The L-Power Official greatest Albums of all time discussion thread

1 - The Dark Side Of The Moon, Pink Floyd

 

2 - IV - Led Zeppelin

 

3 - Close To The Edge - Yes

 

 

Honorable mention

 

Phaedra - Tangerine Dream

 

Ommadawn - Mike Oldfield.

 

 

 

1 - The Dark Side Of The Moon, Pink Floyd

 

2 - IV - Led Zeppelin

 

3 - Close To The Edge - Yes

 

 

Honorable mention

 

Phaedra - Tangerine Dream

 

Ommadawn - Mike Oldfield.

 

 

I forgot to list that one from Yes! Glad to see another Yes fan! I really got into them when I was 19. I haven't stopped loving them since! Do you like King Crimson too? (Their earlier albums?)

I forgot to list that one from Yes! Glad to see another Yes fan! I really got into them when I was 19. I haven't stopped loving them since! Do you like King Crimson too? (Their earlier albums?)

 

Actually I listen to Yes more than Pink Floyd.

KIng Crimson? Of course, my favorite is In The Court Of The Crimson King, and/or Lizard.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Queen's Night At The Opera. Love Queen.

 

damn...u guys go old school.. LOL I know some of those albums...great choice! I was born in the bon jovi time

An album so great people refer to it simply as Exile.

 

Exile on Main Street.

Back in Black AC/DC

 

Appetite for Destruction. Guns n Roses

 

Joshua Tree. U2

 

Any Zeppelin album, well maybe not Coda but the rest for sure

 

Axis bold as love. Jimi Hendrix

 

Rumours. Fleetwood Mac

 

London Calling. The Clash

 

 

....

Justin Bieber, all of his albums

Ok, Round 2. Just a reminder/disclaimer that I picked these based primarily on their sonic superiority. The following should be a bit more entertaining that the last 2.

 

"Casino Royale" movie soundtrack, Burt Bacharach, Dusty Sprigfield, Herb Alpert et al, Colgems COSO-5005/COMO-5005

(This is not the Daniel Craig's Bond movie soundtrack but the comedy/satire film on James Bond made in the 60's.)

 

Any audiophile worth his salt should have at least one of this album in his collection. This is likely one of THE reference disc for a system set up. It's a very simple recording especially the song by Dusty "The Look of Love". Percussion (güiro and cymbal) on one side, piano on the other with Dusty in the middle slight off-centred and with Herb on the trumpet joining half way. It's also the simplicity that makes the recording so revealing. When properly set up (mainly on speaker placements), everything just "appear" in front of you in the perfect scale and proportions. But when done wrongly, Dusty's vocal will seem like her mouth is 10-inches wide and is broadcasted through a megaphone while Herb's trumpet is the size of a pipe organ!

 

Here is a clip of it and by no means is it close to reference sound quality. But if it sounds this good on YouTube from your PC, imagine how good it is on a hi-end hi-fi system.

 

 

 

Jazz at the Pawnshop vol.1, various artists, PROP-7778-79

 

Another reference-quality album. This one featuring a small jazz ensemble in a relatively small venue. The recording is so precise and detailed that it captured all the nuances of everything: the musicians' breaths, how their fingers glide and pluck their music instruments; the crowd and the back ground noises; everything has been minutely and properly captured. So much so that one actually has the "you are there" feeling when playing this album. A slight caution: if you agree that this album is great and want to buy it, just get vol. 1. There are vol 2 & 3 as well but, sadly, the recordings are no where as good as the vol.1

 

 

 

"The Mission" movie soundtrack, Ennio Morricone, Virgin 00602537540426

(Not any of the Mission Impossible series. This is the one starring Robert De Niro about missionary in South America.)

 

It's orchestral work but it's beautifully done and greatly recorded. It has the full energy of the entire orchestral ensemble with huge percussion movements to match, it has the finesse of solo and the one oboe solo is among the very best. Whether classical is your cup of tea or not, you should at least sample the oboe solo as it is just so beautifully played and recorded. Honestly, when is the last time you heard an oboe that sounded so great (if ever)?

 

The following is not the original score from the film's soundtrack but it's a good representation of how good the score sounds (the original film score is also on YouTube but somehow it sounds like crap and is no where remotely close to a fair representation on how good the original recording is.)

Since we have a lot of Zeppelin fans here. If you haven't seen this tribute, please take a couple minutes and check it out. Incredibly powerful tribute

 

Watch and enjoy:

 

...

This forum needs a goddamn like button. lol. I just read through all of this and I swear on at least 5 occasions I was looking to "like" the post...

 

 

 

Anyway-- This is a tough one. Just "album of all time" or is it more specific to studio work? I mean- the unplugged performances were mentioned- and as a Child of the 80's and 90's and as a guitar player since about 92'- I sort of have a soft spot for those- even though I appreciate them MUCH more now than I did then and to be completely honest- In most cases, I find live performances to be far superior to the studio stuff. NOT in quality- we all know these are tracked over tracked etc.. but live= because it is real.

 

That being said- I only very recently RE-discovered the Page and Plant No Quarter album thanks to pandora, actually.- damn it, I just remembered I intended on buying that. The Performance of Kashmir with the Egyptian Orchestra.. OHH EMM GGEEE. Vocals aren't all that great as you can see he just doesn't have some of them notes anymore- but I never cared much for singing as much as the music anyway- Put that track through a solid set of headphones.. it hits SOOOO hard and POSITIVE- for lack of a better adjective.. coming out of the interlude.. Here.. let me help you-

 

Invalid Video Link (annoying)

 

https://vimeo.com/80222634

 

 

Funny- they looked so old to me when that came out-- but now... err.. emm..

 

 

That aside though, and admitting I love some Pink Floyd and Nirvana and Alice in chains.. YES, SUPERTRAMP.. etc.. I have to say that my ALL time favorite album is "Blue Wild Angel", Hendrix- Live at the Isle of Wight.

 

This album- until recently- I thought was his last performance before he passed. I might have heard there was another in there somewhere? Anyway- this concert was a train wreck on many levels- but that is what made it so damn good. Woodstock was really good- I'd say epic, actually, for Hendrix- but this Isle of Wight is burned on me as the most important.

 

The versions of.. aw christ.. I could say just about any song on there-... are great for their own reasons, errors, brilliance. These songs were played here quite differently than all of the other shows- Although, I did just hear some stuff from Atlanta Pop which was recorded just a month or two before- which sounded like similar arrangements, just not as refined... I love this because it shows evolution. I can barely tolerate just about anything on the studio albums at this point because the songs changed SOO much the more he played them.

 

 

If there was one person in history that I wish I could sit down with for an hour- it would have been Jimi Hendrix. If he isn't available for that- I'd also take the Character Cosmo Kramer...

...

Okay, not an album, but I think it's one of the best dang live performances out there. Best enjoyed with headphones!

 

A bit off topic but I am really curious here...

 

I have heard on various occasions from this forum and many many times elsewhere about people praising headphones. I honestly do not quite get it. Regrets to Doc K and all those who praised on headphones. And I am not trashing headphones as they have indeed come a long way and especially taken giant leaps in the past 5 years. But they are far from being desirable when compare to speakers on sonic attributes.

 

I may be answering to my own question already especially coming from an audiophile's point of view. Speakers are not exactly small and/or portable. And you need an entire set up (at least one other big box) to make them play. And, admittedly, I too was initially amazed when I heard the first "Walkman" many many moons ago. But headphones and earbuds just aren't comparable to real speakers. It's almost like comparing a turbo-charged/super-charged V6 to a normally aspirated V12. Yes, they both do the job and the V6 can be rather good with some positive attributes. But nothing can replace good old displacement. The same can almost be said about speakers. True that you need to know about speaker placement and how they react to the room whereas for headphones, one simply wears them on your head or plug them in your ears. But once your experienced the difference --- which is night and day --- there is no substitute or turning back.

 

One cannot get proper soundstage and correct imaging with headphones. The left & right and/or "surround" effects might be cool initially but they are sonically incorrect. With headphones, everything seems to take place a few inches above one's head and this is not an accurate reproduction of any performance by any means. The number of headphones that can somewhat produce a proper soundstage and imagery can be counted by one hand. And the only kind of headphones that may have some superiority would be the electrostatic headphones which do offer super fine highs with total transparency. But that's at a trade-off of paying a 4 to 5-figure sum and you are literally wearing a device with hundreds or thousands of volts churning at either side of your head; not exactly a comfortable thought.

 

Again, regrets for the rant and this is not by any means whatsoever a jab of any kind to anyone here. I am just outright curious on what "music" had evolved into. I guess most are willing to trade sonic degradation for portability and convenience? And I guess many simply want some tunes and it matters not whether it is sonically correct or not; some music, however inaccurate, is better than no music at all I suppose?

 

A bit off topic but I am really curious here...

 

I have heard on various occasions from this forum and many many times elsewhere about people praising headphones. I honestly do not quite get it. Regrets to Doc K and all those who praised on headphones. And I am not trashing headphones as they have indeed come a long way and especially taken giant leaps in the past 5 years. But they are far from being desirable when compare to speakers on sonic attributes.

 

I may be answering to my own question already especially coming from an audiophile's point of view. Speakers are not exactly small and/or portable. And you need an entire set up (at least one other big box) to make them play. And, admittedly, I too was initially amazed when I heard the first "Walkman" many many moons ago. But headphones and earbuds just aren't comparable to real speakers. It's almost like comparing a turbo-charged/super-charged V6 to a normally aspirated V12. Yes, they both do the job and the V6 can be rather good with some positive attributes. But nothing can replace good old displacement. The same can almost be said about speakers. True that you need to know about speaker placement and how they react to the room whereas for headphones, one simply wears them on your head or plug them in your ears. But once your experienced the difference --- which is night and day --- there is no substitute or turning back.

 

One cannot get proper soundstage and correct imaging with headphones. The left & right and/or "surround" effects might be cool initially but they are sonically incorrect. With headphones, everything seems to take place a few inches above one's head and this is not an accurate reproduction of any performance by any means. The number of headphones that can somewhat produce a proper soundstage and imagery can be counted by one hand. And the only kind of headphones that may have some superiority would be the electrostatic headphones which do offer super fine highs with total transparency. But that's at a trade-off of paying a 4 to 5-figure sum and you are literally wearing a device with hundreds or thousands of volts churning at either side of your head; not exactly a comfortable thought.

 

Again, regrets for the rant and this is not by any means whatsoever a jab of any kind to anyone here. I am just outright curious on what "music" had evolved into. I guess most are willing to trade sonic degradation for portability and convenience? And I guess many simply want some tunes and it matters not whether it is sonically correct or not; some music, however inaccurate, is better than no music at all I suppose?

 

 

You're an audiophile, not the general mass. I bought senheisers CX150 two days ago because my old senhs started to crackle. Basically I was at the store, these were the best -in ear buds- available, i looked at amazon and saw like 80 reviews and 4.2 average rating. People were specifically saying these had good mids, where other companies slack. I came home and thought they sounded ok. BUt I opened up my old ones and cleaned them, and gave them a listen when I realized the crackling went away. The new ones afterwards sounded terribly flat, no depth at all. In fact I used your Casino Royale example and while my old good ones still make the trumpet sound too loud and her voice too, the new ones are far worse, doing exactly what you described with amplification, and eliminating the mids. But yet, 4.2 rating.

 

 

What would be the minimum amount to build a quality system, that's the question i'd be curious about.

 

You're an audiophile, not the general mass. I bought senheisers CX150 two days ago because my old senhs started to crackle. Basically I was at the store, these were the best -in ear buds- available, i looked at amazon and saw like 80 reviews and 4.2 average rating. People were specifically saying these had good mids, where other companies slack. I came home and thought they sounded ok. BUt I opened up my old ones and cleaned them, and gave them a listen when I realized the crackling went away. The new ones afterwards sounded terribly flat, no depth at all. In fact I used your Casino Royale example and while my old good ones still make the trumpet sound too loud and her voice too, the new ones are far worse, doing exactly what you described with amplification, and eliminating the mids. But yet, 4.2 rating.

 

 

What would be the minimum amount to build a quality system, that's the question i'd be curious about.

 

I'd say probably around $3-4k. You can dedicate about $2k for a decent bare minimum tube amp and then scrape by on everything else.

 

But then at the same time saying all of this is like VCR and I saying "well, $32k will buy you a new V8 Mustang". Decent car, but just getting started. Maybe you can dip down to $20-25k for a nice front drive Abarth 500 or Mini, but I'm sure you get the point.

 

The one issue I do have with headphones is that the whole portable market totally undermined good mastering, because if you ever hear a really dynamic recording on an ipod through headphones, chances are it's still a bit quiet when you turn it all the way up.

 

 

I remember the first time I listened to NIN Pretty Hate Machine.....

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

 

 

You should add Huey Lewis and the News and Phil Collins to that list.

The one issue I do have with headphones is that the whole portable market totally undermined good mastering, because if you ever hear a really dynamic recording on an ipod through headphones, chances are it's still a bit quiet when you turn it all the way up.

 

Exactly, there is absolutely no "feel" to the music via headphones.

 

As for a quality system, one has to narrow down to your needs or expectation first. I.e. separate pre & power amps or integrated amp? An actual disc-player or mostly downloaded music? Obviously, the more"boxes" you have, the more costly it will be and matching could be a pain. But I would agree with Fellippe on the cost; I might go down to 2.5k as a bare minimum start.

 

If one is into download music primarily, wants a great looking box, doesn't play music at extremely loud level and accepts above-average sound, give the Naim Mu-so a try. It's not hi-end by any means but it is a serious piece of hardware that is stylish to match and, most importantly, the sound quality is decent. For around $1500 and without all the wiring hassle and the way it blends in just fine with the house, it's not bad at all. (sorry, getting way off topic here...)

 

Rawr, hook up your new CX-150 earbuds on a playback device and put it in infinite loop/repeat. I.e. play the CX-150 for 2 or 3 days straight (at least) and things should improve. Like most things, headphones/earbuds need to be run-in so let them play for a few good days and they should mellow out somewhat.

Exactly, there is absolutely no "feel" to the music via headphones.

 

As for a quality system, one has to narrow down to your needs or expectation first. I.e. separate pre & power amps or integrated amp? An actual disc-player or mostly downloaded music? Obviously, the more"boxes" you have, the more costly it will be and matching could be a pain. But I would agree with Fellippe on the cost; I might go down to 2.5k as a bare minimum start.

 

If one is into download music primarily, wants a great looking box, doesn't play music at extremely loud level and accepts above-average sound, give the Naim Mu-so a try. It's not hi-end by any means but it is a serious piece of hardware that is stylish to match and, most importantly, the sound quality is decent. For around $1500 and without all the wiring hassle and the way it blends in just fine with the house, it's not bad at all. (sorry, getting way off topic here...)

 

Thank you for the recommendation, that's a good looking system and yeah I'd be downloading, wouldn't want to get into vynil yet. Sorry for off tracking.

^Oops, posted the edit/revision at the same time. Please see the last paragraph added for you.

You should add Huey Lewis and the News and Phil Collins to that list.

 

 

Do you like Huey Lewis and The News?

 

Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes, but when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically.

You should add Huey Lewis and the News and Phil Collins to that list.

 

These?