Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
http://www.targetcd.com/
Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD. I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly. Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs? They both sound great. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-4, wrote:
http://www.targetcd.com/ Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD. I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly. Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs? They both sound great. He's "into" those Target CDs... http://www.keithhirsch.com/ Jack |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:19:35 AM UTC-4, jjaj.l.com wrote:
http://www.targetcd.com/ Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD. I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly. Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs? They both sound great. He's "into" those Target CDs... http://www.keithhirsch.com/ Jack _______ Dude, click the link in my original post and LEARN about what Target CD signifies. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:19:35 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-4, wrote: http://www.targetcd.com/ Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD. I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly. Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs? They both sound great. He's "into" those Target CDs... http://www.keithhirsch.com/ Jack Also: http://www.keithhirsch.com/target-cds |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-4, wrote:
http://www.targetcd.com/ Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD. I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly. Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs? They both sound great. Found a Pablo Cruise song in public domain. It SOUNDED nice, extended ending. Years went by, not nowing what CD it came from. Then I find Universal marketing their fancy HQ CD by that group. I compared and identical wave forms. In other words, the HQ format did noting for quality. Jack |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:31:13 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:19:35 AM UTC-4, jjaj.l.com wrote: http://www.targetcd.com/ Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD. I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly. Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs? They both sound great. He's "into" those Target CDs... http://www.keithhirsch.com/ Jack _______ Dude, click the link in my original post and LEARN about what Target CD signifies. All I know, Sony was having US CDs made in Japan, until US people complained!! Not really into Target CDs, I see little value in them, IMO. Jack |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On 18/07/2017 21:10, geoff wrote:
"Flat transfers of the original tapes" meaning tapes mastered for vinyl ? If they zero out with the normal CDs, it was likely a dupe of the digital master that was sent to the pressing plant. Two transfers from the same analogue master tape are very unlikely to be identical bit for bit, with the best result being something as minor as the tape flutter being out of phase, even if both transfers were made on the same machine. The reason they were not processed further in the pressing plant was because people were still learning about the process and only noticed the immediate vast improvement in perceived quality over vinyl. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
geoff wrote: "Yuk."
Better than the situation described he https://www.facebook.com/pg/2016Save...=page_internal |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
John Williamson wrote: "
If they zero out with the normal CDs, it was likely a dupe of the digital master that was sent to the pressing plant. Two transfers from the same analogue master tape are very unlikely to be identical bit for bit, with the best result being something as minor as the tape flutter being out of phase, even if both transfers were made on the same machine. The reason they were not processed further in the pressing plant was because people were still learning about the process and only noticed the immediate vast improvement in perceived quality over vinyl. " By "not processed further", what sort of processing are you referring to? |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On 19/07/2017 9:35 a.m., wrote:
geoff wrote: "Yuk." Better than the situation described he https://www.facebook.com/pg/2016Save...=page_internal Oh dear. Hobby-horse rears it's head again. Sadly a highly flawed and erroneous page that only perpetuates a lack of deeper understanding of the multiple issues with good or bad mastering and remastering.. - Loudness wars are/were not the sole the domain of REmastering. - Remastering does not inherently imply reduced dynamic range. - Loudness (or other mastering or remaster processes) do not inherently need to be digital to acheive either good or bad things. - There are many remastered releases that sound FANTASTIC compared to the original. The most objectionable ones were from the era of early digital processing with relatively poor AD and bit-depths. And those flaws are not related to hyper-compression. geoff |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
geoff wrote: "Oh dear. Hobby-horse rears it's head again.
Sadly a highly flawed and erroneous page that only perpetuates a lack of deeper understanding of the multiple issues with good or bad mastering and remastering.. - Loudness wars are/were not the sole the domain of REmastering. - Remastering does not inherently imply reduced dynamic range. - Loudness (or other mastering or remaster processes) do not inherently need to be digital to acheive either good or bad things. - There are many remastered releases that sound FANTASTIC compared to the original. The most objectionable ones were from the era of early digital processing with relatively poor AD and bit-depths. And those flaws are not related to hyper-compression. geoff " Well, in every example on that page, as pertaining to main stream releases, the remaster appears to have just been made louder, with less D.R. And no improvements in converters, or 24 vs 16bit transfers, can make up for what was done in those cases after transferring. And yes, I do know that remastering does not *have* to mean what was done in the examples on that page, but: that is what was sold to unsuspecting fans of those particular performers as 'remastered'. No thanks, I'll keep my original CDs and Targets. Ain't missing much. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
"geoff" wrote in message
... Oh dear. Hobby-horse rears it's head again. Of course, that's the whole reason for theckma the retard's original post. He wanted to smear his hobby-horse **** all over the newsgroup, yet again. theckma-sucks-hobbyhorsedick @ theckhma-the-retard. shortbus-****stain . com puked No thanks, I'll keep my original CDs and Targets. Ain't missing much. That's because you don't listen to them, you just look at your computer screen and whine, and then you bring your village idiot schtick to usenet because you're a ****ing idiot. DFCKWAFA. AADMEI. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 4:52:31 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 18/07/2017 15:50, wrote: All I know, Sony was having US CDs made in Japan, until US people complained!! Not really into Target CDs, I see little value in them, IMO. Marketing. Early CDs that were produced using early equipment for early adopters. -- Tciao for Now! John. John, someone was selling a MCA Vintage Master series CD, that generally goes for a $1.00 USD or so, at an elevated cost, since on the CD it said, "Made In Japan". So, like Warner, others were getting CDs made OUTSIDE the US. I don't mind "early" CDs, I mind they didn't use first generation master tapes. Jack |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 4:10:50 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 19/07/2017 2:34 AM, wrote: On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:19:35 AM UTC-4, wrote: On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-4, wrote: http://www.targetcd.com/ Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD. I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly. Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs? They both sound great. He's "into" those Target CDs... http://www.keithhirsch.com/ Jack Also: http://www.keithhirsch.com/target-cds "Flat transfers of the original tapes" meaning tapes mastered for vinyl ? Yuk. geoff Flat transfers, because DAW didn't exist then :-) Jack |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 6:53:55 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 19/07/2017 9:35 a.m., wrote: geoff wrote: "Yuk." Better than the situation described he https://www.facebook.com/pg/2016Save...=page_internal Oh dear. Hobby-horse rears it's head again. Sadly a highly flawed and erroneous page that only perpetuates a lack of deeper understanding of the multiple issues with good or bad mastering and remastering.. - Loudness wars are/were not the sole the domain of REmastering. I agree. I collect past music (50's+), maybe a few are "loud", but majority are not. - Remastering does not inherently imply reduced dynamic range. But, I say, but, if someone used compression existing songs, and you remaster and you don't, people will complain. - Loudness (or other mastering or remaster processes) do not inherently need to be digital to acheive either good or bad things. Look at the most recent Beatles remixed CD by Giles Martin. He made it obvious he used compression. But I feel he's inexperienced, as people will "view" the songs. - There are many remastered releases that sound FANTASTIC compared to the original. The most objectionable ones were from the era of early digital processing with relatively poor AD and bit-depths. And those flaws are not related to hyper-compression. I would agree, like that Earth, Wind & Fire song I posted. Never sounded clearer. Jack geoff |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 4:26:25 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 18/07/2017 15:31, wrote: Dude, click the link in my original post and LEARN about what Target CD signifies. It signifies early CDs produced in countries other than the USA, because there were not enough pressing plants in the USA at the time. The Target brand was a marketing ploy. A "flat transfer from the master tape" as mentioned on the site linked to by JackAss is a meaningless phrase, and omits the information about which master was used. Was it the studio master, the LP master or the cassette master? Or maybe it was (A copy of) the CD master intended for American use, put onto a plane to Germany? I see, so you call me names, but it was Dan that posted that information. I just posted the link because I knew Dan collected Target CDs. I too collect Target CDs, but from exclusive CDs from a Target department store!! That's a new phase, even Wal-Mart does it. Jack -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 7:26:51 PM UTC-4, None wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message ... Oh dear. Hobby-horse rears it's head again. Of course, that's the whole reason for theckma the retard's original post. He wanted to smear his hobby-horse **** all over the newsgroup, yet again. theckma-sucks-hobbyhorsedick @ theckhma-the-retard. shortbus-****stain . com puked No thanks, I'll keep my original CDs and Targets. Ain't missing much. That's because you don't listen to them, you just look at your computer screen and whine, and then you bring your village idiot schtick to usenet because you're a ****ing idiot. Even G' is getting attacked!!! WTF is?.... DFCKWAFA. AADMEI. Jack |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 7:06:09 PM UTC-4, wrote:
geoff wrote: "Oh dear. Hobby-horse rears it's head again. Sadly a highly flawed and erroneous page that only perpetuates a lack of deeper understanding of the multiple issues with good or bad mastering and remastering.. - Loudness wars are/were not the sole the domain of REmastering. - Remastering does not inherently imply reduced dynamic range. - Loudness (or other mastering or remaster processes) do not inherently need to be digital to acheive either good or bad things. - There are many remastered releases that sound FANTASTIC compared to the original. The most objectionable ones were from the era of early digital processing with relatively poor AD and bit-depths. And those flaws are not related to hyper-compression. geoff " Well, in every example on that page, as pertaining to main stream releases, the remaster appears to have just been made louder, with less D.R. And no improvements in converters, or 24 vs 16bit transfers, can make up for what was done in those cases after transferring. And yes, I do know that remastering does not *have* to mean what was done in the examples on that page, but: that is what was sold to unsuspecting fans of those particular performers as 'remastered'. No thanks, I'll keep my original CDs and Targets. Ain't missing much. I'm not saying Target CDs are bad sounding. It was what I found when I took a day off work, from staying up all night, improving audio quality with my handy, no frills, DAW $49!!! :-) Target CDs? Like EMI Legendary Master CDs, EMI had to remaster most all those songs. But, I WILL even give Steve Hoffman SOME credit, as he knew a graphic equalizer helped, but that's the extent of his audio knowledge. Jack |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
John Williamson wrote:
"On 18/07/2017 22:38, wrote: By "not processed further", what sort of processing are you referring to? The compression and other faffing about that some on here have a bee in their bonnets about. " And why John, during those initial '80s era transfers of those original master tapes to CD, should that 'compression and other faffing about' have been done at all? I glad that stuff WASN'T done, and don't get this culture that everything being transfered to digital *must* be compromised by such processing. Why not just minor adjustments, like channel balance, and Redbook pre-emph? |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
retarded dumb**** @ shortbus.edu smeared hobby-horse-**** on his
face: I .. don't ... get this Ride that rotting corpse of a hobby horse, li'l buckaroo retard! Too bad for you, they won't allow it on the short bus. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
stupid.stupid.stupid.troll @ tardsRtheckmajjj.com wrote in message
... And why ... Its all been explained to you, countless times. You're just too retarded to comprehend. You'll never understand, because of your mental impairment. FCKWAFA. AFSBRAD. Right, li'l buddy? |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 7:14:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:
John Williamson wrote: "On 18/07/2017 22:38, wrote: By "not processed further", what sort of processing are you referring to? The compression and other faffing about that some on here have a bee in their bonnets about. " And why John, during those initial '80s era transfers of those original master tapes to CD, should that 'compression and other faffing about' have been done at all? I glad that stuff WASN'T done, and don't get this culture that everything being transfered to digital *must* be compromised by such processing. Why not just minor adjustments, like channel balance, and Redbook pre-emph? You know what is interesting on early CDs? Generally, no credits given who did the audio. It appears Columbia Records hired their party people to do their audio work, since they probably lacked the knowledge and equipment. Jack |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
JJAck wrote: "You know what is interesting on early CDs? Generally,
no credits given who did the audio. It appears Columbia Records hired their party people to do their audio work, since they probably lacked the knowledge and equipment. " Credits for engineering & mastering, for the original vinyl album release are listed, on the album cover shrunk down to fit in the CD jewel case. Since those early transfers were *largely* done flat, there was no need for CD engineering or mastering credits to be listed. As I mentioned earlier, minor leveling or pre-emphasis to existing masters was just standard procedure at that time, not worthy of mastering credit as is the squash-boost-&-brickwall-limit job done on MOST "remasters" since 2000, and practically any new artist work. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
wrote:
And why John, during those initial '80s era transfers of those original master tapes to CD, should that 'compression and other faffing about' have been done at all? I glad that stuff WASN'T done, and don't get this culture that everything being transfered to digital *must* be compromised by such processing. But it WAS done, just not so aggressively. Back then, CD mastering was done the same way LP mastering was done, with an A/B console where you could set the parameters for the next track while recording the current one. You'd go through the tape figuring out basic compression and equalization parameters for each track, then play the tape through the console into the PCM1610 in realtime. Most folks just took their existing mastering suites and put a PCM1610 in place of the lathe amps. Most of those consoles had moderate compression, and a lot of them had a safety limiter that just couldn't be removed at all. Europadisc had a much fancier system with the digital Neve mastering console, but even they had an analogue limiter in place that could not be taken out of the signal path. Now, it's true that fashions have changed and there is much more aggressive limiting done these days. But to say that compression "wasn't done" on the early reissues is completely incorrect. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
re early digital, can someone site an example of a commercially available digital recording that sounds audibly bad due to bad quality A/D converters of the era. I'd like to hear it. m |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
John Williamson:
I actually comprehend all of what you just posted. I understand the need for light doses compression and other processing *during recording and mixing* as a means of leveling control. In other words, whatever was done, from recording to mixing to mastering, to albums like "The Stranger" or "Thriller" back in that era. When CD came along, very often the master tapes - the two channel stereo ones - for albums like those were transferred flat to the digital master tapes(quantized), and a CDglass master was made from that. The way I would want it to be, no sausage factory between this paragraph and the one above it. Today, sausage is done during session, mixing, and mastering of today's top hits, and other genres, and sausage envelopes applied to new 24bit 'remasters' of those same '70s-'80s era two-ch. masters. Which won't see a PENNY of my money. There is modern music that I do like, and download or buy CD of. I just level it in my DAW or use mp3Gain for the stuff going to my phone, etc, so it and the classic hits stuff are all roughly equally loud. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
John Williamson wrote: "However, as None says, this has all been explained to you and JackAss "
Why you even include a filth-spewing spam -bot in the same ranks as yourself, Jack, Scott D., Geoff and Mike R is beyond me! lol |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 8:35:58 AM UTC-4, wrote:
JJAck wrote: "You know what is interesting on early CDs? Generally, no credits given who did the audio. It appears Columbia Records hired their party people to do their audio work, since they probably lacked the knowledge and equipment. " Credits for engineering & mastering, for the original vinyl album release are listed, on the album cover shrunk down to fit in the CD jewel case. Since those early transfers were *largely* done flat, there was no need for CD engineering or mastering credits to be listed. As I mentioned earlier, minor leveling or pre-emphasis to existing masters was just standard procedure at that time, not worthy of mastering credit as is the squash-boost-&-brickwall-limit job done on MOST "remasters" since 2000, and practically any new artist work. When issuing Sinatra for CD, EMI/Capitol hit a brickwall. They had all the Mastering Notes, except the custom made audio equipment was gone or replaced, rendering Mastering notes useless. From what I see of early CDs is lack of knowledge HOW the songs should sound. About 2000, Sony issued some CD sets, various artists. Like you mentioned, the digital Y2k age was here, so they reworked their archives. Not that is happened often, but if you were looking for "hit" versions, what most people remember, you might be disappointed with CDs, where songs were remixed. No, not disappointed about the "audio", but content. Because people who remixed, accidentally left in sounds, like a sour drum riff, that never existed before! I'm generally happy what audio man laid down on CD. If I feel it could sound better (see Mastering Notes above), I can always alter it. Jack |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:16:20 AM UTC-4, wrote:
re early digital, can someone site an example of a commercially available digital recording that sounds audibly bad due to bad quality A/D converters of the era. I'd like to hear it. m Mark, great question. I would love to hear, too! Jack |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
wrote:
can someone site an example of a commercially available digital recording that sounds audibly bad due to bad quality A/D converters of the era. I'd like to hear it. Plenty of them. One very offensive example I can think of from that era, though, is the GRP "Digital Duke" recording. Now, it's aggressively multimiked and incredibly bright and everything is in your face, but that's not the fault exclusively of the conversion. But.... listen to how notes die out... the reverb tails are almost chopped off by the truncation. I'd never actually heard how bad truncation even at 16 bits could be. This is a DDD recording so there are at least three and possibly five converters in the signal path. But you can pick up just about anything from that era and hear the tonality changing in the reverb tail as it drops down. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
Scott Dorsey wrote: "But to say that compression "wasn't done" on
the early reissues is completely incorrect. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra" _______ I firgured there had to be a reason why so many of my pre-1990 classical symphony CDs all registered between DR-12 & 14 on the Fubar/TT Dynamic range snapshot. The ones made from 1970s or earlier LP master tapes. I'd bet the vinyl versions would produce DR values over 20 in most cases! Sad they treated the superior format that way. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:27:19 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote: can someone site an example of a commercially available digital recording that sounds audibly bad due to bad quality A/D converters of the era. I'd like to hear it. Plenty of them. One very offensive example I can think of from that era, though, is the GRP "Digital Duke" recording. Now, it's aggressively multimiked and incredibly bright and everything is in your face, but that's not the fault exclusively of the conversion. But.... listen to how notes die out... the reverb tails are almost chopped off by the truncation. I'd never actually heard how bad truncation even at 16 bits could be. This is a DDD recording so there are at least three and possibly five converters in the signal path. But you can pick up just about anything from that era and hear the tonality changing in the reverb tail as it drops down. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Back then, man probably didn't know the difference between a bit and a dog bite! I was hoping existing analog recordings to digital. Jack |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
Scott Dorsey wrote:
One very offensive example I can think of from that era, though, is the GRP "Digital Duke" recording. Now, it's aggressively multimiked and incredibly bright and everything is in your face, but that's not the fault exclusively of the conversion. But.... listen to how notes die out... the reverb tails are almost chopped off by the truncation. I'd never actually heard how bad truncation even at 16 bits could be. This is a DDD recording so there are at least three and possibly five converters in the signal path. But you can pick up just about anything from that era and hear the tonality changing in the reverb tail as it drops down. --scott I happen to own that album. I did hear the aggressive brightness and that it generally sounded odd and a bit unpleasant, for want of a better description, though I didn't specifically notice the reverb tails. But then I'm not always the most critical of listeners. According to the liner notes, these are the perpetrators of the Digital Duke album: Produced by Michael Abene and Mercer Ellington Executive Producers: Dave Grusin and Larry Rosen Recorded by Ed Rak at Clinton Recording Studios, NYC on the Mitsubishi X-850 32-track digital recorder Assisted by Rebecca Everett Digitally mixed and edited by Josiah Gluck at The Review Room, NYC on the Sony PCM 1630 Digital Audio System Assisted by Jim Singer Digitally mastered by Ted Jensen at Sterling Sound, NYC on the Neve Digital Transfer Console Special Thanks to [among others]: Phil Vachon, Mitsubishi Pro Audio copyright 1987 (An Ellington album I prefer is one by the American Jazz Orchestra led by John Lewis, from a year or two later. It has a looser feel and the sound seems fuller.) |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Target CDs
Tatonik:
So what Scott was pointing out was that both production technique and converter issues contributed to sound quality issues on that album. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Eyes on target... | Audio Opinions | |||
SPLC Target Pat Buchanan | Car Audio | |||
HK Audio/Target | Pro Audio | |||
FT: Target 28" Stands | Marketplace | |||
FT: Target 28" Stands | Marketplace |