2. music
  3. 139281-80260

... thoughts on Taylor Swift's REPUTATION CD...

Hello to all... Am wondering how other audiophile folks who critically listen to music as coordinated recorded sounds access the newest offering from Taylor Swift.

PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT IF YOU HAVE NOT YET HEARD THE CD IN ITS ENTIRETY.
AND PLEASE LIMIT COMMENTS WITH REGARDS TO SOUND - NOT ALL THE OTHER STUFF (looks, dating, etc) 

I find the recording fairly well done: abit thumpy throughout (which seems to be the trend in pop/indie music for the masses), but highly divergent in tones, dynamics, and harmonies. Deep and wide soundstage... Most vocals (within my system) are believeable (for the most part) but sometimes muddy up at the complicated refrains with several overdubs of her voice...

I think this is a good stereo test recording. YOUR THOUGHTS APPRECIATED...
justvintagestuff
n80
2,116 posts
 
Agree with you. However, I don't find too many CDs with average DR above 14 and I usually find 12 and up okay for me.

I would also point out that even a lot of hi-res downloadable files are victims of the loudness wars. They may not be compressed from a data standpoint but they are from a DR standpoint. This is a generalization, of course, but it is not safe to assume that because it is on Tidal or one of the hi-res file purchase sites that it does not have DR compression.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Exactly! That’s the trouble. There aren’t enough CDs with great dynamic range. Hel-loo! Life is too short to listen to modest recordings. The reason so many reissued/remastered CDs show up at yard sales, flea markets is because they suck. I look for average DR of 15 or 16. Remember it’s logarithmic.

What you want is in the limo. What you get is no tomorrow.
lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
5,417 posts
 
The only way to get vinyl or CDs with minimal DR (higher numbers) is to buy the original issues. Something that I have been doing for a while. 
Regarding new music, there's no getting around the high compression.

n80
2,116 posts
 
I think when you look at the perceived decline in the hi-fi/audiophile hobby (if there is a decline, I just hear people talking about it) then I think you would have to add the loudness wars as one of the coffin nails. I like older rock music and like finding old stuff I've never heard but for my interests to stay keen I like an infusion of new stuff too. If the new stuff, even if well written and well performed, is of low SQ....why bother?
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,151 posts
 
Most newer "improved" pop/rock remasters on CD are mastered louder than the originals. So which approach in general is better? You would think the answer is obvious. The thing is when people shell out more money for the same stuff, they want to hear a noticeable difference and radical digital remastering in various forms is a means to that end. Beyond just being mixed louder usually, you often just might hear things you may not have heard before.
More to discover