Ascend Acoustics Official Music Recommendation Thread

[moris4wildlife]

donaldekelly - I was able to find one Roxy Music LP in my collection - Manifesto (1979). It's been a long while since I last spun that record. There are some strong tunes on that LP; definitely an 80s feel, but not too pop. Even from listening to my old LP, I could imagine what a remaster by Bob Ludwig would sound like. Avalon is now on my radar.

[donaldekelly]

I started with the "Atlantic Years" LP that had the best of manifesto and flesh and blood. Great album even though smooth and pop. I think my favorite is country life - but it is hard to pick. The greatest hits cd is cool in that it starts with the smooth Avalon and goes backwards gradually letting you get accustomed to the early sound when Ferry was experimental and Eno was in the band.

I finally ordered the Berlioz cd you recommended. Looking forward to it. I have ordered a few that BKDC recommended too - they all seem really marvelous. Stunning, but I don't need to list them again.

[moris4wildlife]

I finally ordered the Berlioz cd you recommended. Looking forward to it. I have ordered a few that BKDC recommended too - they all seem really marvelous. Stunning, but I don't need to list them again.

Warning. Do not let the p "piano" fool you to turn up the volume too much, because by the time you get to the fff "fortitissimo", you'll be running for cover. The foundations will shake. I understand the Sierra 1s have an impressive mid-bass driver, so you'll feel it. It's really quite thrilling.

Stunning is an understatement when referring to bkdc's lists of classical recommendations. Mind-boggling.

Brian Eno had his fingerprints on a number of bands from that era. Talking Heads is one of my favorites.

[moris4wildlife]

donaldekelly - RE Berlioz. I lied. Turn up the volume. Go for it.

[donaldekelly]

I don't know. I was listening to Haydn's surprise symphony knowing where the surprise was and it was still kind of shocking and surprising. I guess a good recording and good speakers will do that to you. I think I will leave it low.

[moris4wildlife]

I don't know. I was listening to Haydn's surprise symphony knowing where the surprise was and it was still kind of shocking and surprising. I think I will leave it low.

Not too low. About front row center

[moris4wildlife]

bkdc - Hey, thanks for mentioning a while back about bit rate and depth relating to sound quality. I wasn't very educated about that aspect of recordings and not convinced about significant differences in sound quality, especially since the rates of higher quality recordings seemed to be well beyond the audible range. But the more I assessed my collection, the more I saw the relationship, and now I spend more time looking into these aspects before buying a CD.

This leads me to a question, which I have no doubt you would be able to answer, regarding a classical recording. I recently listened to a SACD version of RCA's, Fritz Reiner conducted, New World Symphony. I don't have the capacity to play SACD, but the Redbook layer was very disappointing. All the instruments seemed in-my-face. They were clear and loud, with not much depth or dynamic range; really kind of flat. What's up with that? Was the Redbook layer 16/44.1?

[bkdc]

moris4wildlife -

All Redbook CD layers are 16-bit/44.1kHz. Modern recordings are now almost all recorded in 24-bit (and hopefully 96kHz or 192kHz sampling) or DSD stream. The 24-bit depth allows for almost 130dB of dynamic range whereas 16-bit recording allows for 96dB of dynamic range. During the recording process and editing, about 30dB of dynamic range is lost. The audio engineers only have 60-70dB of room to work with if a master was recorded at 16-bit.

What you are listening to is a result of poor quality original analog tapes and not a limitation of 16-bit 44.1kHz depth/resolution. The most important aspect of the sound quality is the quality of the MASTER. This means that every step of the recording (hall/room acoustics, quality and placement of the microphone, D/A converter, and engineering by the recording engineers) be done properly. Any weak link leads to degradation in sound quality. Ultimately, the high resolution file which is still 24-bit 96kHz or 24-bit 192kHz will be resampled to 16-bit 44.1kHz since Redbook CD layer is 16/44.1 and cannot hold any more information. However, the engineers who have a 24-bit/96kHz original recording information have lots of 'headroom' to manipulate the audio, get rid of the background noise, and resample and mix the sound without any degradation of soundquality when it is downsampled. As I've said before, the human ear cannot tell the difference between 24-bit 192kHz and 16-bit 44.1kHz. What is important is that the master file which was resampled was recorded and mastered properly. When I buy a modern recording from BIS or Pentatone, I know that the engineers used high quality modern microphones and equipment far superior to anything that existed in 1960. What is impressive is that some 1960 recordings actually sound GOOD based on the technology available at that time.

The issue with old recordings is that they are limited by the data on the old analog tapes. Some were recorded wonderfully (Mercury Living Presence, and some RCA recordings) and some were not.


If you have extra cash, try my recommendation of Ivan Fischer's Dvorak 8th/9th on Philips/Channel classics. The Pentatone recording with Yakov Kreizberg is also outstanding. Even in 2-channel stereo. You will hear the difference in what DSD digital recording will give you even when resampled to 16-bit 44.1kHz stereo.

[moris4wildlife]

Yup. I came to the right place! I knew it. Thanks for the Audio 101 class and the recommendations. Your explanations of bit rate/depth and sound quality brought into focus my fragmented understanding of the topic. Let me think out aloud, now...

So even though the Redbook layer is at 16/44.1 and you can't really hear the difference between that and 24/192, recording at the 24/192 rate allows for distortion free downsampling, if done correctly. OK. Understood.

Now, what about HDCD, XRCD and K2 HD which can be played on a CD player. Is it because those players have a 24/96 or better DAC that allows for playing layers that contain higher bit rate/depth information coded onto the CD, or is the data on those CDs still 16/44.1?

As you can see, I have too much time on my hands. Thanks for your input, though.

[bkdc]

XRCD is a standard redbook CD with a claimed proprietary mastering process.

K2HD is a standard redbook CD but the mastering was done in 24-bit 100kHz resolution. It's old school since any modern recording and mastering technology is just as good these days. Only a crappy cheapo studio would use less than 24-bit 96kHz mastering in 2015.

HCDC claims to pack 20-bits of data in a 16-bit compatible CD with the extra data available when played on the right hardware, but whether it can be decoded on a regular CD player without distortion is debatable.

This is all marketing gimmick from years past. With the cost of equipment and modern computering power, 24-bit 96kHz or better is pretty much standard for anyone caring about sound quality.

Having said that, I just listened to a very modern Carrie Underwood album, and the recording engineers could have cared less about the end product. It sounded as muffled and dull as any 70's album. There was no detail remaining in the final product. So even with today's available technology, some recording studios still won't give a rat's butt about sound quality.