Blue N Lonesome

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Strictly speaking HDCD is still 16/44.1 its just not encoded with LPCM

Yes Simon,  it encodes 20-bits of data in 16-bit & reports it as 24-bit,    but it is sometimes better to keep it simple 

Yes even the 20bits is approximated and in the real world more closer to 17 or 18 bits  - its really down the expanders in the HDCD filters that are enabled by special instructions embedded in the sample data. So yes it is 16/44.1... if you were wanting to resample the data after the HDCD filters - then you would need to use approximately upto  20bit samples, which of course is done by some rippers that resample HDCD rips.  Most PCM format headers can only work to multiples of 8 bit sample word lengths - so 24 bits is often used for the resampled data - but if you like this is all downstream for 16/44.1 of the CD sample data itself... so keeping it simple its probably best to simply ignore HDCD as some sort of special case an say its regular 16/44.1 format....

Back to high definition audio - there is a view that I read by some in the AES that high def shouldn't be defined by some arbitrary set digital sample resolution formats - but indeed should refer to sound that is indistinguishable from reality. I think if we were to use this definition - its unlikely any  current so called High def sample formats would pass the test

S 

Back on thread - I really don't think it matters about hi-res, audio quality or what's best, as I've said previously, I believe its produced this way deliberately.  It was recorded in a few days (three I believe) & involved very little editing;  dare I remind us all that was just like most bands recorded in the 60's,  I believe the Beatles laid one down in one day.  

I saw the Stones a few times before they got famous, they never could match the likes of Peter Green (especially), Alexis Korner, John Mayall (& a few others) at pure blues,  but they could for sure make an old blues standard 'rock' & how !!!  To me Mick has a better blues voice now than back in the day,  Keef & Ronnie can still rip it, including the mistakes,  Charlie does seem to be on his last recording,  but he's been like that for years.  To me this album is simply a great band getting back to their roots & in that regard they've nailed it IMO.   

Mike-B posted:

 To me this album is simply a great band getting back to their roots & in that regard they've nailed it IMO.   

Absolutely.

I concur.

Yes, I agree.

Haven't had the chance to compare the 24bit version yet but will report if anything significant vs red book.

G

I do feel that too many folks are backing themselves into a corner concerning the perceived SQ of this album.

A growing minority among us feel that it captures perfectly the original excitement we remember from the original release, way back when.

Sometimes, it's more about the music, and less about the marvellous Naim systems we have at home, but which, nevertheless, I have to say, in this instance, kicks ass big time on this album. 

dave marshall posted:

I do feel that too many folks are backing themselves into a corner concerning the perceived SQ of this album.

A growing minority among us feel that it captures perfectly the original excitement we remember from the original release, way back when.

Sometimes, it's more about the music, and less about the marvellous Naim systems we have at home, but which, nevertheless, I have to say, in this instance, kicks ass big time on this album. 

I see your point of view, and can completely understand the reasons many may like the raw format, sound of this album. 

For me, after taking probably 30 years to acquire the best system I have ever had, I want to hear the music at its best.

I suppose one of the down sides of having a good system is that it emphasis the flaws in a not so good recording. 

Maybe this is a marmite album....

It's not a poor recording, rather a recording made to sound in a particular way, which it does very well. The alternative, of some sort of audiophile demonstration quality, would not sound right at all.

Hungryhalibut posted:

It's not a poor recording, rather a recording made to sound in a particular way, which it does very well. The alternative, of some sort of audiophile demonstration quality, would not sound right at all.

I think we will agree to disagree on this one.

wenger2015 posted:

dave marshall posted:

I do feel that too many folks are backing themselves into a corner concerning the perceived SQ of this album.

A growing minority among us feel that it captures perfectly the original excitement we remember from the original release, way back when.

Sometimes, it's more about the music, and less about the marvellous Naim systems we have at home, but which, nevertheless, I have to say, in this instance, kicks ass big time on this album. 

I see your point of view, and can completely understand the reasons many may like the raw format, sound of this album. 

For me, after taking probably 30 years to acquire the best system I have ever had, I want to hear the music at its best.

I suppose one of the down sides of having a good system is that it emphasis the flaws in a not so good recording. 

Maybe this is a marmite album....

 

Or maybe, not so much a Marmite album, as a huge nostalgia fest for those of us, who, shall we say, "of a certain age", can recall the excitement of the original....... so maybe, this is in fact, "as good as it gets".

Mind you, those same ageing ears might be getting it all wrong ................. oh well. 

dave marshall 

Or maybe, not so much a Marmite album, as a huge nostalgia fest for those of us, who, shall we say, "of a certain age", can recall the excitement of the original....... so maybe, this is in fact, "as good as it gets"

What a superb summery,  from that perspective I can see exactly what you mean.

I am on the fence here ...

I think there is a confusion between the music/performance and the  recording ...

Yes it has life but so can a well (or unprocessed) recording ...

I am cynically wondering whether this was deliverate for marketing purposes.

I like the music and the performance but see no reason why it could not have been produced to today's recording standards so we could actually hear each member of the band playing with their own style and in their own space as if we were actually there; what is the excuse for such a compressed recording?

Allan

Allan Milne posted:

 

I am on the fence here ...

I think there is a confusion between the music/performance and the  recording ...

Yes it has life but so can a well (or unprocessed) recording ...

I am cynically wondering whether this was deliverate for marketing purposes.

 

I like the music and the performance but see no reason why it could not have been produced to today's recording standards so we could actually hear each member of the band playing with their own style and in their own space as if we were actually there; what is the excuse for such a compressed recording?

Allan

+1 ,  I think it would be a far more enjoyable listen for me if it was recorded to a higher standard and if it was done deliberately then for me it's not worked.

... and if it is nostalgia you want then buy an old Dansettee

I think I read that Noah took a Dansette into the ark..

Oh boys, lighten up, some of us old boys "get it",  some of the rest of us / you don't.

It don't  make no never mind, and it simply isn't worth the endless handwringing over the SQ.

Trust me, for those of a certain age, this is, without doubt, the best Stones album in decades..........apart from the Stones in mono boxset, of course.

Well, I can report that the 'hires' is better than the redbook in two ways to my ears. I hear deeper into the recording - the studio ambience, and this gives the roughness more authenticity somehow - more reality. Like a good sound-board demo.

Returning to the redbook and it is a bit 'thinner' sounding where the recording 'tricks' are pushed more to the fore.

G

I think the sq debate could be widened to all Stones albums. They all sound like my dog was on the desk.

Bodger posted:

I think the sq debate could be widened to all Stones albums. They all sound like my dog was on the desk.

I don't agree. I have a few excellent recordings - 'Black & Blue' being one cracker.

G

The Guardian did a great article on the original versions of the songs that they covered on Blue and Lonesome

https://www.theguardian.com/mu...d-lonesome-song-list

with great youtube links like this one;