Your Hifi Equipment And The Different Mastering Jobs

[The Heartical Don]

(I hope this is on topic enough - since all kinds of different masters are being discussed here, it seems so to me)

I have decent but not high end equipment. Amp, CD, and turntable are all by NAD, which is IMHO the most continously designed and well-planned budget to midprice stuff there is. The turntable is a modified Rega Planar 2, by the way.

My headphone is a good Goldring, but again: no high end.

So: to the mastering jobs. I can hear the difference between the 1990 and 2001 twofers. But I have trouble discerning between all mono versions of Pet Sounds I own. I find the recent Smiley Smiley very, very worthwhile, despite some comments being rather critical.

My point: if you don't own high end and have an ideal listening room, or something that comes close to that, does it make any sense at all to invest in all kinds of different masters? Or is what we, given these conditions, do, or seem to notice, mainly psychological, or something that's only to be noticed in direct comparisons? It is a fact that our acoustic perception quickly adjusts to a new situation, and even can 'customize' that what you hear into something well-sounding. And a glass of wine also helps to erase any rough characteristics.

What do you think?

[?]

Better equipment helps obviously, but I believe if something is mastered especially well/poorly that's still going to come through most of the time.  The first time I ever played the BWPS LP was on a cheap old automatic turntable through a $15 preamp and it still blew the cd away.  Even though the fidelity wasn't great with the equipment, it was easy to tell it was a superior mastering.   I first heard the Pastmasters cds on computer speakers and again to me they were clearly preferable to the cds I was used to.   There's more to consider than how clear something sounds.  There's eq, compression, and other characteristic to look for.  The best gear isn't going to save a bad mastering job and lesser gear won't necessarily negate a great one.

[The Heartical Don]

Better equipment helps obviously, but I believe if something is mastered especially well/poorly that's still going to come through most of the time.  The first time I ever played the BWPS LP was on a cheap old automatic turntable through a $15 preamp and it still blew the cd away.  Even though the fidelity wasn't great with the equipment, it was easy to tell it was a superior mastering.   I first heard the Pastmasters cds on computer speakers and again to me they were clearly preferable to the cds I was used to.   There's more to consider than how clear something sounds.  There's eq, compression, and other characteristic to look for.  The best gear isn't going to save a bad mastering job and lesser gear won't necessarily negate a great one.

Lovely comment. I can lay my hands on that Pastmasters PS, for 8 Euros, and your post made my curious - should I give it a go? I won't blame you, of course, in case of disappointment.

[The Shift]

My own aural baseline is probably the wee Dancette-type player I had as a teenager, on which I first heard H&V, Vibes and the majority of the rest of the stuff I ever heard. That was followed by a low-to-mid-range Technics set up in my late teens, then (essentially) nothing but Walkmen and headphones between the ages of 30 & 41, followed by a cheap wee kitchen bookcase model.  Just before I ran out of money I bought a Pure Sirocco 550, together with a Pro-Ject turntable (with 78rpm rig and in-built pre-amp).

Whenever I'm listening to music I guess the characteristics I'm listening out for are what I'd picked out on the Technics system (primarily the deck) 18 years ago. Anything above and beyond that is a bonus obviously.

I'm ramblin'… but I guess I'm trying to say that if you're over-familiar with one sound system, everything subsequently will have to match up to that; whereas if you've been fickle and always swapped around, you'll potentially be listening out for something completely different.

And I reckon the remasterers will be part of that process of getting back to a sound you're intimately familiar with.

[?]

Lovely comment. I can lay my hands on that Pastmasters PS, for 8 Euros, and your post made my curious - should I give it a go? I won't blame you, of course, in case of disappointment.

I haven't heard that Pet Sounds, but that is the one Pastmasters cd that everyone says to avoid.  It's all the others that come highly recommended (although there are a few duophonic tracks on Today and Summer Days).  I think the Japanese Pet Sounds cd that gets the rave reviews is the Greenline, but I must confess I haven't heard that one either.

[The Heartical Don]

Lovely comment. I can lay my hands on that Pastmasters PS, for 8 Euros, and your post made my curious - should I give it a go? I won't blame you, of course, in case of disappointment.

I haven't heard that Pet Sounds, but that is the one Pastmasters cd that everyone says to avoid.  It's all the others that come highly recommended (although there are a few duophonic tracks on Today and Summer Days).  I think the Japanese Pet Sounds cd that gets the rave reviews is the Greenline, but I must confess I haven't heard that one either.

And again, thank you. It surprises me, by the way, the Japanese aren't really known for delivering bad jobs. I would like to know a bit about the tech reasons behind that lack of quality (is it the Toshiba corp., for instance?).

[?]

I'm not sure what went wrong with the Pastmasters PS.  I remember reading that it wasn't good but the reasons why escape me.  The Greenline was Toshiba I believe.  Supposedly it was issued without the proper clearances with Capitol USA and was quickly withdrawn as a result.

[guitarfool2002]

The room you're listening in has a huge role in the sound, specifically how and where the speakers are placed and what the acoustics of the room really are. If you're in a room with a "bass trap" or something, it could alter what you think you're hearing from the album when really it's the way the speakers and the room and the soundwaves and reflections and everything else are interacting. There are some on this forum who are experts in this field - I'm just skimming the surface.

One reality check to try which doesn't cost anything - and which always surprises me - Set up your normal listening area, with all the good equipment and the familiar positioning, and an album which you know sounds good and know the sound of. Sit in the right position, then with both hands grab your earlobes and pull them slightly forward in several different ways to face the speakers head-on, and you'll notice the way the music sounds can change dramatically, and you'll hear certain frequencies filter out of what you're hearing just by moving your earlobes around slightly.

If that absolutely minuscule change in position affects it that much...

Then try shifting your speakers on a very slight angle away from the direction they're facing - and the same sounds are pumping out but the way your ear is catching those sounds will affect your perception of it.

Again, they are just two very simple things - the experts here can add much more. But I do think where that much of an effect can be caused by such simple and tiny outside stimuli, how much perfection can we honestly expect from going from the mastering studio to the listener's home environment?

We could pull on our earlobes when listening to something terrific and declare that it sound terrible, in other words.

[Bicyclerider]

I do believe different masterings sound different enough to be worthwhile investing in.  Most of the differences aren't very subtle, and can be appreciated on your car system your computer speakers, or a midfi audio set up.  The increased bass on the Pastmasters, for example, or the increased treble on the new remasters.  Do a back to back comparison - if the difference is significant, you will hear it on almost everything.  There are some more subtle differences, like "air" around the instruments, depth of the soundstage, bass definition, that may require a more revealing audio system or one that is more "high end.". And more expensive.

The Greenline PS does sound better than the Pastmasters or the 1990 CD, but it does not measure up to the DCC or Audio Fidelity.  And I do think the recent SACD of the stereo PS mix is superior to the stereo on the box set, although I think that sounds pretty good.

The reason some of the Pastmasters are a mixed bag is that Capitol sent them straight, flat tape transfers of their master tapes - and some of those masters had tape flaws and anomalies (which could have been and were corrected for the 1990 releases and subsequently) and some of the mixes were the duo phonic mixes, which were replaced in the US releases with the appropriate stereo mixes once Mark et al were able to go through the tape archive to do the necessary research to find the right mixes.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[The Heartical Don]

I have decent but not high end equipment. Amp, CD, and turntable are all by NAD, which is IMHO the most continously designed and well-planned budget to midprice stuff there is. The turntable is a modified Rega Planar 2, by the way.

The Rega...after a few drinks don't ya sometimes wish the arm would lift up by itself ?

What kind of cartridge you got?

  The cartridge is by Ortofon, one of the OMB series, IIRC the 20. I may upgrade in the future, but this one's quite good in itself. And I have a Pro-Ject Phonobox phono amp.