Warning - Don't Start a Thread with the Word 'Blimey': Topic - The PS555DR

nigelb posted:

The use of two 555s and I suspect the f word might make an appearance!

I didn't say a 555 made poorer recording sound worse, just less of an improvement to the point that high expectations are not always fulfilled. ALL recordings sound better to me with the 555, it is just that the extra transparency it brings shows up poorer recordings for what they are.

That's an interesting area. We know that turds can't be polished but recordings that I have historically regarded as "poor" tend to get played more nowadays because because the quality seems to matter less than the content, because the content, the skill, the arrangements, are so well portrayed. So it's a bit bright. Or a bit muddy. That's just how it is.

What do seem to sound worse (and not by small degrees) are brick walled recordings. To be able to hear the compression and distortion so clearly is to truly appreciate how dire things have become. Happily there is a cure. Check DR levels before buying. And if you end up buying anyway, listen through something like a Muso/A5/etc or in the car. My life long Rush addiction splits into two modes of listening. Everything after Counterparts only gets a spin in my office or in the car. It's good stuff but the quality is so shit that it will make a good system sound like shit. I wish it was only Rush......

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Have to say Mike I have that copy and I’m not impressed at least with the red book. 

I'm not saying its wonderful,  it just the best I've heard (so far)  Maybe my original CD copy is bad so my 30th anni version (rip) sounds better.   The original CD release(s)  (we are told) were taken from a 2nd generation tape,  the 30th anni hybrid SACD/CD release was remastered from the original tapes.   

I hear on the www grapevine that the 24/96 rip from the 2011 Blue Ray release is very good,  it seems either the PF organisation (whoever they might be) and/or the record companies are missing a trick.    

I suspect the 'audiophile' market, if I can call it that, for top-notch mastered material is rather small and possibly not worth the record companies' while to produce high quality versions of CDs. Anyway most of their market these days are listening via 'phones and buds' so would they really appreciate the difference?

Call me cynical. 

Just what this thread needs, a good diversion! 

Dear Cynical, there, done it,  OK Nigel ?!     I'm not convinced it is the record company & I'm wondering who owns the recording rights & is there a touch of the Roger Waters "owns" Pink Floyd row.     

I suspect even with the latest recording & processing methods,  remastering from the original tapes can only get as good as the material on the tapes,  (purse from sows ear)      It can be enhanced tonally & something done to max out the dynamics, but I suspect the purists will find fault with that as "not like the vinyl"  

Re not worth it for the record companies,  I wonder why the 2011 "Immersion" release went ahead,  how many people have bought the 6 disc set thats showing (or is that floating) at £99 on the big river.    

Your cynicism is spot on. 

So much skill, so much talent, so much time and care, all turned to shit for iPods.

Blimey!

Mike-B posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Have to say Mike I have that copy and I’m not impressed at least with the red book. 

I'm not saying its wonderful,  it just the best I've heard (so far)  Maybe my original CD copy is bad so my 30th anni version (rip) sounds better.   The original CD release(s)  (we are told) were taken from a 2nd generation tape,  the 30th anni hybrid SACD/CD release was remastered from the original tapes.   

I hear on the www grapevine that the 24/96 rip from the 2011 Blue Ray release is very good,  it seems either the PF organisation (whoever they might be) and/or the record companies are missing a trick.    

The 24/96 rips of both dsothm and wywh are very nice. Only issue is they are a single file. Not had chance to investigate splitting into tracks. Not a major issue as they are best listened to end to end. 

Mike-B posted:

I suspect even with the latest recording & processing methods,  remastering from the original tapes can only get as good as the material on the tapes,  (purse from sows ear)      It can be enhanced tonally & something done to max out the dynamics, but I suspect the purists will find fault with that as "not like the vinyl"  

This will always be the rate limiting step. However, some material, although pushing the limits of 50s/60s/70s/80s technology, and assuming an undamaged or successfully rescued master, can sound very good indeed. It's time travel. 

Never bothered with a CD issue of DSOTFM and my 1976 copy out performs the 180g remastered version from 2013. I thought I could throw the old one away when I got the remaster but alas it's the 180g that would go first. My problem with this album is it's the third album I bought and it got played rather too much in a short time. There are much better "HiFi" albums out there and much worse music.

DSOTM was my very first album, purchased in 1973. Unfortunately, along with many other treasured items, it was pillaged by my ex-wife. I eventually replaced it with the remastered 180gm version which I agree is not as good.

Sorry for perpetuating this diversion.

Isn't the whole point of a Blimey that it rambles some what and only returns to the original topic occasionally?

This is the best sounding CD version of DSOTM in my collection.

John.

Mort2k posted:

. .    

 

The 24/96 rips of both dsothm and wywh are very nice. Only issue is they are a single file. Not had chance to investigate splitting into tracks. Not a major issue as they are best listened to end to end. 

I use Audacity to split whole album files into individual tracks.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Mort2k posted:

. .    

 

The 24/96 rips of both dsothm and wywh are very nice. Only issue is they are a single file. Not had chance to investigate splitting into tracks. Not a major issue as they are best listened to end to end. 

I use Audacity to split whole album files into individual tracks.

Thanks - will give it a look

Rob

Mike-B posted:

nigelb posted:

The CD version I have of DSOTM sounds bl**dy awful, whatever system it is played on. Hence I think I need to be a bit more selective in the CDs I buy, if they come in different mastered versions to get the best from a more transparent system. Might also need to chase down hi res downloads if they exist. 

Sorry to say that no high res versions are available Nigel,  best available is the 30th anniversary SACD + CD dual layer,   easily recognised by the block like lines dissecting the light spectrum colours & the boarder line around the art.  

I have that and, like Mike-B, it compares very well the other CD version of DSOTM I've bought or tried. 

Mort2k posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Mort2k posted:

. .    

 

The 24/96 rips of both dsothm and wywh are very nice. Only issue is they are a single file. Not had chance to investigate splitting into tracks. Not a major issue as they are best listened to end to end. 

I use Audacity to split whole album files into individual tracks.

Thanks - will give it a look

Rob

 

After loading the file you can expand the timebase to see track ends when there is a silent gap and place the cursor between, or otherwise you can guesstimate the track end/start maybe based on published track timings or evident change in the visual image of the track, to listen and decide the best point to split. I find it easiest to work back from the end of the file: find the start of the last track, select "marker to end" (whatever the precise description), export selection as track name, then delete the selection before repeating on the now new last track. If you want you can trim silences, or add more, or even fade out and fade in otherwise joined tracks by selecting the last/first few seconds.

yeti42 posted:

Isn't the whole point of a Blimey that it rambles some what and only returns to the original topic occasionally?

Exactly Yeti. Let the diversion continue. I love divergent threads. I will bring it back on track at some point when I have a worthwhile update.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Mort2k posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Mort2k posted:

. .    

 

The 24/96 rips of both dsothm and wywh are very nice. Only issue is they are a single file. Not had chance to investigate splitting into tracks. Not a major issue as they are best listened to end to end. 

I use Audacity to split whole album files into individual tracks.

Thanks - will give it a look

Rob

 

After loading the file you can expand the timebase to see track ends when there is a silent gap and place the cursor between, or otherwise you can guesstimate the track end/start maybe based on published track timings or evident change in the visual image of the track, to listen and decide the best point to split. I find it easiest to work back from the end of the file: find the start of the last track, select "marker to end" (whatever the precise description), export selection as track name, then delete the selection before repeating on the now new last track. If you want you can trim silences, or add more, or even fade out and fade in otherwise joined tracks by selecting the last/first few seconds.

Thanks - makes sense i have it installed and starting to play around now

rob

J.N. posted:

This is the best sounding CD version of DSOTM in my collection.

John.

I have this too. Still a bit ‘hot’ in places for my liking though.

G

In the spirit of Blimey thread divergency, I thought I might add some photographic explanation of Kiwi Cat's excellent hi fi system analogy to the piscatorial world.

Kiwi Cat's own system comprises 272/555/250DR, comparable to the Moki fish which has a small mouth, fleshy lips and no teeth but a strong body.

I give you the Moki fish:

Now my system, using Kiwi Cat's description and piscatorial comparator: 'NDS/555DR/252/250DR is a Mahi Mahi, or dolphin fish system. This fish has a large head and body corresponding to the high quality front end and power supplies, tapering to a slender but powerful tail being the 250DR.'

I give you the Mahi Mahi fish:

Last but not least HH's system again using Kiwi Cat's analogy: '272/555DR/300DR is a Moray eel system. There is a relatively small head corresponding to the 272 followed by a powerful broad body and tail of the power supply and amplifier respectively. In fact HH should more appropriately be known as the "Munching Moray"'.

The mighty Moray Eel:

I think these analogies are working well and my, aren't we getting sophisticated with them.

Reference: Kiwi Cat's post on here a couple of days ago.

I see someone has just opened another thread on the Core - I'm a little disappointed they didn't seize the opportunity to title it Core Blimey.....

Does Coreblimey differ from Gorblimey and what sort of trousers are they anyway?

nigelb posted:

 

 

In the spirit of Blimey thread divergency, I thought I might add some photographic explanation of Kiwi Cat's excellent hi fi system analogy to the piscatorial world.

Kiwi Cat's own system comprises 272/555/250DR, comparable to the Moki fish which has a small mouth, fleshy lips and no teeth but a strong body.

I give you the Moki fish:

 

Now my system, using Kiwi Cat's description and piscatorial comparator: 'NDS/555DR/252/250DR is a Mahi Mahi, or dolphin fish system. This fish has a large head and body corresponding to the high quality front end and power supplies, tapering to a slender but powerful tail being the 250DR.'

I give you the Mahi Mahi fish:

Last but not least HH's system again using Kiwi Cat's analogy: '272/555DR/300DR is a Moray eel system. There is a relatively small head corresponding to the 272 followed by a powerful broad body and tail of the power supply and amplifier respectively. In fact HH should more appropriately be known as the "Munching Moray"'.

The mighty Moray Eel:

I think these analogies are working well and my, aren't we getting sophisticated with them.

Reference: Kiwi Cat's post on here a couple of days ago.

Thanks so much Nigel-B. I have not laughed so much for a long time!

Here is a party game for Naimophiles:

The first player (the Fish) presents a picture of a certain species, then the remaining players proffer likely Naim product combinations using Kiwi Cat's fish comparator method, with a few words to support their choice. The winner is the one with the most appropriate answer (as deemed by the Fish). The winner now becomes the Fish....and so on.

The game is of course called....Naim that Fish!

I'll get the ball rolling with one of nature's more unlikely configurations....the hammerhead shark:

I could liken myself to the deep sea Toad fish.

A rounded shape, bottom dwelling and with feet !!

Some of you could eat me for dinner.

Atherton posted:

Here is a party game for Naimophiles:

The first player (the Fish) presents a picture of a certain species, then the remaining players proffer likely Naim product combinations using Kiwi Cat's fish comparator method, with a few words to support their choice. The winner is the one with the most appropriate answer (as deemed by the Fish). The winner now becomes the Fish....and so on.

The game is of course called....Naim that Fish!

I'll get the ball rolling with one of nature's more unlikely configurations....the hammerhead shark:

Could that be Richard Dane ???