Has the age of the 'big rock release' album died?

[joe]

^^Yes Coltrane it all begins with the original recording, if it's skinny and rubbish then it's never going to sound very good in any format.

However, when you are talking about bandwith for instance, I equate it with looking at a painting. You can look at a small lithograph of a masterpiece and say..."Yes it's a Rembrandt and a wonderful piece of art." But then when you see the original work in all it's glory in full scale all of the details are there to be seen. I look at music/recording/formats the same.

Joe...the big argument the hard core audiophiles I know is with the 16bit CD format, they felt from the very beginning that it was not good enough to capture all the detail of a top notch analog setup. I can't fault Philips they invented both the CD and then the DVD a few years later.

The differences are very subtle between the 24-96(DVD audio) and a Blu Ray rip(24-192)if the original recording is not very good then I would be hard pressed to distinguish between them. If it's a copy of DSOTM...yes I can tell the difference on my reference system.

Even a rip done at either of those bit rates when sampled down to "Redbook" specs is usually far better than the CD you buy at the store. I have numerous examples of that.

To be fair the copy of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime" I have in 16-44 vinyl rip is not as good as the Japanese import CD version, but that album even though I love it is not the best produced as far as sound quality goes.

I think you and coltrane2 are missing my point. This is my point (actually above and beyond):



Still want to buy some snake oil?

HOCUS POCUS

 

[Big Ears]

I remember the release of Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd as a big release, coming as it did after Dark Side of the Moon, following media speculation on the included tracks and being played in its entirety by Alan Freeman. I bought it, but after the hype died down, it was a disappointment.

I prefer quiet releases and would rather buy an album after reading a few good reviews in rock magazines or comments on forums like this one.

coltrane2's comment on Black Sabbath's forthcoming album is pertinent as Tyr almost went straight into the sale bins, but was a tonic to us heavy rock fans in its day.

 

[coltrane2]

I'm not saying an album is huge based on hype. I'm talking about quality of sound, songs and production.

 

[Khor1255]

Yeah, if your original recording is digital you won't get a better sound from an analog playback. But if the original recording is analog, digital cannot match it. Since a digital recording is sampled bits of a soundwave once you increase the sampling rate you effectively 'trick' the ear into hearing a warmer more analog sound. Today it is nearly impossible to tell the difference if the sample rate is high enough and that's a good thing. Good enough to fool the human ear is good enough I guess but in the end analog is still where it's at in terms of recording. I can't imagine a scenerio where that is going to change.

 

[coltrane2]

Yeah, if your original recording is digital you won't get a better sound from an analog playback. But if the original recording is analog, digital cannot match it. Since a digital recording is sampled bits of a soundwave once you increase the sampling rate you effectively 'trick' the ear into hearing a warmer more analog sound. Today it is nearly impossible to tell the difference if the sample rate is high enough and that's a good thing. Good enough to fool the human ear is good enough I guess but in the end analog is still where it's at in terms of recording. I can't imagine a scenerio where that is going to change.

I could not agree more. I guess it's a little like the good guy who jumps in with the bad guys in The Matrix: he knows it's not real steak he's eating in the Matrix, but he's happy to eat it anyway!