WHAT'S THAT SOUND? Complete Albums Collection - Buffalo Springfield

I wasn’t asking you.

 

Excuse me for quoting one of my previous posts on this subject, but this about sums it up:

"If you have a high-end system and are hearing differences between bit-identical CDs, personally I'm a bit skeptical.

If you can't tell the difference between a remaster that's been NR'd and a source that hasn't been NR'd, you either don't know what you're listening for, or your equipment sucks.

If you can say that "A" has more bass than "B", and is also a bit more compressed, that's fantastic because if I own "B" I have a reference point for what "A" sounds like, regardless of what systems we are both listening on.

If you are saying that "B" sounds the best, and have compared it to nothing, I do not care what you're listening to it on because it's an utterly meaningless, subjective statement."

 

I don’t really know that I want to weigh in on this but I guess I am. I’m not convinced this issue is about what equipment you’re using or even the vinyl itself. I think it’s more about the perception of the individual. I don’t find any objectionable issues with these records. I quite enjoy them and have played through them several times.

Fremer enjoyed them and we all know how expensive his system is. I don’t always agree with Fremer and my system is not as expensive but, I wouldn’t do an even trade with him for my own. I put mine together with attention to time and phase coherence. His speakers alone are a phase nightmare but cost more than my entire system. Yet, we seem to agree on the merits of this set.

I guess my point is, it’s not about you’re equipment profile. You’re profile is objective but any impressions are highly subjective. If you play these records and enjoy them I don’t see any point in arguing with someone who doesn’t. Too many variables. Just enjoy it for what it is.

 

Yes, it's pointless. An equipment profile can't tell anything about someone's hearing or listening ability. Case in point: my wife is deaf in one ear, and at the very least isn't as attuned to sound quality differences as I and many on this forum are. If she was a member here, we could in theory have the same equipment listed, but our profiles wouldn't give anyone *any* indication of the differences in our hearing ability.

You can have a $100,000 system, but if your hearing is seriously compromised, your opinions on sound quality won't be very useful.

Note that what one thinks about something is subjective, but things can be and are objectively different, which is the case here.

 

Certainly does.

 

Luke is hearing some mastering errors. He is hearing the same errors on more than one playback device, so we know these flaws aren't artifacts of his playback system. The flaws can be objectively verified by spectral analysis, so we know they aren't figments of his imagination. Given all this, can you explain to me how his playback system is relevant?

Your premise is that a person can hear more detail on a better system, yet the fact that you can't hear flaws Luke can, despite (probably) having a more expensive system, would seem to prove the opposite. Or else it proves that there is a difference between his and your listening abilities.

 

Exactly. I can hear the difference between the samples on my in-ears and USB DAC. I can only imagine a "more accurate" system would make the flaws more obvious?

 

I think he just proved the point: many times listeners dont know what they are listening for.

 

Do I want remain happily ignorant or be willing to entertain and explore the possibility that what is discovered as flaws may be a hinderence to hearing the "best ever" version?

Nothing wrong with remaining ignorant (Personally, I actually think there is.). But for those who want more and realize something could sound better its a quest to find that sound. Whats more, is that it isnt many times impossible. Its simply that someone screwed up and should fix it.

One can say "Well, I dont hear anything." But what if I heard the proper mastering without the flaw? I then have revelation what its really suppose to sound like. Ive seen many times here that the folded armed folks suddenly change their tune when they hear a corrected version. An "Ahh now I hear what you talking about. It is better! Wow I never realized." Seen it happen time and again here.

 

I never advocated ignorance. I'm just not a fan of obsession, and submit that, if you really think that Rhino should repress and reissue this otherwise remarkable box because the highs arguably aren't up to snuff on three songs, you just may have jumped the shark. I'm done.

 

Why? It’s a problem. Like any number of other releases over the years with problems that were subsequently fixed. How is that jumping the shark?

 

And Im certainly not telling anyone that they cant enjoy the set simply because there is a factual flaw discovered. But nearly each and everytime any possibility is shown that a reissue has an issue some folks get defensive nearly to the point of "Please stop telling us about these things. Youre ruining our fun!!"

Well, if I cant hear something thats being pointed out then how can it be ruining my fun? lol

 

But thats just it. To you its crazy talk. But its not to those that it bothers.

 

Btw, I still enjoy the set. I dont know, I just think its cool that this band has its own proper boxset of albums. They deserve that respect.

Maybe thats another reason lukpac and others would like to truely see the best ever without the flaws and also an extra e.p. or something of missing stuff.

They love the band that much.




Ok, enough of that sentimental crap..back to the good stuff..

 

Man, you guys are really uptight. I started to engage because I thought this thread was about the Buffalo Springfield box set and its sound quality. It has turned into an equipment profile/he knows better/he hears better platform.

I know that some people are really passionate about their music (I certainly am) but to argue that it sounds fine, great, better than the original, etc., versus when a missed opportunity to completely upgrade the originals somehow missed the mark ever so slightly is a matter of semantics. I keep proposing that the listener have a comparison listening test (and I'm not the only one suggesting this) but somehow this is superseded by the "it seems fine to me" guys.

Mpayan makes good points above, and in addition, many more have praised the box set (CD or LP versions) rightly so. It has a lot of good points going for it - extra bass on the mono S/T, good tracks from BSA in mono, better bass response on the vinyl vs. the original pressings, great presentation, etc. But a few tracks aren't as good. I have the LP box and am happy overall - but there are a few tracks that are not upgrades from originals.

The fact that this is a fact has "devolved" into the equipment profile debate has really made me question the listening skills/comparative efforts of some of my respected colleagues in our quest for best fidelity.

I'm happy with the LP box but think I've heard a little better on the originals. That said, I'm still glad I have it. If you want best fidelity you must keep searching, but otherwise, if you're happy, I'm glad for you.

Peace.

 

Somewhere I found a second version of the long Bluebird with what sounds like an alternate Young guitar part,and maybe slightly longer... I am NOT talking about the long version that came out officially on the 2 lp Buffalo Springfield set (and is also on a compilation as well). Maybe someone has already mentioned this..very long thread. The audio is not so great... but any version of Bluebird is welcome... one of my favorite songs and a wonderful performance...

 

It's not relevant, i never said it was. Don't people read?
I only responded to the more general point that it's pointless to have your system filled out.
I simply disagree, i think there is a point, it's a reference point.

That's not my premise. I don't have the record, so "i can't hear flaws" is not something i ever said.
I simply stated a fact about vinyl playback, that hasn't been disputed.

 

I actually think it's more simple that that; people make different points, responding to different questions,
and some people misunderstand what is said, or conflate things that weren't said. Most of the things
people have written in this thread are mutually exclusively true, it's not like there is a direct rebuttal
to what most people say, they're just making different arguments, or talking about different things.
People talk passed a lot of what has been written.

 

PSA: Quantitative analysis is not necessarily objective. In this case there are more than enough unknowns to make that distinction an important one.

 

I can vouch for that. They very rarely show up anywhere and if they do, it's almost certain they'll be well played and in VG at best condition. I do have an original mono UK Atlantic pressing of the debut. The sleeve and label both list For What It's Worth but the record doesn't include it, it has the original running order, with Baby Don't Scold Me on and Go and Say Goodbye as the opener. There is a lot of bass on this record too.

 

Finding one in really nice shape in the US isn't cheap either. I used to have a US mono of the debut that was in OK shape, but that is just not a great sounding recording at all. Got rid of it. Had a Canadian mono press of Again that was actually NM, but I wasn't wowed by that either and ended up selling it. I have a NM US stereo 70s press of Again that I think sounds very nice. It'll be fun a/b'ing that with the stereo from the new box.

 

The Canadian mono of Buffalo Springfield Again is a fold down.
Edit: Or at least 2 tracks are but I suspect the whole album is.

 

I love the mono debut, stereo Again and Last Time Around in the new box. I can't imagine those three sounding better anywhere.

I've never cared much for the stereo mix of the debut and there's some slight crackle on For What It's Worth on mine. I also hear the problem Lucpac does on Bluebird from the mono Again, Broken Arrow doesn't sound great either. The rest sounds excellent, but I don't think this mono mix is essential at all and prefer almost everything about the stereo. Good Time Boy and Hung Upside Down have more punch in mono though.

 

Is the entire US mono Again dedicated? I can hear obvious differences on some tracks, but very little on others including Bluebird and Broken Arrow. The more elaboratly produced tracks don't sound much different from the stereo and also have the worst sound quality in mono.