Discussion
Kermit power said:
I don't honestly understand this whole notion of listening to an album in order.
Sure, classical symphonies, and various modern things (most of Pink Floyd's albums as a starter) do spring to mind, but by and large I never get the feeling that the artists have put too much thought into track order, so why would I?
Equally, the artist, when recording the album, didn't do it for the exact mood I'm in when I want to listen to music (which obviously is an individual thing to me, and will vary wildly from one day to another), so why would I want to constrain myself to what seemed right to the artist when recording, even if it's not what feels right to me when listening?
I do get times when I want to listen to an entire album, but they're a definite rarity, and albums which don't have at least one track that doesn't do it for me are even rarer.
There are plenty of albums where I might skip a track or two and I appreciate the running order of a lot of early albums was determined by what you could fit on each side of a vinyl LP. My point was that many there are several albums I'd like my boy to hear 'as released' because they don't work as well when listened to as individual tracks.Sure, classical symphonies, and various modern things (most of Pink Floyd's albums as a starter) do spring to mind, but by and large I never get the feeling that the artists have put too much thought into track order, so why would I?
Equally, the artist, when recording the album, didn't do it for the exact mood I'm in when I want to listen to music (which obviously is an individual thing to me, and will vary wildly from one day to another), so why would I want to constrain myself to what seemed right to the artist when recording, even if it's not what feels right to me when listening?
I do get times when I want to listen to an entire album, but they're a definite rarity, and albums which don't have at least one track that doesn't do it for me are even rarer.
Off the top of my head, Lamb lies down on Broadway, various Rush & Pink Floyd and all Roger Waters' albums. Prince's Lovesexy album is one track from start to finish.
Edited by Crackie on Thursday 25th June 16:58
Kermit power said:
I don't honestly understand this whole notion of listening to an album in order.
Sure, classical symphonies, and various modern things (most of Pink Floyd's albums as a starter) do spring to mind, but by and large I never get the feeling that the artists have put too much thought into track order, so why would I?
Equally, the artist, when recording the album, didn't do it for the exact mood I'm in when I want to listen to music (which obviously is an individual thing to me, and will vary wildly from one day to another), so why would I want to constrain myself to what seemed right to the artist when recording, even if it's not what feels right to me when listening?
I do get times when I want to listen to an entire album, but they're a definite rarity, and albums which don't have at least one track that doesn't do it for me are even rarer.
See, with a vinyl, I'll listen to tracks I'm not that mad on all the way through. And sometimes I grow to like them a lot.Sure, classical symphonies, and various modern things (most of Pink Floyd's albums as a starter) do spring to mind, but by and large I never get the feeling that the artists have put too much thought into track order, so why would I?
Equally, the artist, when recording the album, didn't do it for the exact mood I'm in when I want to listen to music (which obviously is an individual thing to me, and will vary wildly from one day to another), so why would I want to constrain myself to what seemed right to the artist when recording, even if it's not what feels right to me when listening?
I do get times when I want to listen to an entire album, but they're a definite rarity, and albums which don't have at least one track that doesn't do it for me are even rarer.
I definitely echo the sentiment that you're listening to the wrong music if you think that artists don't take time to think about track order. For the purposes of discussion, I'm eliminating most pop nonsense with the mark of Cowell upon it or whatever, but any proper music will have been thought about.
Disastrous said:
See, with a vinyl, I'll listen to tracks I'm not that mad on all the way through. And sometimes I grow to like them a lot.
I definitely echo the sentiment that you're listening to the wrong music if you think that artists don't take time to think about track order. For the purposes of discussion, I'm eliminating most pop nonsense with the mark of Cowell upon it or whatever, but any proper music will have been thought about.
I'm not saying that none are, but I think they're in the minority. I've got Queen II on at the moment, for example, and that's something which doesn't make sense not being played as an album. Pink Floyd, as already mentioned, and also Welcome to the Black Parade by My Chemical Romance spring to mind, but the vast majority of stuff I listen to (mostly along the lines of Foo Fighters, Rolling Stones, Green Day, Placebo, David Bowie, Janis Joplin etc, etc...) just doesn't strike me that way at all.I definitely echo the sentiment that you're listening to the wrong music if you think that artists don't take time to think about track order. For the purposes of discussion, I'm eliminating most pop nonsense with the mark of Cowell upon it or whatever, but any proper music will have been thought about.
I've listened to some albums where on one day I love tracks 3, 5, 8 & 10 and skipped the rest, and on other days, in a different mood, tracks 2 & 6 have been the best ever released!
Kermit power said:
Disastrous said:
See, with a vinyl, I'll listen to tracks I'm not that mad on all the way through. And sometimes I grow to like them a lot.
I definitely echo the sentiment that you're listening to the wrong music if you think that artists don't take time to think about track order. For the purposes of discussion, I'm eliminating most pop nonsense with the mark of Cowell upon it or whatever, but any proper music will have been thought about.
I'm not saying that none are, but I think they're in the minority. I've got Queen II on at the moment, for example, and that's something which doesn't make sense not being played as an album. Pink Floyd, as already mentioned, and also Welcome to the Black Parade by My Chemical Romance spring to mind, but the vast majority of stuff I listen to (mostly along the lines of Foo Fighters, Rolling Stones, Green Day, Placebo, David Bowie, Janis Joplin etc, etc...) just doesn't strike me that way at all.I definitely echo the sentiment that you're listening to the wrong music if you think that artists don't take time to think about track order. For the purposes of discussion, I'm eliminating most pop nonsense with the mark of Cowell upon it or whatever, but any proper music will have been thought about.
I've listened to some albums where on one day I love tracks 3, 5, 8 & 10 and skipped the rest, and on other days, in a different mood, tracks 2 & 6 have been the best ever released!
Kermit power said:
but the vast majority of stuff I listen to (mostly along the lines of Foo Fighters, Rolling Stones, Green Day, Placebo, David Bowie, Janis Joplin etc, etc...) just doesn't strike me that way at all.
Just taking your example of Bowie, most of his albums are what used to be called "concept" albums, & just don't make sense as a piece of music if you skip tracks.Off the top of my head Space Oddity, Aladdin Sane, Diamond Dogs, Outside, Low, Heroes.
te
I'm actually at the point where I'd like to get into hi-fi. Nothing crazy at first, just an amp and nice pair of speakers for when I want to put a good album on.
I currently use a mixture of AirPlay and Apple TV to listen in several rooms, I'd like to think I could still utilise my current stuff and integrate it all somehow, as my music is all stored on one device, ripped in lossless where possible. I've been informed by a colleague a DAC would be a good investment in time if that's the case. Got plenty of time to learn about it all while I save for the kit.
I currently use a mixture of AirPlay and Apple TV to listen in several rooms, I'd like to think I could still utilise my current stuff and integrate it all somehow, as my music is all stored on one device, ripped in lossless where possible. I've been informed by a colleague a DAC would be a good investment in time if that's the case. Got plenty of time to learn about it all while I save for the kit.
If you ever get into a discussion with a really good mastering engineer
I had the pleasure of sitting next to one at dinner one night. ( Grammy winner )
He gives great though to the positioning of each particular instruments in each track. Not only can he make it closer or further away, but also position the stereo image to a particular point he wants it to appear in.
A great deal of thought and care can go into an album.
We just see the end result.
Edited - for giving the right job title.
I had the pleasure of sitting next to one at dinner one night. ( Grammy winner )
He gives great though to the positioning of each particular instruments in each track. Not only can he make it closer or further away, but also position the stereo image to a particular point he wants it to appear in.
A great deal of thought and care can go into an album.
We just see the end result.
Edited - for giving the right job title.
Edited by Troubleatmill on Tuesday 3rd November 22:04
Troubleatmill said:
If you ever get into a discussion with a really good producer,
I had the pleasure of sitting next to one at dinner one night.
He gives great though to the positioning of each particular instruments in each track. Not only can he make it closer or further away, but also position the stereo image to a particular point he wants it to appear in.
A great deal of thought and care can go into an album.
We just see the end result.
Of course, but ironically most music is recorded at far lower quality than an average 'audiophile' setup (excepting the really good studios).I had the pleasure of sitting next to one at dinner one night.
He gives great though to the positioning of each particular instruments in each track. Not only can he make it closer or further away, but also position the stereo image to a particular point he wants it to appear in.
A great deal of thought and care can go into an album.
We just see the end result.
Most of the studios I've recorded in have been an Aladdin's cave of unmatched cables, buzzing old guitar amps and knackered old analogue desks. All ultimately going into a Pro Tools rig recording digitally at 192KHz (at best, 96KHz pretty standard back when I was doing it more regularly).
In fairness, computing power has drastically improved the quality of digital recording setups over the last decade but I think there was a bit of musical hinterland in the 90's when people were buying expensive sound systems in an attempt to reproduce detail that definitely wasn't ever there in the original recording.
Disastrous said:
Troubleatmill said:
If you ever get into a discussion with a really good producer,
I had the pleasure of sitting next to one at dinner one night.
He gives great though to the positioning of each particular instruments in each track. Not only can he make it closer or further away, but also position the stereo image to a particular point he wants it to appear in.
A great deal of thought and care can go into an album.
We just see the end result.
Of course, but ironically most music is recorded at far lower quality than an average 'audiophile' setup (excepting the really good studios).I had the pleasure of sitting next to one at dinner one night.
He gives great though to the positioning of each particular instruments in each track. Not only can he make it closer or further away, but also position the stereo image to a particular point he wants it to appear in.
A great deal of thought and care can go into an album.
We just see the end result.
Most of the studios I've recorded in have been an Aladdin's cave of unmatched cables, buzzing old guitar amps and knackered old analogue desks. All ultimately going into a Pro Tools rig recording digitally at 192KHz (at best, 96KHz pretty standard back when I was doing it more regularly).
In fairness, computing power has drastically improved the quality of digital recording setups over the last decade but I think there was a bit of musical hinterland in the 90's when people were buying expensive sound systems in an attempt to reproduce detail that definitely wasn't ever there in the original recording.
If you have ever listened to an original analogue studio master - it blows everything else away. ( It is why I sold my vinyl.... it doesn't even come close )
When he shows his studio to kids interested in a career - one kid always says when looking at the analogue kit "Mister.... where is the undo button?"
Oh... and I like building valve amps
Troubleatmill said:
The Grammy winning bloke I know - is epic on analogue as well as digital.
If you have ever listened to an original analogue studio master - it blows everything else away. ( It is why I sold my vinyl.... it doesn't even come close )
When he shows his studio to kids interested in a career - one kid always says when looking at the analogue kit "Mister.... where is the undo button?"
Oh... and I like building valve amps
Agree massively. I've not heard one ever myself but I'm reliably informed!If you have ever listened to an original analogue studio master - it blows everything else away. ( It is why I sold my vinyl.... it doesn't even come close )
When he shows his studio to kids interested in a career - one kid always says when looking at the analogue kit "Mister.... where is the undo button?"
Oh... and I like building valve amps
I still think (in terms of what is commercially available) you struggle to beat an analogue recording played back on vinyl. Don't get me wrong - digital has (AIUI) broadly closed the audible gap in terms of bit depth and sample rate but I still love my records.
722Adam said:
I'm actually at the point where I'd like to get into hi-fi. Nothing crazy at first, just an amp and nice pair of speakers for when I want to put a good album on.
I currently use a mixture of AirPlay and Apple TV to listen in several rooms, I'd like to think I could still utilise my current stuff and integrate it all somehow, as my music is all stored on one device, ripped in lossless where possible. I've been informed by a colleague a DAC would be a good investment in time if that's the case. Got plenty of time to learn about it all while I save for the kit.
Sums me up nicely. I was into Hi-Fi as a young lad and eventually over time, ended up storing CD's and records in boxes. I still have my AirPlay device for an instant fix of chill out in the lounge but recently bought some old Marantz kit (amp and CD player) to run my ancient Tannoy speakers through. It's a basic setup that over time I'll add a turntable to but I feel like getting back into Hi-Fi properly again. When funds allow, I'll upgrade all the components to get a nicer system.I currently use a mixture of AirPlay and Apple TV to listen in several rooms, I'd like to think I could still utilise my current stuff and integrate it all somehow, as my music is all stored on one device, ripped in lossless where possible. I've been informed by a colleague a DAC would be a good investment in time if that's the case. Got plenty of time to learn about it all while I save for the kit.
castex said:
loudlashadjuster said:
I think "proper" hi-fi will always be around, and will have advocates here and elsewhere, but its time really has passed.
I'm guessing that the music you think you like is the wrong music for you right now.Disastrous said:
most music is recorded at far lower quality than an average 'audiophile' setup (excepting the really good studios).
Most of the studios I've recorded in have been an Aladdin's cave of unmatched cables, buzzing old guitar amps and knackered old analogue desks. All ultimately going into a Pro Tools rig recording digitally at 192KHz (at best, 96KHz pretty standard back when I was doing it more regularly).
In fairness, computing power has drastically improved the quality of digital recording setups over the last decade but I think there was a bit of musical hinterland in the 90's when people were buying expensive sound systems in an attempt to reproduce detail that definitely wasn't ever there in the original recording.
I think it would be nice on digital media, just as with say a DVD you can select different audio channels to change the language or put on a commentary track you could select ones that have different levels of compression on. For example if you look at the waveforms from a CD that came out in the 80's or 90's it'll all be nicely dynamic and will probably sound great on a decent system. Play it on a smart phone with little earplugs then it'll be quiet. Look at a modern remaster and it'll be bricked, hugely compressed to make it really loud, now on the same smart phone it'll be really loud now and probably ideal, you can annoy everyone on the train now, perfect! However if you play that recording on a decent system then the recording just sounds nasty and harsh. Most of the studios I've recorded in have been an Aladdin's cave of unmatched cables, buzzing old guitar amps and knackered old analogue desks. All ultimately going into a Pro Tools rig recording digitally at 192KHz (at best, 96KHz pretty standard back when I was doing it more regularly).
In fairness, computing power has drastically improved the quality of digital recording setups over the last decade but I think there was a bit of musical hinterland in the 90's when people were buying expensive sound systems in an attempt to reproduce detail that definitely wasn't ever there in the original recording.
Whilst recording studios are far from the audiophile world of directional cables and wooden volume knobs as you say they all of that Aladdin's Cave of colourisation adds to the character of the recording which is then lost through compression. I find it ironic that so many will whinge about a 'lossy' 320Kb/s MP3 over a FLAC version when the audio in question is so heavily distorted anyway through an aggressive compression setting applied during mastering. It's why I've gotten into vinyl again as they don't squash things so much, if I want to buy an album I try to find an original pressing over a remaster. Hi-Fi may be niche now but I think there will always be people who enjoy hearing music sound the best it can.
So if you could select the audio track that best suits your type of system then everyone is happy!
qube_TA said:
Disastrous said:
most music is recorded at far lower quality than an average 'audiophile' setup (excepting the really good studios).
Most of the studios I've recorded in have been an Aladdin's cave of unmatched cables, buzzing old guitar amps and knackered old analogue desks. All ultimately going into a Pro Tools rig recording digitally at 192KHz (at best, 96KHz pretty standard back when I was doing it more regularly).
In fairness, computing power has drastically improved the quality of digital recording setups over the last decade but I think there was a bit of musical hinterland in the 90's when people were buying expensive sound systems in an attempt to reproduce detail that definitely wasn't ever there in the original recording.
I think it would be nice on digital media, just as with say a DVD you can select different audio channels to change the language or put on a commentary track you could select ones that have different levels of compression on. For example if you look at the waveforms from a CD that came out in the 80's or 90's it'll all be nicely dynamic and will probably sound great on a decent system. Play it on a smart phone with little earplugs then it'll be quiet. Look at a modern remaster and it'll be bricked, hugely compressed to make it really loud, now on the same smart phone it'll be really loud now and probably ideal, you can annoy everyone on the train now, perfect! However if you play that recording on a decent system then the recording just sounds nasty and harsh. Most of the studios I've recorded in have been an Aladdin's cave of unmatched cables, buzzing old guitar amps and knackered old analogue desks. All ultimately going into a Pro Tools rig recording digitally at 192KHz (at best, 96KHz pretty standard back when I was doing it more regularly).
In fairness, computing power has drastically improved the quality of digital recording setups over the last decade but I think there was a bit of musical hinterland in the 90's when people were buying expensive sound systems in an attempt to reproduce detail that definitely wasn't ever there in the original recording.
Whilst recording studios are far from the audiophile world of directional cables and wooden volume knobs as you say they all of that Aladdin's Cave of colourisation adds to the character of the recording which is then lost through compression. I find it ironic that so many will whinge about a 'lossy' 320Kb/s MP3 over a FLAC version when the audio in question is so heavily distorted anyway through an aggressive compression setting applied during mastering. It's why I've gotten into vinyl again as they don't squash things so much, if I want to buy an album I try to find an original pressing over a remaster. Hi-Fi may be niche now but I think there will always be people who enjoy hearing music sound the best it can.
So if you could select the audio track that best suits your type of system then everyone is happy!
I seem to remember a company (was it Linn?) offering an iTunes rival in the form of 'studio master' bit rate recording for playback on their new digital systems...never heard much beyond a one page ad in Sound on Sound IIRC so no idea if it went anywhere. I rather suspect it didn't, and lost out heavily to iTunes in terms of convenience and file size but it sounded like a step towards your suggestion...but this was a streaming thing, rather than a physical product like you suggest.
I know that one of the things that Steinway Lyngdorf toute as a plus point for their stereo amp is that it has a feature that claims to redress the compression. I don't know how well it works on that score, though I have heard the amp it wasn't a particularly badly compressed recording. I've contemplated buying one myself, but it then gets complicated adding a stereo amp to an AV set up using the same power amp/main speakers.
It's the 'ICC' bit towards the bottom of this page:
http://www.lyngdorf.com/products/tdai-2170
They are around £2,300 if you don't add the optional HDMI sockets and other stuff.
It's the 'ICC' bit towards the bottom of this page:
http://www.lyngdorf.com/products/tdai-2170
They are around £2,300 if you don't add the optional HDMI sockets and other stuff.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff