Hendrix416
Nice Buzz/Good Tunes
Here's my take on.......um, what's the use anymore?
why LP's are better
- Thread starter ARJohn
- Start date
thomo57
Super Member
nickrobotron
una bella tazza di caffe
CD's generally have a warmer sound. Plus I like the pops and clicks that come with CD's. And then there's the whole ritual of actually placing the disc into the loading tray and hitting the play button. There's something missing when I play vinyl. It must be the act of breathing on it and polishing it with my t-shirt like I do with CD's
Gang-Twanger
Resident Wharfedaliophool
Yeah, it's awfully-hard to turn a record over while you're driving..... You might drop your cellphone.
You made a blanket, unsupported statement. I replied with the same
Gang-Twanger
Resident Wharfedaliophool
:lmao:
bobbyonions
AK Member
Who cares.
marc mc
Super Member
I miss the days when these debates could be settled by a couple guys in the same town meeting up at a stereo store.
I lived around the corner from a Linn dealer for years and used to drop in all the time. They never debated with customers or audiophiles about what was better! They would just say "bring it in".
I can't count how many times I saw the quite, shocked look as a guy silently ate some crow. There was no need for debate, argument or commentary. Just bring in your this or that, and we will see what it sounds like next to this or that. Case closed end of story.
Far too many of today's audiophiles experience their systems in a vacuum. And because it's better than their brother in laws, friends and co-workers they think it's a real representation of what's going on.
Marc mc
I lived around the corner from a Linn dealer for years and used to drop in all the time. They never debated with customers or audiophiles about what was better! They would just say "bring it in".
I can't count how many times I saw the quite, shocked look as a guy silently ate some crow. There was no need for debate, argument or commentary. Just bring in your this or that, and we will see what it sounds like next to this or that. Case closed end of story.
Far too many of today's audiophiles experience their systems in a vacuum. And because it's better than their brother in laws, friends and co-workers they think it's a real representation of what's going on.
Marc mc
Last edited:
beatcomber
AK Member
Is your copy of "Beatles 1" the original 1999 issue in the jewelcase or the remaster in the digipac? The original CD from 1999 sounds like CRAP. It was NoNoised to death and all of the life was sucked out of the music.
The poor sound on the '99 "Beatles 1" CD is not the fault of the medium, but due to the poor choices made during the mastering.
The 2009 Beatles stereo remasters aren't perfect, but they certainly give the old Parlophone vinyl a run for its money. I have MANY CDs that sound as good or better than their LP counterparts.
It's like the old Jimmie Lunceford toon..."T'ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it, THAT'S what gets results!"
This statement makes no sense. The LP and CD were both mastered from 2-track stereo or full-track mono mixdown tapes. The 4-track tapes were the work parts that the stereo and mono mixes were derived from and not the source material for any commericial release, on any format.
If I can further nit-pick, "From Me To You" was recorded on twin-track, ie: direct to stereo. Abbey Road didn't get a four-track machine until a few months later, in late '63. That's why all the backing instrumentation is on one channel and the vocals and harmonica are on the other channel; to facilitate getting the most cohesive blending in mono. (George Martin was not concerned with getting a good stereo mix at that time.) The first two Beatles LPs were recorded in the same way. Their first 4-track session was for "I Want to Hold You Hand" and "This Boy."
Last edited:
Sansui Louie
Curmudgeon
A rock.
burmashave
Super Member
ARJohn
Super Member
Wow , I opened a can of worms I guess . So I checked the liner notes on the Cd , "from me to you " is mono which accounts for some of my listening surprise and yes it is the 2000 remaster disc . I only played the one song off it. So I should re-phrase my title to say "FMTY parlaphone Lp stereo version is better than the 2000 One version on CD" Again to my ears , my gear.
beatcomber
AK Member
No kidding. I really like the sound of the Beatles' 2009 mono remasters...
You're still not comparing the same thing. It may be that you just prefer it in stereo.
ARJohn
Super Member
Well I do like the funny stereo version better as that's what I grew up with but also I think your comment on the 2000 remaster version may be correct also :scratch2:
Sanc
I'm Hiding in Honduras
I never even touch my redbook CDs anymore. Its either my LPs or SACDs. Speaking of included digital downloads... my 2011 180g WYWH came with a 320kbps DL of the album... Why no FLAC???? Doesn't really matter as I have the SACD which is the best digital release ever IMHO.
Do you guys think part of the reason why LPs typically sound much better than CDs is because the mastering back in the early days were better on average? Obviously the main reason is analog > digital, but it seems that a lot of mastering on CDs falls into the loudness wars category and all that hubbub.
Do you guys think part of the reason why LPs typically sound much better than CDs is because the mastering back in the early days were better on average? Obviously the main reason is analog > digital, but it seems that a lot of mastering on CDs falls into the loudness wars category and all that hubbub.
Last edited:
flavio81
Turntable technician
Here we go again...
CD > LP as a medium, although for practical purposes they're equal. What you put into a medium, is another matter altogether.
Better mastering > Average mastering, everytime. The better mastered issue wins, be it either CD or LP.
And don't get me started on SACD/DVD-A/Hi-res digital. That's a gimmick. The best DAC wins everytime regardless if the source is 44.1KHz or 192KHz. Sampling theory still holds true, no matter what the deluded audiophile press wants to claim. 192KHz/24bit is better, though, for doing production (and thus applying lots of effects / processing to the original audio wave). 32bit even better.
CD > LP as a medium, although for practical purposes they're equal. What you put into a medium, is another matter altogether.
Better mastering > Average mastering, everytime. The better mastered issue wins, be it either CD or LP.
And don't get me started on SACD/DVD-A/Hi-res digital. That's a gimmick. The best DAC wins everytime regardless if the source is 44.1KHz or 192KHz. Sampling theory still holds true, no matter what the deluded audiophile press wants to claim. 192KHz/24bit is better, though, for doing production (and thus applying lots of effects / processing to the original audio wave). 32bit even better.
Naptown Rob
Ponographer
FWIW, "1" was remastered again in 2011....
That may be part of it. Other potential causes include poor CD players and the tendency of analog front ends to exhibit highish second-harmonic distortion, which adds an artificial warmth to the music that many listeners find pleasing.
Many of us don't see that point as obvious at all. Comparing specs between CD and LP would lead one to exactly the opposite conclusion, in fact. On my system, my best digital recordings sound slightly better than my best analog recordings.
That's true of many popular music recordings, but not of most classical or jazz releases.
Sanc
I'm Hiding in Honduras
Strongly disagree with that. Saying hirez is a gimmick. I think most people will agree that a properly mastered SACD/DVD-A will surpass a properly mastered CD.
Yea obviously what you put into it is what gives the final result. This is why I am a fan of the new SHM-SACDs. Not because of the stupid SHM material, but because the mastering on many of them are done very well.
Yea obviously CDs will outlast LP as a medium. I think that goes without saying and I don't think that is arguable in any way.
And I agree, classical and jazz releases typically sound very good on RBCD.
Yea obviously what you put into it is what gives the final result. This is why I am a fan of the new SHM-SACDs. Not because of the stupid SHM material, but because the mastering on many of them are done very well.
Yea obviously CDs will outlast LP as a medium. I think that goes without saying and I don't think that is arguable in any way.
And I agree, classical and jazz releases typically sound very good on RBCD.