Neil Young: Massey Hall 1971

Johnny Vinyl

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 16, 2010
8,571
14
38
Calgary, AB
#1

Johnny Vinyl

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 16, 2010
8,571
14
38
Calgary, AB
#2
Even though this album is usually named "Live at Massey Hall 1971"...that is incorrect. It is Neil Young: Massey Hall 1971.
 

Lee

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2011
1,537
89
405
Alpharetta, Georgia
#3
This Classic LP is arguably the best sounding LP in my fast growing collection. More importantly the performance is magnificent.
 
Aug 21, 2011
98
0
0
Mississauga, On
#4
I have no doubt that fifty years from now when someone is going to build a Neil Young collection this recording will be considered a cornerstone. A long time Neil Young fan, I have affinity for the scorching rockers and the intimate solo pieces but these versions, presented so honestly deserve to be heard. I was in attendance for a May, 2011 Neil Young solo date at Massey Hall and have been a somewhat regular to the venue since the mid seventies (first time late '60s) and the recording does have the "feel" or "sound" of the hall.
A treasure!
 

Lee

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2011
1,537
89
405
Alpharetta, Georgia
#6
This remains in heavy rotation at my house. Spectacular music and sound.
 
Jul 1, 2010
8,677
3
0
#7
Yeah this is just wonderful stuff; a great songwriter at the peak of his powers presenting his best material to a loving audience in the most simple and straightforward way possible. And yes, a great recording too. If you don't have a vinyl rig, don't hesitate. The CD is just fine.

Tim
 

Johnny Vinyl

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 16, 2010
8,571
14
38
Calgary, AB
#8
Yeah this is just wonderful stuff; a great songwriter at the peak of his powers presenting his best material to a loving audience in the most simple and straightforward way possible. And yes, a great recording too. If you don't have a vinyl rig, don't hesitate. The CD is just fine.

Tim

Ok...so I'm a year late. Shoot me!;)

I only have this on 320MP3, but its pretty decent. I would love a better version though.
 
Jul 1, 2010
8,677
3
0
#9
Ok...so I'm a year late. Shoot me!;)

I only have this on 320MP3, but its pretty decent. I would love a better version though.
John, it's ok. I'm sure 320 is great. I'm sure 320 sounds like the CD.

Tim
 

Johnny Vinyl

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 16, 2010
8,571
14
38
Calgary, AB
#10

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
9,483
6
0
#11
John, it's ok. I'm sure 320 is great. I'm sure 320 sounds like the CD.

Tim
Do you mean sort of sounds like the CD? MP3 is a lossy CODEC right? That means it threw information out the window right? Information that will never be retrieved much like Humpty Dumpty couldn't be put back together again right? Who here on WBF is a proponent of throwing information from a recording out the window so that you can save dirt-cheap digital storage space in hopes that your ears or system are bad enough that you won't notice the missing information?? I don't get it.
 
Jul 1, 2010
8,677
3
0
#12
Do you mean sort of sounds like the CD? MP3 is a lossy CODEC right? That means it threw information out the window right? Information that will never be retrieved much like Humpty Dumpty couldn't be put back together again right? Who here on WBF is a proponent of throwing information from a recording out the window so that you can save dirt-cheap digital storage space in hopes that your ears or system are bad enough that you won't notice the missing information?? I don't get it.
What I mean is that if I had the CD in my hands I'd burn a lossless file to my hard drive, because, as you so beligerently pointed out, HD space is cheap. But if all that was available to me was 320kbps (and that's what John has), I'd listen to it gladly and without worries, knowing that I've tested myself quite a few times (320kbps AAC files) and haven't been able to consistently differentiate between 320kbps and lossless, across a variety of material. Have you? Can you consistently differentiate between them? Have you ever tested your ability to do so? Blind? No? Well, hell son...that's why you don't get it!

Tim
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
9,009
2,921
770
#13
What I mean is that if I had the CD in my hands I'd burn a lossless file to my hard drive, because, as you so beligerently pointed out, HD space is cheap. But if all that was available to me was 320kbps (and that's what John has), I'd listen to it gladly and without worries, knowing that I've tested myself quite a few times (320kbps AAC files) and haven't been able to consistently differentiate between 320kbps and lossless, across a variety of material. Have you? Can you consistently differentiate between them? Have you ever tested your ability to do so? Blind? No? Well, hell son...that's why you don't get it!

Tim
as always, not every system equally reveals differences in formats.

not to say these differences are equally valued either. some don't care so much, other care alot.

i'm just say'n that with so many variables MEP and you can both be right.

in my car CD verses XM/Sirrius is not always obvious, although it mostly is easy to tell. OTOH in my home system MP3 or any sort of lossey format verses lossless differences jump out.
 

Johnny Vinyl

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 16, 2010
8,571
14
38
Calgary, AB
#14
Many times I can't tell the difference between a 320MP3 and the CD, but I suppose in this case (Massey hall) I probably would, which doesn't mean to say the 320 I have is unbearable or not enjoyable. It's just that I find this to be so well-recorded that a higher bit-rate would help.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
9,483
6
0
#15
What I mean is that if I had the CD in my hands I'd burn a lossless file to my hard drive, because, as you so beligerently pointed out, HD space is cheap. But if all that was available to me was 320kbps (and that's what John has), I'd listen to it gladly and without worries, knowing that I've tested myself quite a few times (320kbps AAC files) and haven't been able to consistently differentiate between 320kbps and lossless, across a variety of material. Have you? Can you consistently differentiate between them? Have you ever tested your ability to do so? Blind? No? Well, hell son...that's why you don't get it!

Tim
Got it Tim. All we need for perfect (?) or good enough (?) digital reproduction is 320kbps and we have arrived. I have just posted my listening impressions of listening to RB files vs. DSD (64fs) files and I don't find the differences to be subtle. I really don't want to dumb that down to below RB quality because I wasn't happy with RB quality. And maybe some RB files (and not all because I know better) sound bad enough that it doesn't matter if you step down to lossy files and think they sound the same as RB and you can save your money and storage space. Again, WBF morphs into What's Good Enough (WGE).

What I find interesting about this discussion is that some people are doing what they can in order to improve their digital resolution and hear the best that digital has to offer. Even though I am an analog guy at heart, I have tried to maintain the capability to play back digital files at higher bit and resolution rates than RB CD so I could gauge where CD is in relation to analog in order to see how close the gap is closing between the two. It amazes me that people who hate analog and only believe in digital have settled for far less than what digital recording technology has to offer in terms of ultimate sound quality.

I want to keep my toes in both oceans so I have some appreciation for what both are bringing to the table. I have come to the conclusion that DSD files played back through the Mytek Stereo 192 DAC are in another league compared to RB files. To think about regressing to 320kbps lossy files and pronouncing them “good enough” in comparison to what digital can really offer seems counterintuitive in my experience. And this is coming from a guy who is keeping a wary eye on digital to see what it can really do vice being someone who is a dyed in the wool digital lover who eschews analog at all costs (literally). Again, I just find the position that is being taken that 320kbps is good enough for digital to be ironic on a forum that is supposed to be dedicated to What’s Best.

So maybe the take away here is that everyone who has invested in digital reproduction that goes beyond RB CD has wasted their money and needs to take yet another DB test in order to ‘prove’ that they can hear the difference between 320kbps vs. RB let alone 24/192 or DSD files.
 
Sep 1, 2011
131
0
16
CA (USA)
#16
I have the DVD and ripped it 24/96. It is one of a small handful of examples where I can honestly say (having the lossy mp3 version as well as the CD) that the higher res really does help. (Unfortunately, there are some other NY high res examples that, upon Audacity Cowboy[SUP]TM[/SUP] inspection, appear to be crudely up-sampled red-book.)
 

Johnny Vinyl

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 16, 2010
8,571
14
38
Calgary, AB
#18
I played a couple sides of this record today. It is a great record on vinyl.
It's sublime on vinyl.. very few LP's in my collection compare.
 

Bill Hart

Active Member
May 11, 2012
2,592
1
36
#19
It's sublime on vinyl.. very few LP's in my collection compare.
Very well written, thoughtful review. I liked the freshness of the performance, the recording quality is pretty amazing given that it is a live album, one of the reasons i put it on today, aside from always enjoying him musically, is that I wanted to hear what the system was sounding like as I change tubes and a component, and this record is a pretty reliable indicator of the midrange. Have you done many published reviews? I don't normally read that mag, but I will start to, given its apparent focus on vinyl.
 

Johnny Vinyl

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 16, 2010
8,571
14
38
Calgary, AB
#20
Very well written, thoughtful review. I liked the freshness of the performance, the recording quality is pretty amazing given that it is a live album, one of the reasons i put it on today, aside from always enjoying him musically, is that I wanted to hear what the system was sounding like as I change tubes and a component, and this record is a pretty reliable indicator of the midrange. Have you done many published reviews? I don't normally read that mag, but I will start to, given its apparent focus on vinyl.
Whoa! Bill you just threw me for a loop here! Didn't think anybody paid any attention to what I write or wrote. I've written several reviews but not lately. I'd like to again and I hope that Rich will accept those submissions. I actually have to go back and read what I wrote.....oh, oh!

Thank you! You just made me smile, so my day is complete! ;)
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high-end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. A place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss existing and new audio products, music servers, music streamers and computer audio, digital to audio converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel to reel, speakers, headphones, tube amplifiers and solid state amplification. Founded in 2010 What's Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing