I have copies of the original The Beatles CDs from when they came out in around 1987, as the EMI press office kindly supplied them. I’ve never been a huge Beatles fan so, other than the first plays when I reviewed them back then, they have sat on my shelves unplayed.
With the massive amount of publicity (some would say hype) surrounding the new remastered Beatles CDs I thought it was time to dig out the old ones and compare them to a couple of the new editions.
I chose Revolver, my wife’s favourite and The White Album, the one that I dislike least. You will notice below the comparisons of the dynamics of two tracks.
Top two images: Yellow Submarine, Original and Remastered
Bottom two images: Back in the U.S.S.R., original and remastered
Click on an image to open a larger version
As you can see there has been some work done. From what I’ve read they have talked about limiting to bring things up to date. From what I can see and what I can hear they have cleaned up the sound , firmed up the bottom end considerably and added a degree of compression that is unfortunately almost essential for any modern release. Compared to say the last Metallica released this is absolutely sonically fantastic dynamics wise. Compared to the originals, somehow while they have more presence and more punch they also sound a touch too loud in places. The vocals in Back in the U.S.S.R. just shout. Pity.
I know I’m biased, as I’m not a Beatles fan, but would I buy these new CDs for pleasure? No. Will I listen to any again in the next few weeks? Yes. However, as I’ve just learn’t that the new Prefab Sprout album is in the post the answer may now be No.
33 Naim retailers across the UK are particpating in the Naim Summer Sounds roadshow.
Featured products are the newly launched Ovator S-600 speaker and there will also be previews of the soon to be launched Naim DAC.
Very interested to read on Amarra’s website and I paraphrase ‘it’s easy to make music sound good on a computer but hard to make it sound fabulous’. I think they have been listening to my conversations.
Next week I’m in Munich for the High End show and by coincidence will be sharing a booth (or to be more exact one of my clients Thorens is sharing a booth) themed Sources of the Future – as it’s vinyl and streaming – with Higoto who are Germany’s streaming experts.
The demos will be of Thoren’s new Tri-Balance turntable, the Logitech Transporter and a Macbook running iTunes with the Amarra software into a Weiss DAC.
Should be very interesting. It’ll bring out all the digits is digits posts again, especially as Amarra is around $1500. That means the price of Mac Book Pro , Amarra and DAC will be around £5-6k. Cheaper than my CD player. But will it deliver as much?
Will it be fabulous hi-fi or fabulous music?
Computer audio seems to generate emotions when discussing what products to use that really are odd. Why do people get so wound up? I’d be interested in your comments. Ideally one would take a computer, connect a good DAC and play one’s favourite music using one’s favourite app.
If only it were that simple to get a great sound from CA. The more I experiment the more I realise that CA is absolutely similar to analog audio or indeed any audio when taken seriously. Every change is audible. Assuming one has a good enough system.
Of course, just because a change is audible doesn’t mean it matters.
The expression bandied about on forums about Computer Audio is bit transparent. The theory is simple: it’s getting the bits from the Hard Drive out of the computer without them being manipulated/changed in any way.
I’ve tried many music playing apps and they all seem to sound subtly different. Even different releases of iTunes are reported to sort different. Life is far to short to bother to try different releases. As they say, I tried it once and didn’t like it.
For convenience for quick playback I tend to use VLC www.videolan.org. It seems to play almost everything audio and video and can even stream stuff over my network. It works well for Radio Paradise too.
If I want to get serious say when I’m comparing DACs I tend to use Foobar. It’s not my favourite user experience but it is easily configurable. For use under Win XP it’s possible to use the ASIO add in to bypass the K Mixer (assuming you have a suitable sound card). I use the M-Audio Transit. For Vista the WASAPI add in also bypasses the Windows (Kernel Mixer aka K Mixer) mixer. With volumes set at 100% one should be achieving bit transparency and the sound should be just that little bit cleaner, less splashy and the space between notes will be greater somehow.
CA still never gets truly close to good CD playback. Not yet for me anyway. And it’s not ’cause I haven’t tried hard.
It’s a bit simpler with a Mac (the classic Mac and a DAC route) assuming you remember to set the right bit depth and bit rate in the Midi settings but I can’t say it sounds any better.
The Times Online reported recently that younger music fans are beginning to prefer the sound of MP3s to better quality sound.
Jonathan Berger, Professor of Music at Stanford University, California has theorised that young people are getting used to the sound of MP3s to the point where they are beginning to prefer the sound. For the past eight years his students have taken part in an experiment in which they listen to songs in a variety of different forms, including MP3s. “I found not only that MP3s were not thought of as low quality, but over time there was a rise in preference for MP3s” Professor Berger said.
Professor Berger says that the (presumably lower bit rate) digitising process leaves music with a “sizzle” or a metallic sound.
Google let me down when I was searching for the original paper or quote from JB. Just wonder if he actually said MP3 as most iPods are loaded with AACs? However, does it matter? At 128kbs both sound pretty rough.
Seems us older music fans should play as much vinyl as possible.
Decided to use Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours, but slightly more unusually, the DVD-A rip so the source is 24/96. Unlike quite a few DVD-As, this one appears to have some content above 22k. Amazing though, that given the total available dynamic range they still needed to ‘clip’ the recording. Still sounds rather good though.
To start I compared the standard power supply with the Maplin L54BR. Pleasant surprise, the Maplin delivers a subtlety of delivery that doesn’t emphasise any particular instruments. The original PS, in comparison, seems to make the bass line and the hi-hat a little more obvious in the mix of Dreams and decreases the importance of Stevie Nick’s voice.
Using track 7 , The Chain, showed the original as having a slightly ‘sharper’ delivery, more detail perhaps but certainly less music. The main difference was in the low end but this changed the overall presentation. The Maplin just delivered more music but in a controlled and balanced manner.
I then dug out the 500VA transformer I’d tried before – now in an aluminium box and with a ferrite on the output – in common with the original Dacmagic’s supply. This PS delivered more power to the presentation, more extension apparently but was slightly slower. It had better separation of instruments, but not really more music.
The more comparisons of power supplies I do with the Dacmagic the more impressed I am of the overall balance of the design.
I will carry on using the Maplin PS. It is easier to hide away, as it isn’t a walwart, and more importantly it improves the performance making it just that little more balanced and even handed.
The music playback system was a HP2133 netbook running Foobar and ASIO drivers connected by USB2 to a M-Audio Transit sound card which was connected with a Chord Optichord to the Cambridge.