why LP's are better
- Thread starter ARJohn
- Start date
beatcomber
AK Member
We're talking about the same thing. The CD was originally issued in 1999 (with bad noise reduction added) and then reissued in 2011 using the 2009 remasters.
TerryO
Super Member
You made a blanket, unsupported statement. I replied with the same
I had thought that you disagreed with something in particular, when in fact you were evidently just being disagreeable.
Homerx
Well-Known Member
True Players just aren't out there like CD players are. Very few can play the Audio_Ts folder on a DVD-A disc and only a few SACD players are out there. To me that is the biggest factor in there decline and low sales.
Its difficult to say if one is better then the other. To many factors to figure out. Mastering, quality of materials. How well it was pressed. Playback equipment.
I think for the average person CD is a lot more convenient to use and get to sound good.
A lot goes into vinyl playback. If you were to tell a person how to setup and playback a record. They would not know what to do.
beatcomber
AK Member
An interesting question that opens yet another can of worms.
A lot of audiophiles, myself included, often avoid newly remastered CDs of older titles and seek out early CDs pressings from the 1980s and early '90s. Why? Many newly remastered CDs have been so badly futzed with - excessive noise reduction, peak limiting compression (aka "loudness"), questionable EQ choices - that despite the more primitive analog-to-digital technology of the '80s, the earlier CD transfers sound better than the updated remasters!
It was not uncommon for early CDs to be flat, 1:1 digital clones of the master tape, with no intermediary steps in between. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes it's a bad thing, but I personally prefer that to a master that has had all of the life sucked out of it through excessive processing.
The jist of the question asked is "On average are today's mastering engineers and/or equipment better or worse than they were during the LP's heyday?" I don't believe it is. I think that the record companies are demanding certain results from the mastering engineers based on what they think the market wants, ie: loud, compressed masterings.
On the flipside, the truly audiophile releases being expertly and sensitively mastered for both vinyl and digital replication by Steve Hoffman, Kevin Gray, Chris Bellman, Bernie Grundman, etc. etc. are proof that the fine art of mastering audio is alive and well in 2011, and may well be more advanced than ever before in the history of recorded sound.
Last edited:
dnewma04
The Healer
But we're those tests ever conclusive across the board? In comparisons of very high end gear that I've seen and been a part of, there has rarely been a clear winner. I know Terry's group has all pretty well decided that vinyl is better in nearly all cases, I've never experienced such clarity in the results. The first time I heard vinyl sound comparable to CD, I was surprised. I'll be surprised again when I hear vinyl sound distinctively better. An Oracle Delphi with an SME V arm and VDH MC cart wasn't good enough to best my digital front end. Clearly, I just needed something significantly higher end.
dnewma04
The Healer
For the same reason they've been turning up the loudness on LPs since the mid 70s. People, outside of audiophiles, like it.
rcspkramp
Super Member
I am so grateful for the fact that sacd and dvd-A is a gimmick. Now I can get rid of all of that software and hardware that I've been enjoying for the last decade.
I find your signature really offensive.
Sanc
I'm Hiding in Honduras
Yep. Guess I can get rid of my multichannel collection too! :thmbsp:
flavio81
Turntable technician
If they are mastered from exactly the same source, i doubt it.
There have been quite interesting tests where listeners (audiophile listeners, not average people) can't distinguish the same program material between a CD-quality audio source and a hi-res digital audio source.
But that isn't everything. Back in 1984 the Boston Audio Society did an interesting test using the (now primitive) PCM-F1 encoder. People, including Tiefenbrum from Linn Products (who claimed digital was rubbish etc etc) couldn't distinguish between a signal coming straight from a pretty fine turntable vs the same signal processed A/D -> D/A using the PCM-F1. A rather primitive digital box at (yes, you guessed it) 44100Hz, 16 bit.
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm
There's WAY TOO MUCH myth on analog audio and way too much criticism for CD-quality audio. Philips' LHH-2000, Professional CD player from 1984, Philips' reference CD player, was found to be indistinguishable in sound from a SACD player playing the hi-res layer of the SACD on a blind test. Sadly i don't have the link to the test.
This is the LHH2000
http://www.thevintageknob.org/philips-LHH2000.html
The converters are the old, primitive (late 70s) TDA1540 chips; those are 14 bit DACs running at 4x oversampling. Exactly the same DACs used on Philips' first CD player, the CD-100. I should know, i have seen schematics for both.
Last edited:
ggrey
Sonically Insane
Great thread! I love the fact that the Beatles and George Martin's production quality (he used to include mastering instructions with the finished mastertape boxes - bass eq up 2 dbs on tracks 6&7 etc, etc) spark debates such as this after all these years.
Just got The Beatles in Mono (CD) for xmas. Sounds great, full, no harshness at all. Once I get through all the CDs I will start comparing song to song from my perspective (based on my room, equipment, various pressings and aged ears).
As for me, I love them both, but choose vinyl 90% of my listening time. You see, for good or bad, my memory cells have been conditioned over many many years by diamond and vinyl, and so I find I am seduced by all things analog
Just got The Beatles in Mono (CD) for xmas. Sounds great, full, no harshness at all. Once I get through all the CDs I will start comparing song to song from my perspective (based on my room, equipment, various pressings and aged ears).
As for me, I love them both, but choose vinyl 90% of my listening time. You see, for good or bad, my memory cells have been conditioned over many many years by diamond and vinyl, and so I find I am seduced by all things analog
beatcomber
AK Member
Of course, those mastering instructions were only relevant to the limitations of the phonographs and cartridges of the 1960s...
Paul McCartney famously pushed mastering engineer Harry Moss to not attenuate the bass when Moss was cutting the lacquer for the "Paperback Writer" 45. Moss cautioned him that it would cause the needle to pop out of the groove on most phonographs!
Last edited:
Sanc
I'm Hiding in Honduras
Same here, gotta listen to what you find best.
I really don't put too much stake into those kind of tests. I know what I hear and most people will agree. Yea sure there are some CD releases that are mastered superbly and will honestly sound like high resolution. But to say that any hi rez release by any artist sounds equal to lower quality editions is absurd. In some cases sure, I would assume with classical stuff, but that is far too bold a statement. My classic rock collection is proof of that.
bluesky
Lunatic Member
LPs have the full range feeling, the full spectrum of sound...it's analog.
CDs, no matter how good they sound, and some really do 'sound good' (especially when played on the new(er) CD players)...CDs just don't have the 'guts'. The feeling. The warmpth. The reality of sound. And they certainly don't have the "Yeah, bash!!"
Ya never see anyone in a big hurry to put on another CD, it's like...So what.
When playing LPs everyone 'always' wants to play another LP. They are even checking out the LP covers for what they want to hear next.
(I wonder why??!!) :thmbsp:
I do enjoy CDs too, I have 600+. But I prefer LPs for the 'Yeah, Bash' true feeling.
Analog is analog, digital is digital. That's it. It's 2 totally different mediums.
I've read that people born into the digital age may even prefer digital over analog. Can't quite understand that one. It must be that that is the sound that they are used to, accoustomed to. I know it doesn't sound real. It doesn't sound like a live concert. Live music. It sounds like...digital.
I like CDs. They are easy, convient, and great when drinking. At least you won't trash your TT or records. The flip side is quality TTs and Cartridges are not cheap, need to be set up right, and handled with extreme care. Records scratch easy too.
Guess it's whatever you like. Whatever works for you.
Yes, totally agree.
CDs, no matter how good they sound, and some really do 'sound good' (especially when played on the new(er) CD players)...CDs just don't have the 'guts'. The feeling. The warmpth. The reality of sound. And they certainly don't have the "Yeah, bash!!"
Ya never see anyone in a big hurry to put on another CD, it's like...So what.
When playing LPs everyone 'always' wants to play another LP. They are even checking out the LP covers for what they want to hear next.
(I wonder why??!!) :thmbsp:
I do enjoy CDs too, I have 600+. But I prefer LPs for the 'Yeah, Bash' true feeling.
Analog is analog, digital is digital. That's it. It's 2 totally different mediums.
I've read that people born into the digital age may even prefer digital over analog. Can't quite understand that one. It must be that that is the sound that they are used to, accoustomed to. I know it doesn't sound real. It doesn't sound like a live concert. Live music. It sounds like...digital.
I like CDs. They are easy, convient, and great when drinking. At least you won't trash your TT or records. The flip side is quality TTs and Cartridges are not cheap, need to be set up right, and handled with extreme care. Records scratch easy too.
Guess it's whatever you like. Whatever works for you.
Yes, totally agree.
Last edited:
I've done thousands of analog to digital transfers over the past few years, many for paying customers. The end product for customers is CD-R so by default final resolution is 44.1/16. However, I have done transfers at higher sampling rates and made careful comparisons. I can't hear the difference between transfers made at 44.1/16 and 96/24. Sure the higher resolution provides more headroom and can be an advantage if you're filtering or processing the file, but beyond that, IMO there's no audible advantage.
Agreed! I recently had occasion to host 20 fellow audio recording students from the local college. We met in my studio and did 'shoot-outs' comparing various releases both recent and much older on vinyl and CD. Beatles "Abbey Road", Devo "Something For Everybody", REM "Accelerate", and Pink Floyd "DSOTM." There was no definitive conclusion that one was better than the other. In some cases (The REM CD) the sound was terrible, something we attributed to over compression/bad mastering. In the case of Abbey Road and DSOTM, the CD and vinyl were so very close. A slight nod overall was given to vinyl but in all fairness that may have more to do with my excellent cartridge & turntable versus a modest low-priced CD player than anything else.
Homerx
Well-Known Member
Vinyl/analog is for when you want to listen to Music.
CDs/Digital is for when you want to hear Music.
By this I mean. for me I often multi-task when a FLAC file or CD are playing. when spinning a record I just listen. is it because more work is involved with analog playback. well maybe.
CDs/Digital is for when you want to hear Music.
By this I mean. for me I often multi-task when a FLAC file or CD are playing. when spinning a record I just listen. is it because more work is involved with analog playback. well maybe.
beatcomber
AK Member
I'm sorry, but that's just silly. Maybe you need to upgrade your CD player.