Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Pro - SQ for classical music
#11
I've just been listening to some of my moderately old classical music, everything sounds pretty good to my ears. Certainly nothing I would discribe as digital artifacts. The first track I tried sounded utterly sublime. The next track pretty decent, maybe something a touch harsh in the horns? But this is a 70's recording. (and an amp that has less than about 8 hours running so far......)

EDIT: (thoughts prompted by Antonine's post below) Thinking about it, the above are ripped from some fairly old CD's. (Maybe 80's or early 90's). So not just old(ish) recordings, but the D/A conversion would be quite a few years old too.
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - microRendu - Mutec MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
Reply
#12
In my experience the better a system as a whole gets/the better balanced it becomes the better both poor and excellent recordings will sound. And with better I mean lower noise and distortion and more true to the source. Of course I don't mean any artificial coloring or emphasis on certain frequencies like for example the upper mids/highs giving a false sense of detail which can cause listener fatique.

With lower noise and distortion comes an increased transparency and IMO unfortunately this has a side effect, the contrast between great and poor recordings becomes more distinct as well. What I think happens is we get "used" very quickly to higher quality and are then easily disappointed and dissatisfied listening to those lesser recordings/productions.

My Pro is not here yet so I don't know yet how it will change (and hopefully) improve SQ but I suspect the above may be the case, could be completely wrong in my assessment as well of course! Smile

It's unfortunate you didn't get to listen/get to know the SQ of these recordings before on the non pro. That would of course have given some pointers as to what changed (if it did) and how much plus why.

Personally I don't think anything is wrong with Redbook 44.1/16 but surely digital recording/engineering and production techniques have improved massively since the 80's. I'm quite sure there's no way any preferences/tuning/discrimination/tayloring is applicable here in reproduction. The processing/reconstruction of the bitstream is in effect done by a "computer" and bits are really just bits here at this stage. But of course we'd have to ask a DSP specialist to be really sure.
PS Audio P3, Shunyata ΞTRON Alpha Digital/Lessloss DFPC Signature/Furutech power cables, Paul Hynes SR7EHD-MR4, Roon, Sonore microRendu, Curious USB cable, Audioquest Diamond RJ/E ethernet, Mutec MC-3+ USB, Shunyata ΞTRON Anaconda Digital XLR AES/EBU, Devialet Expert 250 Pro, Nordost Tyr Reference LS cables, Von Schweikert VR-5 SE Anniversary Edition, Anti-Mode Dual Core 2.0, JL Audio Fathom F112. More detail here.

The Netherlands


Reply
#13
I listen almost entirely to classical music - and a lot of "historic" recordings from 1940s onwards (and including lots of recordings from the 1960s and 70s).  I am always careful to research the origins of the digital file - particularly the date of the remastering.  A check on review sites - including Amazon will give you an indication if there are problems with the sound quality.  

The problem is that there is a lot of cheap and nasty digital versions of classical records out there. 

I generally have found the sound quality to be excellent - but with the caveat that improved systems can reveal problems in the source recording that may not have been apparent before.  For example, I recently purchased Furtwangler Beethoven 5 & 7 (studio) in its latest reincarnation - only to notice a low rumble in some passages (which I am sure could have been eliminated with careful digital editing without interfering with the quality of the music). However, overall I am still happy with this purchase.

The other point I would make is that you need speakers that are suited to classical music.  I am not an audio nerd, but in previewing speakers for my latest system, there was a lot of differences in "musicality" in the various speakers I auditioned.  Some speakers were definitely better at classical music than others.
Reply
#14
(08-Nov-2016, 02:36)Will Wrote: ...A check on review sites - including Amazon will give you an indication if there are problems with the sound quality.  

The problem is that there is a lot of cheap and nasty digital versions of classical records out there.

I would chime in the above statement of cheap and nasty digital versions. Your Devialet could not distinguish between "old and new" (Red Book Standard) recordings. The DAC inside the D does what it does the same way every time. It's not the D for sure.

My experience is the same as Antoine's. Older and new recordings gain the same amount in SQ as your audio system improves. For me the old recordings even get more and more authentic in the case my system improves. For sure I can hear the flaws of these old recording techniques (although they are seldom anyway), but that doesn't bother me. In contrast it just draws me further into the music, because of its authenticity.

To conclude:
It would most likely be the "cheaply" made digital copy of the original (analog?) recording that gives the artefacts to your Devialet and the D just so precisely represents these artefacts to your ears  Dodgy 

Perhaps the best to dump these files and search for a pleasant original recording copy  Huh

gui
- D200 (mod) - ML Motion40 (mod) - Manger P1 (mod) - foobar AO/jplay/process lasso/ssd/laptop(mod)/usb-D200 - 
"Oh, you can buy the other. But then it is a cost intensive learning process"
berlin
Reply
#15
Some recording are bad and there's nothing to do about it. When the original sound is ugly it will remains ugly. However like in any good balanced system even when the SQ isn't good the musical experience passes on. I listen to all sort of classical recordings and the Devialet is doing a remarkable good job
My source: total Dac,air and LP12
Reply
#16
So true
Reply
#17
(08-Nov-2016, 02:36)Will Wrote: I listen almost entirely to classical music - and a lot of "historic" recordings from 1940s onwards (and including lots of recordings from the 1960s and 70s).  I am always careful to research the origins of the digital file - particularly the date of the remastering.  A check on review sites - including Amazon will give you an indication if there are problems with the sound quality.  

The problem is that there is a lot of cheap and nasty digital versions of classical records out there. 

I generally have found the sound quality to be excellent - but with the caveat that improved systems can reveal problems in the source recording that may not have been apparent before.  For example, I recently purchased Furtwangler Beethoven 5 & 7 (studio) in its latest reincarnation - only to notice a low rumble in some passages (which I am sure could have been eliminated with careful digital editing without interfering with the quality of the music). However, overall I am still happy with this purchase.

The other point I would make is that you need speakers that are suited to classical music.  I am not an audio nerd, but in previewing speakers for my latest system, there was a lot of differences in "musicality" in the various speakers I auditioned.  Some speakers were definitely better at classical music than others.


So true
btw I still enjoy listening to Furtwangler, I like him also in Bruckner 7 symphony chapter 2 from 1949. ( very bad connotation with this recording though ) Somehow it doesn't get old
Reply
#18
(08-Nov-2016, 22:37)no32 Wrote:
(08-Nov-2016, 02:36)Will Wrote: I listen almost entirely to classical music - and a lot of "historic" recordings from 1940s onwards (and including lots of recordings from the 1960s and 70s).  I am always careful to research the origins of the digital file - particularly the date of the remastering.  A check on review sites - including Amazon will give you an indication if there are problems with the sound quality.  

The problem is that there is a lot of cheap and nasty digital versions of classical records out there. 

I generally have found the sound quality to be excellent - but with the caveat that improved systems can reveal problems in the source recording that may not have been apparent before.  For example, I recently purchased Furtwangler Beethoven 5 & 7 (studio) in its latest reincarnation - only to notice a low rumble in some passages (which I am sure could have been eliminated with careful digital editing without interfering with the quality of the music). However, overall I am still happy with this purchase.

The other point I would make is that you need speakers that are suited to classical music.  I am not an audio nerd, but in previewing speakers for my latest system, there was a lot of differences in "musicality" in the various speakers I auditioned.  Some speakers were definitely better at classical music than others.


So true
btw I still enjoy listening to Furtwangler, I like him also in Bruckner 7 symphony chapter 2 from 1949. ( very bad connotation with this recording though ) Somehow it doesn't get old

Probably taking this discussion off subject - I also have the 1949 Bruckner 7 (Pristine Audio restoration).  He is a wonderful conductor.

What prompted the Furtwangler purchase is that I had just attended a concert where Beethoven 7 was played very much in the modern way with crisp articulation and quick tempi (or respecting Beethoven's metronome markings if you prefer).  I thoroughly enjoyed the performance but I could not stop thinking what Furtwangler would have thought. I already had his wartime live recording, which I listened to immediately I got home - although sound quality is not great (particularly the first movement. However, I was captured again by the Furtwangler magic and then sought out the later studio version.  

I suppose the moral of the story is that while we seek out ever better sound quality - and the technology helps this greatly - it is still about the music, the composers and the artists who bring it to us.
Reply
#19
@yabavr, I don't think it has anything to do with cheap digital copies. I created the copies from CDs that I bought. The CDs are from major labels (although that is not always a sign of quality). The copies are bit perfect to the original. As for the D, I wouldn't be so sure. These are clearly digital artifacts that I hear. They're not present in all recordings. They're definitely D; not necessarily in the Pro, but somewhere between the CD/recording, iTunes/Qobuz and the Pro.

@will, the speakers are B&W 805. I chose them (a long time ago) for their transparency and adequacy to play classical music. We are all musicians in the familly and what we hear on the Pro/805 sounds very much like we play; when it works. The tone I mean, because were we as gifted as the talented musicians in the recordings, we would be travelling the world playing on stage instead of listening to the Pro.
Reply
#20
(09-Nov-2016, 23:17)arcam Wrote: @yabavr, I don't think it has anything to do with cheap digital copies. I created the copies from CDs that I bought. The CDs are from major labels (although that is not always a sign of quality). The copies are bit perfect to the original. As for the D, I wouldn't be so sure. These are clearly digital artifacts that I hear. They're not present in all recordings. They're definitely D; not necessarily in the Pro, but somewhere between the CD/recording, iTunes/Qobuz and the Pro.

Could you provide some specific examples of the recordings that are exhibiting these artifacts?  It would cirtainly be interesting for some other Pro users to give them a try and maybe help to identify what is happening here?
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - microRendu - Mutec MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)