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?
... 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...
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...
- ...
- 77 posts total
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. |
Whoo hoo someone (Steven Wilson) remastered something recently and apparently got the DR right! http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr/desc?artist=yes&album=fragile |
Nice. There were other good versions on the list but always good to see that someone still knows how to do it. Which makes me wonder if someone could make money re-engineering new music for audiophiles? I can't see that it would cost the artists anything. It might not make them much additional income but it wouldn't hurt. I'm guessing the engineer might not make much either which would be the limiting factor. But wouldn't it be great if there was an MSFL type organization/company that remastered hot new music to audiophile standards! I'd pay extra in a heart beat. |
I don't give much for the DR. A lot of the high DR:s sounds crap. It's just one of several important factors. The OP asked for our SQ thoughts on Taylor Swifts new CD. I'm sorry she left the country music. She's talented. The CD sounds ok. It's very clean. Her voice is well recorded and in some tracks also very close. It's when some the songs are becoming loud the problems arise with - in my ears- distortion. Probably because of a lot of processing and compression. But really most of it is quite enjoyable - if you like the music and have the right full-range dynamic system for playing this kind of music. I suppose Harbeth won't do very well :-) |
- 77 posts total