U2's One: bad mastering or Klipsch's weak spot?

[YK Thom]

2 hours ago, ODS123 said:

 

I respectfully disagree YK.  ..I think simple Bass and Treble controls on a S/S or tube amp will go a long way in helping render those otherwise unlistenable songs enjoyable.  This is why they were ubiquitous for decades on integrated amps and pre-amps..  

 

When left at 0, or switched off w/ tone defeat, they do no harm.  ..But when you get those overly bright songs that make you wince, they can do wonders.  IMHO. 

 

 

 

I agree with you actually and this is exactly what I do. My comment was made with the large numbers of purists here in mind, who have an issue with such controls and thier use. The tube factor come more into play with some of the Heritage series that were actually designed in the tube era to be played with tubes.

The modern products function just fine with solid state which is what the vast majority of listeners use.

[Chris A]

All of the recording issues come from different sources, and all must be handled by different means.   One thing that I can say: I've never wanted to listen to loudspeakers or amplifiers that "cover up the defects" in the music.  

 

Chris

[Chris A]

--

[Chris A]

(...must be a new record--a triple...)

[ODS123]

3 hours ago, Chris A said:

All of the recording issues come from different sources, and all must be handled by different means.   One thing that I can say: I've never wanted to listen to loudspeakers or amplifiers that "cover up the defects" in the music.  

 

Chris

 

 How do you mean?   I would bet that less than 1%  of music buying public has an interest in re-mastering their own digital files.  So what should they do to make that poorly recorded but otherwise great song listenable?

[dirtmudd]

21 hours ago, ODS123 said:

 

 How do you mean?   I would bet that less than 1%  of music buying public has an interest in re-mastering their own digital files.  So what should they do to make that poorly recorded but otherwise great song listenable?

not buy it..

[glens]

22 minutes ago, dirtmudd said:

21 hours ago, ODS123 said:

 

 How do you mean?   I would bet that less than 1%  of music buying public has an interest in re-mastering their own digital files.  So what should they do to make that poorly recorded but otherwise great song listenable?

not buy it..

 

Ideally as well let each entity in the chain all the way back to the performer know why you weren't buying it.

[dirtmudd]

38 minutes ago, glens said:

 

Ideally as well let each entity in the chain all the way back to the performer know why you weren't buying it.

I meant do not buy bad audio recordings....

 

because it was remastered.. does not make it better....

 

 

and I don't think much of U2.. anyways..

 

I did catch them at the carrier dome..

 

they could not sell it out.. on their own..

 

they needed 2 more acts... little Steven and los lobos...

 

the most boring event ever...

[Chris A]

1 hour ago, dirtmudd said:

...because it was remastered.. does not make it better....

This is true--if you're talking about demastering it at home or you are considering buying a "remastered recording" CD (which means that they crushed the dynamic range further in order to make it even louder than earlier CD versions). 

 

Demastering is just the same as using a very high quality EQ unit (sort of like a Cello Palette--but digital EQ inside the digital player), and taming poor mastering EQ, and perhaps taking the time to remove some line noise in the recording (50/60 Hz, 100/120 Hz, HVAC fan noise at 19, 38, etc. Hz...which curtails modulation distortion sidebands at midbass and above frequencies).  Except that if using demastering, you do it once and save--instead of doing it every time that you play it back with an EQ unit.  Demastering also also shows you the spectrograms and spectrum plots what you've got so that you can zero in on the obvious issue areas, facilitating the update iterations until the corrections sound best.

 

Even if you correct the noise and EQ, the CD tracks can be trash to begin with--especially if someone used way too much compression and clipping (limiting).  Once the mastering people use a compressor on the music--that's it.  Your ability to recover the dynamic range (the thing that most owning hi-fi rigs actually like to hear) is basically gone forever.  One can reconstruct clipped peaks, but clipping permanently degrades the tracks even if the clipped peaks are reconstructed--because you lose all of the higher frequency content of the clipped peaks during the clipping process.  De-clipping can only reconstruct the fundamental frequency for each peak--not the higher harmonics that reside inside the peaks.  That's permanently removed during mastering clipping (the euphemism of clipping is called is "limiting") .

 

So, bottom line: demastering can make a big difference in listenability--but the quality of the tracks is basically set when you get them on CD.  High quality pristine music tracks always sound much better.

 

Applying demastering to phonograph records is possible but more time consuming since you first have to play the record into an ADC to capture it on 44.1/16 or higher bitstream, then separate the individual tracks by hand, name each individually, then remove sub-harmonic artifacts that are on the record (warp, ticks, pops, etc.).  Then you can demaster the EQ.  Fortunately, the format of phonograph records is just barely able to hold the music as-is, so the record companies cannot do to them what they do to CDs--else the record needle would jump out of the groove.  The dynamic range of the records is often 4 or more dB higher than the CD release because of this limitation of vinyl. 

 

Chris