'll bet any current sales of the Apple Watch are by clueless people buying them as presents for "that guy I know who uses Apple." Expect to see another flood of refurbished Apple Watches after Christmas these year, as a new group of people who got them as gifts discover that they're worthless.
I work for a small consultancy that writes Windows Application Code. We eat, sleep, and breathe Microsoft around here.
The owners (Husband and Wife) just upgraded their iPhone 4 phones to iPhone 7 Pluses a few weeks ago. And I noticed the other day that my direct boss (the Husband) was sporting an Apple Watch.
These are NOT "gadgety" or "fashion-conscious" people. In fact, my boss is pretty far on the "frugal" side. He will spend money if he needs to; but doesn't just spend money to make a statement.
Sometimes, good products are simply good products.
Apple needed the cash as well. Apple had about 17 months of cash left when Microsoft invested in them, and had lost money for two years in a row. Microsoft's cash helped out immensely.
A LOT of businesses would be ECSTATIC with 17 months of cash in the bank.
Apple didn't need the cash. At their worst, Apple had enough cash to buy Compaq.
Amen to that, though I'd rather the industry do so with TVs first. Laptops move between locations, not all of which are similarly equipped, so there are times when those speakers get use, but a TV is stationary. Why do they insist on including tinny speakers covered by ugly grills on sets that cost thousands of dollars, when it's pretty much a given that anyone buying the set already has an AVR and speakers, or at the VERY least a soundbar?
It's a holdover from a time when at least some TVs actually had almost decent speakers. I agree that the speakers that are being built-into TVs these days are ALMOST worse-than-nothing. But rather than excluding them entirely, I'd rather see just a LEEETLE bit of engineering-effort be put into them to make them sound at least as good as your average portable TV in the 1960s. They could go a LONG way simply by molding an "enclosure" around the speaker, turning it into an ersatz "acoustic suspension" system. This would MASSIVELY improve the low-frequency response of the tiny drivers without having to do anything else. Would it be a perfect example of an acoustic-suspension system? Of course not; but it would be a HUUUUUUGE improvement over the excuse that is shipping now in most flatscreen TVs.
So, contrary to your statement, yes, Apple managed to hit the bar set by their competitors.
At the prices Apple charge for their laptops I expect them to far exceed the bar set by their far cheaper competitors. If they only meet it then there is nothing to justify the far higher prices...which is a big part of the problem with the new MBPs: they are average laptops with an insanely high price.
This is an early-Production issue, and will be quickly fixed with a software update.
Remember, the new MBPs boast much louder (and better-sounding) speakers. I would bet that they have upped the amplifier-power as well, and testing this particular thing slipped through the cracks.
An understandable growing-pain, considering it is a fairly obscure thing to test.
I don't even want speakers in a laptop. I never use them. Put batteries in the space otherwise taken by the speakers please.
I'm sure that Apple should act on the.0005% of the laptop-buying public that agrees with you.
Remember, legalized pot destroys MANY industries. The prison business is fucked in states that legalize pot, thats half their population right there. Illegal pot growers... they don't want it legal either, and invest LARGE sums of money keeping it illegal, as silly as that might sound cause legalization kills their sole reason to exist. California, as an example, doesn't have legalized recreational pot because THE GROWERS DON'T WANT IT TO BE LEGAL, its not as profitable that way. Police in certain places don't care, so legalizing it would kill profit.
So, contrary to your statement, yes, Apple managed to hit the bar set by their competitors.
At the prices Apple charge for their laptops I expect them to far exceed the bar set by their far cheaper competitors. If they only meet it then there is nothing to justify the far higher prices...which is a big part of the problem with the new MBPs: they are average laptops with an insanely high price.
This is an early-Production issue, and will be quickly fixed with a software update.
Remember, the new MBPs boast much louder (and better-sounding) speakers. I would bet that they have upped the amplifier-power as well, and testing this particular thing slipped through the cracks.
An understandable growing-pain, considering it is a fairly obscure thing to test.
Without California Hilliary wouldn't have won the popular vote. She won California by over 2 million votes, a total higher than she got for the US overall. California is so overwhelmingly liberal that I don't think Trump even bothered with it knowing that it was hopeless. This is what the electoral college was designed specifically for, to preserve the power of the smaller states so that they don't become marginalized. Worked exactly as designed.
How does the EC "de-marginalize" the "smaller states" (which mean "states with smaller POPULATION"), when those "Smaller States" ALSO have less EC Votes?!?
No, the EC just centralizes POWER in a smaller, much-more CORRUPTABLE, group of Governmental Sycophants, who are all-too-often FREE TO IGNORE the will of the citizenry, and vote what is best for THEM PERSONALLY, F* the Unwashed!
A difference of well-over 1 percent of the entire voting electorate should not be able to be subverted by an Electoral College comprised of.0002% (538) of the population of Americans of Voting Age (235,248,000 in 2012). To reach any other conclusion is ridiculous.
As for me, my nightmare was Hillary nominating Supreme Court justices. She flat out stated she intended to nominate political activists and get cases heard for the express purpose of over turning past rulings. The court is supposed to be an arbitrator between Congress and the President, not an arm of the President.
...and the Republicans (ya know, the people that wouldn't even CONSIDER a very-moderate nominee for the Supremes, so long as it came from Obama), those people would NEVER "nominate political activists and get cases heard for the express purpose of over turning past rulings"???
e.g.,
Roe v. Wade
Obergefell v. Rogers (Same-Sex marriage)
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (ObamaCare)
King v. Burwell (ObamaCare)
To name just a few.
Nah, they'd NEVER nominate judges chosen to do EXACTLY that. Never.
That's no more "not running Windows" than it would be to use BootCamp, Parallels, or VMWare Fusion on a Mac.
Being "Free from Windows" MEANS JUST EXACTLY THAT. WINE Counts (but it will never "catch up"); but Virtualization and dual-booting does NOT, regardless if you are dual-booting on a "Wintel" machine that you consider a "Linux machine", or a Mac that you consider a "macOS" machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Steven Wilson's remasters of Jethro Tull's albums are absolutely amazingly good. He also managed to salvage the sound on Opeth's "Damnation" album, where they had some issues with drum mics during the recordings, AFAIK they simply didn't have anything from the overhead mics.
Compared to the original compromised release, his remaster is a revelation.
I don't doubt it. Steven Wilson is quite the digital restoration artist (among other things!). I am forever glad most of my precious prog music from the 70s and 80s is in his capable hands. There are a few of his mixes where I have some minor quibbles; but all-in-all, he does a bangup job!
Of particular note is his remix of In The Court of the Crimson King (King Crimson). It sounds SOOOOO much better than the original vinyl, that it sounds like it was recorded/mastered DDD. And speaking of drums and overheads, you can really hear the "air" around Michael Giles' drums, the after-ring of the snare-head, and even the nylon tips of the drumsticks on the cymbals. Pretty good for an analog recording done in 1968-69!
I know not of this Opeth of which you speak, however. Should I check them out? I'm not too much of a Death Metal fan; but their Wikipedia page makes me think they are more akin to Dream Theatre (but maybe a bit less "Proggy"), which I quite enjoy in limited doses... As for metal for metal's sake, I'm more of a Rammstein fan.
I don't know whether to commend you for missing the reference to the recent US Presidential campaign or to castigate you for missing obvious satire.
Apparently, both are in order.
;-)
Apparently, my post was uninformed on many levels...
It should be more of pop compared to a dull thud if it has a ring to it then it wasn't made right.
Well, it was hard to come up with a perfect onomatopoetically-descriptive word. ;-)
What I meant was that it had at least a semi-definable "resonance point", rather than just sounding as "non-harmonic" as possible.
Because it's bollocks. A good digital recording of the signal from a turntable will be indistinguishable from direct analogue playback. Done right, digital will outperform analogue. It isn't always done right, especially these days thanks to the loudness war, but that isn't an inherent problem with digital. Anything else is just nostalgia - you like it because it sounds like the things you like.
Hear, Hear! (pun intended)
Bad recording/mastering sounds bad. Good recording/mastering sounds good.
But all things being equal, a good digital recording will beat the pants offa good analog recording, every time.
Buy a laser pickup turntable. There's no physical contact with the grooves, so no degradation just from playing your record.
Also, some of them come with optical scratch recognition and correction, so even pre-existing damage (within limits) doesn't affect the sound.
They actually got that working?!? Cool!
Alan Parsons disproved this. I have an instructional video from him and he demonstrates both analog and digital to awesome effect. Not all digital is created equal. You can absolutely have good digital. 44.1k/16 is not it though.
Supertramp - Crime of the Century - my CD sounds better, of course they mastered the remastered vinyl off of CD so go figure. however Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms - CD originally recorded DDD. Remaster by mobile fidelity on vinyl puts it to absolute shame.
Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon - that heartbeat at the beginning um, the vinyl makes you feel like you're inside that chest, the CD sounds like it's coming from across the street.
XTC - Skylarking - remastered vinyl is awesome the Blu-ray audio is also awesome I can't tell which is better. One analog, one digital, not CD.
Wait!
You're saying that the MFSL vinyl remaster of Brothers in Arms, which was one of the best sounding early CDs (and pretty much in everyone's collection) actually sounds better? How much do you have to spend on a turntable/tonearm/cartridge combo to make that a true statement? And how many plays do you get before that is no longer the case?
I will agree with you wholeheartedly on DSOTM. Even the original vinyl pressings sound better than the three different digital versions I have. But we're talking about a 1974 analog master tape that was digitized back when there simply weren't any decent digital mastering decks.
Now with Skylarking: You are talking about the "phase-corrected" version, right? I got a CD of that this past year and it sounds pretty stellar. Other than the phase-inversion snafu, Todd Rundgren did a frickin' spectacular job of mixing that highly-underrated album! Did they release the corrected version in DVD-A, too? My Oppo player doesn't do BD discs, and I do like (most) DVD-A remasters...
There is one exception I know of after 89. The Smashing Pumpkins' 1993 album "Siamese Dream" took full advantage of CD's high available dynamic range.
Annnnnnd of course, on the 2011 reissue/remaster of the album they compressed the shit out of it. :/
Peter Gabriel CDs also had impressive amounts of dynamic range.
And anything that has been touched in any way by Steven Wilson has spectacular dynamic range as well.
Bottom line: As long as you avoid the Pop-du-Jour acts, most digital recordings are mastered pretty well, and some actually take advantage of that wonderful 96 dBm of dynamic range (and even (much) more with 24 bit DVD-A/SACD recordings).
God, you may as well give someone a cellphone from the 1980s too. Vinyl is crap, those that believe it is better are right up there with those that think not giving your kids autism with a vaccine is better.
We have to have qualifiers around all sorts of "quality" metrics for both mediums; but at the peaks of their respective technologies, I will take a 24/96 digital recording over even the best turntable/tonarm/cartridge/direct-to-disc vinyl recording every single time.
Now. Let the format-flamewars and sample-rate/bit-depth wars begin!
The only thing I miss about vinyl is the packaging. Some truly wonderful art got commissioned for Album Covers.
I really miss speakers that are made with real wood enclosures they sounded so much fuller, crisper, and bigger. Then again I have a tube stack with a 4x12 oak slant back offset classic and greenback Celestions that sounds like it's a crisp 300 watts (it's only 200) compared to the new stuff anyway.
Particle Board is MUCH better for enclosures, specfically because it doesn't have a easily-definable resonance frequency.
Rap your knuckles on a "real" wood speaker cabinet. Notice it has a sort of "ring" to it. Particle board cabinets (properly braced), not so much.
I want my speakers to sound like MUSIC, not a dining-room tabletop.
I saw a guy walking once with one. He looked ashamed.
Liar.
So are you suggesting that they're not selling great? That they're making a loss on them? Hiding the bad sales figures by lying?
That sounds like Left Wing Media bias, totally unfair, Apple's watch business really is worth $10 billion! And just ignore the borrowing of small amounts at prime rates.... that in no way suggests the watch business is bankrupt. That's the nasty nasty media and their nasty nasty lies.
Apple carries ZERO debt. Hasn't had any in DECADES. So quit lying. If they would be borrowing for anything, it would be to complete their new headquarters.
It's clearly going strong inside of Apple, but it's clear it no longer leaves Cupertino. It's the only thing that explains things like the new MacBook Pros, throwing away the AirPort line, the existence of the "Apple TV," or the reason the Apple Watch is still being made.
I'll bet any current sales of the Apple Watch are by clueless people buying them as presents for "that guy I know who uses Apple." Expect to see another flood of refurbished Apple Watches after Christmas these year, as a new group of people who got them as gifts discover that they're worthless.
I work for a small consultancy that writes Windows Application Code. We eat, sleep, and breathe Microsoft around here.
The owners (Husband and Wife) just upgraded their iPhone 4 phones to iPhone 7 Pluses a few weeks ago. And I noticed the other day that my direct boss (the Husband) was sporting an Apple Watch.
These are NOT "gadgety" or "fashion-conscious" people. In fact, my boss is pretty far on the "frugal" side. He will spend money if he needs to; but doesn't just spend money to make a statement.
Sometimes, good products are simply good products.
Apple needed the cash as well. Apple had about 17 months of cash left when Microsoft invested in them, and had lost money for two years in a row. Microsoft's cash helped out immensely.
A LOT of businesses would be ECSTATIC with 17 months of cash in the bank.
Apple didn't need the cash. At their worst, Apple had enough cash to buy Compaq.
Just because we're not enticed doesn't mean we don't understand.
That very statement proves the point.
one will need a heavy duty wench
I'm afraid to ask...
Too Late...
Yep, the old formula is still working.
Good Job, Microsoft!
Amen to that, though I'd rather the industry do so with TVs first. Laptops move between locations, not all of which are similarly equipped, so there are times when those speakers get use, but a TV is stationary. Why do they insist on including tinny speakers covered by ugly grills on sets that cost thousands of dollars, when it's pretty much a given that anyone buying the set already has an AVR and speakers, or at the VERY least a soundbar?
It's a holdover from a time when at least some TVs actually had almost decent speakers. I agree that the speakers that are being built-into TVs these days are ALMOST worse-than-nothing. But rather than excluding them entirely, I'd rather see just a LEEETLE bit of engineering-effort be put into them to make them sound at least as good as your average portable TV in the 1960s. They could go a LONG way simply by molding an "enclosure" around the speaker, turning it into an ersatz "acoustic suspension" system. This would MASSIVELY improve the low-frequency response of the tiny drivers without having to do anything else. Would it be a perfect example of an acoustic-suspension system? Of course not; but it would be a HUUUUUUGE improvement over the excuse that is shipping now in most flatscreen TVs.
So, contrary to your statement, yes, Apple managed to hit the bar set by their competitors.
At the prices Apple charge for their laptops I expect them to far exceed the bar set by their far cheaper competitors. If they only meet it then there is nothing to justify the far higher prices...which is a big part of the problem with the new MBPs: they are average laptops with an insanely high price.
This is an early-Production issue, and will be quickly fixed with a software update.
Remember, the new MBPs boast much louder (and better-sounding) speakers. I would bet that they have upped the amplifier-power as well, and testing this particular thing slipped through the cracks.
An understandable growing-pain, considering it is a fairly obscure thing to test.
I don't even want speakers in a laptop. I never use them. Put batteries in the space otherwise taken by the speakers please.
I'm sure that Apple should act on the .0005% of the laptop-buying public that agrees with you.
Remember, legalized pot destroys MANY industries. The prison business is fucked in states that legalize pot, thats half their population right there. Illegal pot growers ... they don't want it legal either, and invest LARGE sums of money keeping it illegal, as silly as that might sound cause legalization kills their sole reason to exist. California, as an example, doesn't have legalized recreational pot because THE GROWERS DON'T WANT IT TO BE LEGAL, its not as profitable that way. Police in certain places don't care, so legalizing it would kill profit.
This, This, a THOUSAND TIMES, This!!!
"Only Apple can be Apple."
Microsoft does not, and likely never will, really understand what "from the silicon-up" means, and more importantly, how to do it right.
So, contrary to your statement, yes, Apple managed to hit the bar set by their competitors.
At the prices Apple charge for their laptops I expect them to far exceed the bar set by their far cheaper competitors. If they only meet it then there is nothing to justify the far higher prices...which is a big part of the problem with the new MBPs: they are average laptops with an insanely high price.
This is an early-Production issue, and will be quickly fixed with a software update.
Remember, the new MBPs boast much louder (and better-sounding) speakers. I would bet that they have upped the amplifier-power as well, and testing this particular thing slipped through the cracks.
An understandable growing-pain, considering it is a fairly obscure thing to test.
The next iteration after that will feature a keyboard and a pointing device! Amazon will eventually take us back to using a desktop computer.
No, the next iteration will feature a CAMERA.
Think about it.
Without California Hilliary wouldn't have won the popular vote. She won California by over 2 million votes, a total higher than she got for the US overall. California is so overwhelmingly liberal that I don't think Trump even bothered with it knowing that it was hopeless. This is what the electoral college was designed specifically for, to preserve the power of the smaller states so that they don't become marginalized. Worked exactly as designed.
How does the EC "de-marginalize" the "smaller states" (which mean "states with smaller POPULATION"), when those "Smaller States" ALSO have less EC Votes?!?
.0002% (538) of the population of Americans of Voting Age (235,248,000 in 2012). To reach any other conclusion is ridiculous.
No, the EC just centralizes POWER in a smaller, much-more CORRUPTABLE, group of Governmental Sycophants, who are all-too-often FREE TO IGNORE the will of the citizenry, and vote what is best for THEM PERSONALLY, F* the Unwashed!
What is unique about this particular election is that the NUMBER of REAL ("Popular") votes that the EC "loser" actually WON by is, by far, the largest in history. In fact, more than twice as large as the next-largest difference (2000).
A difference of well-over 1 percent of the entire voting electorate should not be able to be subverted by an Electoral College comprised of
As for me, my nightmare was Hillary nominating Supreme Court justices. She flat out stated she intended to nominate political activists and get cases heard for the express purpose of over turning past rulings. The court is supposed to be an arbitrator between Congress and the President, not an arm of the President.
...and the Republicans (ya know, the people that wouldn't even CONSIDER a very-moderate nominee for the Supremes, so long as it came from Obama), those people would NEVER "nominate political activists and get cases heard for the express purpose of over turning past rulings"???
e.g., Roe v. Wade
Obergefell v. Rogers (Same-Sex marriage)
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (ObamaCare)
King v. Burwell (ObamaCare)
To name just a few.
Nah, they'd NEVER nominate judges chosen to do EXACTLY that. Never.
Gimme a break!
VMware player...
That's no more "not running Windows" than it would be to use BootCamp, Parallels, or VMWare Fusion on a Mac.
Being "Free from Windows" MEANS JUST EXACTLY THAT. WINE Counts (but it will never "catch up"); but Virtualization and dual-booting does NOT, regardless if you are dual-booting on a "Wintel" machine that you consider a "Linux machine", or a Mac that you consider a "macOS" machine.