Best Quality MOVE BACK!

GroovyMusic · Post by **GroovyMusic** » 31 Dec 2006 09:35

And here's the <PSAS version. It looks (and sounds) like they applied some interesting audio treatment to it. Notice how needly it looks.

< PEEL SLOWLY AND SEE

Remember: The <PSAS version of Melody Laughter is a 10-minute edit!

tarbaby2 · Post by **tarbaby2** » 31 Dec 2006 19:16

And... since I don't know how to read the comparisons that Groovy provided... just exactly do they mean? (somebody please help out those of us who are technically challenged!)

Thanks!

Evolution One · Post by **Evolution One** » 31 Dec 2006 21:43

Without listening to the tracks it's difficult to say exactly but if you look at the waves they show the shape of the sounds.

Compare the final one to the others and you the waves are much more clearly defined. This "should" equate to a cleaner sounding track. Where the shape is less defined you will probably get more of a general sound which is less defined.

Anytime the wave is reaching the border of the field (green lines) you will get distortion, possibly clicking/hissing as the track plays.

Like I said, it "should" equate to a cleaner sound but those sharply defined waves could be something like the sharply defined waves of somebody farting in a concert that is being recorded so it's not always better!

If you have the Peel Slowly...CDs and also the older CD releases try listening to them both to see the difference.

I know that some people would say that the less defined sound suits some of the velvets Music better anyway...they may be right! It's nice to have a choice though!!!

mrgreen71 · Post by **mrgreen71** » 02 Jan 2007 23:53

If we really want to judge the differences in sound quality, we should also have access to a spectrogram.

The spectral range of a recording tells a lot about the sound quality.

Evolution One · Post by **Evolution One** » 03 Jan 2007 00:28

mrgreen71 wrote:If we really want to judge the differences in sound quality, we should also have access to a spectrogram.

The spectral range of a recording tells a lot about the sound quality.

If we REALLY want to judge the differences in sound quality, we'd need to actually hear the sound.

GroovyMusic · Post by **GroovyMusic** » 03 Jan 2007 00:54

Evolution One wrote:If we REALLY want to judge the differences in sound quality, we'd need to actually hear the sound.

I know but I hate doing comparisons because it ruins the listening experience.

Evolution One · Post by **Evolution One** » 03 Jan 2007 01:14

GroovyMusic wrote:I know but I hate doing comparisons because it ruins the listening experience.

Very true!
Isn't the only "testing" we should really be doing with any music as simple as this?
I like listening to this music or I don't like listening to this music. If I do, I will. If I don't, I won't!!

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 07 Jan 2007 15:30

mrgreen71 wrote:If we really want to judge the differences in sound quality, we should also have access to a spectrogram.

The spectral range of a recording tells a lot about the sound quality.

What this guy said.

The wave analyses that have been posted here really don't say much more than how loud the sound is. A spectral analysis (which can easily be done in CoolEdit/Audition, it's one of the buttons along the top) shows the frequency response of a recording, which is useful because you can visually tell whether, say, the high frequencies are still there, or whether they're swathed in hiss, or whether they've been cut off altogether.

MJG196 · Post by **MJG196** » 08 Jan 2007 06:27

GroovyMusic wrote:I know but I hate doing comparisons because it ruins the listening experience.

Hey Groovy, I love ya and all, but isn't doing comparisons what you do all the time here? How else are you able to pick out the "best" versions of so many songs?

I agree w/ the statement, though. Comparing this to that turns a pleasure into something more akin to WORK, which I dont enjoy!!