Notices
991 2012-2019
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Content for Burmester

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-16-2014, 07:04 PM
  #16  
chuck911
Race Car
 
chuck911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,522
Likes: 0
Received 58 Likes on 40 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by kiya
Some of you guys listen to music based on it's audio recording quality?
I've been into both home and automobile audiophile systems for over fifteen years and never have i picked up a CD or record because of how good the sound quality is.
You need to get out more. I have a whole bunch of recordings, both LP and CD, where the only difference is the pressing, or mastering, or cutting speed. The differences between most of these are not subtle, do not require laborious comparisons to appreciate. I have a so-called audiophile pressing of Fleetwood Mac Rumours, half speed mastered, that for years I thought sounded great. Then for some odd reason I wound up listening to an ordinary copy of the same LP. Even though it had been years since I'd heard the audiophile pressing I couldn't help feeling this 'ordinary' old original release sounded a lot better. Pulled out the other one, sure enough, no contest. WTF? Searching liner notes for clues eventually turned up the dreaded words: Digitally Remastered.

Music is a unique form of communication. With language we can read the printed words and get the exact same information regardless of font, clarity, pace. We are able to understand the stutterer. Stephen Hawking redefines the cosmos through a straw.

Music on the other hand, is inextricably bound up in the medium. That Fleetwood Mac recording was Digitally Ruined, and once that was done no amount of half-speed cutting or quality vinyl will ever get it back.

Now the fact remains I did enjoy that album for many years before realizing it was Digitally Ruined. But from then on I would never listen to it, except as a demonstration to certain people of just how much difference these things really do make. And yes I have done this and yes everyone notices.

Oh wait, that's not quite right! I won't play the original album either, because now I have a true half speed cutting from the original master recording on a 45 rpm LP. Listen to both versions and I will guarantee, in spite of whatever you think, you will not only prefer the 45 you will be stunned at how much better it sounds.

Assuming of course you care about the music. People who get little from music get little from music played better. It all depends.
Old 09-17-2014, 08:38 AM
  #17  
MJBird993
Drifting
 
MJBird993's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful North Carolina
Posts: 2,026
Received 22 Likes on 20 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by me!
The Burmester was a tough choice - I couldn't hear one in a 911 and the system that I listened to in a Cayenne was nice, but not $5300 nice.
Originally Posted by jamgolf
I had a similar underwhelming experience when I tried playing MP3s.
I suspect that might have been a factor of what you were playing.
Bzzzzzzzzzzt. Sorry, try again. I know better than to listen to MP3s. No, I did not bring a stick with FLAC files on it, as I didn't know if the car could read them, I just brought some good CDs, which is the same thing really, since that's the source of my FLACs. Most of my music is not available on HDTracks and similar sources - not that I'd pay for them if they were. That's some expensive stuff!

However, I appreciate your effort here attempting to educate us all. Most people - especially young people - don't realize how ****-poor MP3 quality is. But that's all they know, so they don't know what they're missing. Those of us who grew up with vinyl, those of us that can remember it and who had a decent turntable on which to play said vinyl, can appreciate the differences.



Quick Reply: Content for Burmester



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 09:00 PM.