Need advice on buying better recordings

Rocket · « **Reply #20 on:** 27 Jan 2006, 06:24 am »

Hi Roy,

I think i've got a reasonable hifi system which has taken me a long time assemble and at great cost. I have the same problem that you do in obtaining suitable music which is well recorded and that i like.

I research different music on the internet and also i find out what other audiophiles are listening to. I still have problems obtaining music that i like and i think my success rate is about 50%. There are lots of duds.

I've just ordered 3 cd's from rhino records and i hope it sounds good in my system.

Regards

Rod

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #21 on:** 27 Jan 2006, 08:10 am »

Dan,
Re: Ray Kimber's ISO Mic recordings.
No. I've heard of them - if I'm not mistaken Siegfried Linkwitz is excited about them and what he said aroused my curiosity.
I would be very interested in hearing them. I'm all for natural!

ohenry · « **Reply #22 on:** 27 Jan 2006, 03:01 pm »

Hi Roy,
For some older mainstream stuff, I have recently found some decent remasters(?) on Rhino Records to be better than many newer releases. They have sonic quality designations assigned to their better sounding releases as well. Could be worth a look.

Gordy · « **Reply #23 on:** 27 Jan 2006, 03:08 pm »

Arkiv Records is having a clearance sale on Naxos, they've a large selection at $3.99 and a few sacd's at $8.99... Marco Polo is on sale as well... http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/main.jsp?site_id=E235

JoshK · « **Reply #24 on:** 27 Jan 2006, 03:19 pm »

Thanks for the rec Gordy. I just picked up Rimsky-K's Scheherezade by Reiner & CSO on SACD for 10.99. Been meaning to pick that one up for some time.

carusoracer · « **Reply #25 on:** 27 Jan 2006, 04:11 pm »

Quote from: randytsuch

One more thing, you could go check out
http://store.acousticsounds.com/store.cfm

They carry many of the smaller "audiophile" labels.

Analog Productions is another label I like.

Randy

Great Reference

PhilNYC · « **Reply #26 on:** 27 Jan 2006, 04:17 pm »

I like XRCDs and other "K2"-mastered CDs...

http://www.xrcd.com

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=br_ss_hs/103-4673649-8829425?search-alias=aps&keywords=20-bit%20mastering

Folsom · « **Reply #27 on:** 27 Jan 2006, 06:05 pm »

The IsoMic CD is pretty cool. I still prefer the close up operation microphone for voice.... However for harmony like a quartet or the like it is very cool. If it was a lot more senstive, with out any added problems, it would be awsome to have an entire album cut on. Well I suppose you would find out if it would work well.

roymail · « **Reply #28 on:** 27 Jan 2006, 11:02 pm »

Thanks for all your advice and suggestions on this topic. I think it would be helpful if some would start a thread to gather everyone's 3 best recordings by music genre and lable. What do you think?

So far the recording labels that have been recommended are these:

Chesky, Opus, Reference Recordings, Linn, Mapleshade Records, Concord, Fantasy, Telarc, Acoustic Sounds, Analog Productions, Verve & Verve Master Series, BIS, MA Recordings, Naxos (classical), Rhino Records, Arkiv Records, XRCD’s, GRP, Columbia Records

We could keep this going, but I'd prefer another thread as I suggested above. Thanks to everyone who took part in this discussion. Very helpful and appreciated.

-- Roy

Folsom · « **Reply #29 on:** 28 Jan 2006, 01:53 am »

Also Mobile Fidelity like in the first post of mine.

I am not sure I would count on Columbia records as always having good recordings. I do not know but they are big enough I doubt they record every thing in their own studio/s.

roymail · « **Reply #30 on:** 28 Jan 2006, 04:50 am »

Destroyer of Smiles,

Sorry I missed that one... Mobile Fidelity should certainly be on the list. A very respected recording label. Thanks for reminding me.

-- Roy

Gordy · « **Reply #31 on:** 28 Jan 2006, 05:14 am »

Hi Roymail,

Two more classical labels for your sticky... Ondine out of Finland (check out Sibelius' "The Tempest" Suite 1 & 2) and also Supraphon Records out of the Czech Republic...

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #32 on:** 28 Jan 2006, 05:19 am »

Feeling Cheap...Get Used....another sale at Tower...on line only......used cd's.

Scott F. · « **Reply #33 on:** 28 Jan 2006, 01:36 pm »

Quote from: Marbles

As to why my previously poor sounding CD's sound pretty darn good on my PC/EA system, it doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not arguing with the results.

I've got a theory on why PC does sound better. Besides a dramatic reduction in jitter over a standard transport, I have a sneaking suspision that it has to do with error correction too.

Last night I ripped Robert Randolph and the Family Band's Unclassified. This is a great CD but it sounds like crap..... even in my car. It sounds as if it's normalized to the point of heavy clipping on every 'hot' passage. As I listen this morning for the first time through the Bolder modified SB and a tubed DAC, this release now sounds pretty darned good. Sure, there is still some clipping but its not near as nasty as I once thought.

The only way I can rationalize what is going on here is first jitter (which has a significant effect) but also I think the error correction has something to do with it too. Since the music companies don't want us to copy CDs, they have added bugs (not talking about rootkits here) to overtax computer error correction to the point that it won't play. In turn, our high end players have trouble clocking the music properly because of the over taxed error correction. The end result, we have a CD that sounds like ka-ka on everything we play it on.

Now, ripping with EAC we get just the music bits somehow eliminating whatever it was causing the error correction algorithms to over work themselves.

I have to qualify everything I've said here, I know squat about digital design, encoding, algorithms and all that stuff so I may well be all wet. But from what I've read and what little I understand about the process, this could be why some of our crappier CDs sound better when played on the PC.

Maybe Steve N (audioengr)(or somebody that truely knows about this stuff) could weigh in on the digital encoding, error correction and jitter and correct my mistatements.

I'll try ripping Robert Plants latest this afternoon. It suffers from the same problems. Once I give it a listen I'll post back.

Mathew_M · « **Reply #34 on:** 28 Jan 2006, 05:08 pm »

I've heard a substantial improvement in sound by switching over to a SB3. My unit is stock with the only tweak being a ferrite core snapped to the power connector. I'm running the SB3 into an un-modded Panny XR25 via coax out to my VMPS 626R's. Other minor, in-expensive tweaks include using a DIY power strip, tipping the VMPS upwards and 'bearding' the speaker stands.

All of this has resulted in my whole CD collection being listenable. The 626's now sound full the way typical cone based speakers sound without losing the speed and transparency of the ribbons. The highs are rounded off in a tube like way. I'm hearing the 'room' with good recordings. Instruments have tone. Imaging is excellent as I can close my eyes and 'see' the instrument on the soundstage. Bad recordings sound more like bad mastering. However they remain listenable since the harshness is muted.

mjosef · « **Reply #35 on:** 29 Jan 2006, 06:33 am »

No one mentioned ECM, I have found most (all?)of their recordings sound great.

Tweaker · « **Reply #36 on:** 29 Jan 2006, 08:05 am »

Here's a link to a great article wrtiten by one of our esteemed forum members about why pc audio based playback is superior to cd playback. I don't want to highjack this thread but there has been some advice, mine included about the possibility that recordings may be bad sounding in part due to the medium and not always just because the engineers screwed up in the recording/mastering process.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue22/nugent.htm

Part of the problem, as well, is the fact that years ago the music industry bean counters discovered that they could produce a cd much cheaper if they left some musical information out. Information that, based on some studies, we can't (supposedly) hear, so, it was felt, it could be left out allowing cd's to be produced faster and cheaper. Stereophile, I believe it was, had an column about that some time ago and as a test had a couple of recording engineers compare the end result cd to their master and it did not sound close! Their beautiful sounding recording had been turned to junk because there was a bit more money to be squeezed out and, what the hell, the average consumer can't tell the difference anyway, or doesn't care. Cd's produced for the masses who are happy as heck listening to their favorite pop star on their Circuit City stereo.
Hell, it's why it's hard to find quality in anything anymore. It's all about maximizing the bottom line by cheapening a product as much as possible.