Bruce Dickinson

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
GhostofCain said:
No disrespect @Kalata, but the search tool is pretty useful. This is what I posted some time ago on the matter:

Bruce Dickinson

Wait a minute... does this mean that the TM b-side is the "winds of change, roll over us" quiet one and the BTP b-side is the "WIIIIIIIINDS OF CHAAAANGE ROLL OOOOOVER UUUUSSSSS" loud one? I just assumed the live version from Dive! Dive! Live! was just done... for the concert. I never realized...
forum.maidenfans.com

And here you have some interviews with Keith Olsen and Shay Baby for your reading pleasure: ;)


Click to expand...

Thanks for the comprehensive answer :ok: I will check it.
srfc said:
I maybe be confusing things I've read in the past but I think Tears of the Dragon was based on a track originally written for Somewhere in Time called Pendragon's Tears.
Click to expand...

Never knew that. Cheers.
 
Speaking of vinyl, someone was a "real good boy" at work these past two weeks and I got some awards. Each award is worth $100 in my next paycheck, and I earned four of them. Four! I'm going to by the "Soloworks" boxset by Bruce Wayne Dickinson. I've been on a vinyl collecting kick lately and have acquired all of the two remastered vinyl boxsets, plus Maiden England, Somewhere Back in Time, and From Fear to Eternity all on picture disc, as well as BOS: Live Chapter and the pic disc of Empire of the Clouds. That's my story!
 
Just wait till I bring up how the vinyl format is objectively better than any other format, including digital, which is sloppy. Won’t that be fun.
 
Diesel 11 said:
Just wait till I bring up how the vinyl format is objectively better than any other format, including digital, which is sloppy. Won’t that be fun.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s a true statement if you value ultra-high frequencies that normal human beings can’t hear, and you’re willing to put up with all the other artifacts dragging a physical needle across a bumpy surface creates. But if you prefer cleaner reproduction of human-hearable frequencies, then it’s the other way around, at least when you’re talking uncompressed digital. And if you have superhuman hearing, there are often higher bit rate and bit depth versions of uncompressed digital recordings available.

See, that was fun! :p
 
Personally, the only vinyl I am interested in is old vinyl. I get enjoyment from hearing what people heard in the 70s and 80s. And I enjoy the process of putting it on and looking at the 40 year old sleeve. The vast majority of vinyl I listen to is Di' Anno era Maiden. I have no opinion on what sounds better (vinyl, cd, remaster) but I do enjoy putting on Di Anno era Maiden stuff, hisses and pops and all. However, I will say that, in my house, World Music by Goat sounds significantly better on vinyl that cd. Although, I am probably much more intoxicated when I put the vinyl on.

I was in HMV the other day and there is a lot of space given to vinyl, it seems that every album that was ever any good has had the 'Remastered 180gm Vinyl' treatment. I have zero interest in it. For example, there was a lot of re-released Jethro Tull stuff in there. Now, if I found a reasonably priced , original copy of Songs From The Wood then I would get it but other than that, cd or digital will do me.
I am not too knowledgeable of the sonic arts but would I be right in sayin that a remaster on Spotify through good speakers is just as good as a modern vinyl remaster? What I'm asking is, unless you enjoy the retro feel (as I do with old Maiden), would it not be better to spend your coin on good speakers rather than a record player and expensive vinyl? Like, re-mastered Tull albums were £30 a skite. I got a 4 CD box set of Tull for half the price of a single remastered album.
If I take Iron Maidens debut as an example, I feel an more full sound with the vinyl version but there is more clarity listening to it on headphones through my phone. So, my uneducated opinion is that its the system that rather than the medium that makes the most difference. And I assume there is something in between. Either way, Jethro Tull are brilliant.
 
Jer said:
Hiss, hiss, pop, pop, hiss. We older folk moved on from vinyl for a reason. It’s flat-out bizarre to witness the modern obsession with it...
Click to expand...
I collect vinyl, not really listen to it. But if you have a decent record player, vinyl's in good/new condition and a needle in good shape, hiss/pop will be minimal. I've had several where I heard nary a hiss/pop. That said, keeping vinyls in good enough shape to play continously and not here crackling is next to impossible. But I like collecting vinyl for the sake of collecting. Iron Maiden especially has great album art and I want the biggest version of it I can get. Then I just download 320kbps MP3s to do my actual listening.
 
Niall Kielt said:
I am not too knowledgeable of the sonic arts but would I be right in sayin that a remaster on Spotify through good speakers is just as good as a modern vinyl remaster?
Click to expand...
No, compressed audio has noticeable artifacts in it, though higher bit rate encoding helps. On the other hand, uncompressed digital (CD, FLAC, etc.) won’t have any artifacts other than the digitization itself, and as long as you can’t hear frequencies above 24KHz or so, its frequency reproduction is going to sound identical to the source recording.

Vinyl records something close to the full original analog signal, so if you were an alien with super high frequency hearing, it would sound much better above 24KHz, hisses and pops notwithstanding.
 
Even beyond audio itself, vinyl provides me with the best listening experience. Lying on the floor, staring at the spinning disc... wowy. The only thing that comes close is lying in bed in the middle of the night with eyes closed and headphones in.
 
So what is uncompressed digital then? Is that a true reproduction of the original recording? This is why remasters puzzle/annoy/confuse me. So if I listen to an original copy of an early Maiden album on vinyl, am I getting an inferior sound? Does the remaster properly reflect what the band sounded like at that moment in time or is a remaster what the band feel how it should be 30yrs after the fact? I know they aren't adding anything so, to me, a remaster is probably closer to what went on in the studio at the time, which is what I want to hear.
I have a first pressing of Maidens debut on cd, cassette and vinyl, I suppose this would be a good comparison. Although they would be played through different systems. What is a boy to do?
 
Niall Kielt said:
So what is uncompressed digital then? Is that a true reproduction of the original recording? This is why remasters puzzle/annoy/confuse me. So if I listen to an original copy of an early Maiden album on vinyl, am I getting an inferior sound? Does the remaster properly reflect what the band sounded like at that moment in time or is a remaster what the band feel how it should be 30yrs after the fact? I know they aren't adding anything so, to me, a remaster is probably closer to what went on in the studio at the time, which is what I want to hear.
I have a first pressing of Maidens debut on cd, cassette and vinyl, I suppose this would be a good comparison. Although they would be played through different systems. What is a boy to do?
Click to expand...
I'll be real honest, MOST folks could listen to a 256kbps MP3 of their favorite band and have it switched back and forth between a superior format, whether CD, FLAC, or Vinyl, and not be able to tell the difference. You need to know what the difference is supposed to be and then listen for it. Or a remaster needs to be outlandishly different to sound noticeably different. I collect vinyl not because it may be the superior or most "true" sound format, but because it's big, pretty, and I like to collect. When I play a shiny new vinyl on a shiny new record player and high quality needle, I tell myself I'm listening to the superior version of the audio, and perhaps I am. But I believe that should a sound-ninja sneak in and replace my shit with a fairly compressed MP3, I'd likely only notice the breeze as he left he window open.

It's easy to visualize the difference, however. Pretend that real/original audio is a smooth sine wave that resembles a series of connected, lowercase U's. Then take that same picture of that sine wave and look at it through a screen door. Notice that while the shape of the waveform is intact, it now has a sort of grid super imposed on it, and that grid now marks the sound on the CD. The lower the bitrate, the larger the "grid" and this in turn means shittier quality. The higher the bitrate, the smaller the grid, and while it'll never be "perfect" if it's digital, it'll also likely never sound different to the human ear.

Check out the picture of the sound wave partway down this page: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiX54OEssfjAhXuUt8KHSDbDdIQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https://www.tested.com/tech/1905-the-real-differences-between-16-bit-and-24-bit-audio/&psig=AOvVaw3MTLLWCT0BpDocttJYiJq7&ust=1563845863315561
 
chaosapiant said:
Notice that while the shape of the waveform is intact, it now has a sort of grid super imposed on it, and that grid now marks the sound on the CD. The lower the bitrate, the larger the "grid" and this in turn means shittier quality. The higher the bitrate, the smaller the grid, and while it'll never be "perfect" if it's digital, it'll also likely never sound different to the human ear.
Click to expand...
The key piece of science here is that if the sampling rate is greater than 2x the highest frequency you’re able to physically hear, it will be literally impossible to hear the difference between the digitized and analog versions. Thus CDs and uncompressed digital audio being indistinguishable from the source to human ears.
 
Jer said:
The key piece of science here is that if the sampling rate is greater than 2x the highest frequency you’re able to physically hear, it will be literally impossible to hear the difference between the digitized and analog versions.
Click to expand...

Long live Nyquist!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jer
Jer said:
it will be literally impossible to hear the difference between the digitized and analog versions.
Click to expand...

except of course if the analog and digital versions have been mastered differently. Which can often be the case, TBOS for instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top