IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

LPs that actually do sound better?, Somebody Should Make a List
tonybelding
post Sep 9 2010, 05:08
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 83700



Hi all. . . I'm new here, but I've been pointed towards this site many times in the past to settle questions about audio -- especially about digital compression.

So anyhow. . . I got me a turntable!

What prompted me to get it was a series of records that National Geographic published back in the 70s and which never were released on CD. They were high production quality stuff: gatefold, elaborate liner notes, etc. It was supposed to be a history of American music -- an early example of edu-tainment, you might say. I fondly remembered some of these from when I was little, and I thought it would be cool to collect the LPs (thanks to the modern miracle of eBay) and digitize them, and put them in my iTunes library. QED, right?

I first thought I'd get one of those cheap USB turntables, but then I did a little research and found out they were basically crummy, so of course I wanted a better one. . . and one thing led to another. I ended up with a Technics SL-D2 with a Shure M95ED cartridge, which seems to be working pretty well so far. It's been a long time since I had a turntable, and this is way better than any I had before.

So, I dug out some other old LPs. One that particularly pleases me is Blue Oyster Cult's The Revolution By Night. It sounds way better than the CD. The CD is one of those early releases that were. . . messed up. I don't know exactly what the explanation is, but it seems around 1984-86 there were a fair number of CDs that came out sounding thin, harsh and bright. I suspect it had something to do with the mad rush to convert whole back catalogs ASAP while engineers were still getting used to the new format and equipment.

Adding insult to injury, the CD was a "budget" release with the (excellent IMHO) cover art shrunk to about cassette size and surrounded with a useless border proclaiming what a bargain it was. The sleeve art was jettisoned entirely. Gee thanks, CBS Records! mad.gif

I've tinkered with the CD rip before, applying equalization -- greatly reducing the higher frequencies -- and re-normalizing it, and I was able to make the CD sound a lot better. Even so, apparently I never totally figured it out, because the LP still sounds better to me.

At the end of this long story, I'm left wondering. . . Can anybody suggest other LPs that are notably better than their CD release? I mean examples where the CD was messed up in some way, whether it was equalization or over-compression, clipping, whatever, while the LP was OK. Bonus points could be awarded if the LP has great cover art, gatefold art, etc!

We could even make a list of these; it seems like somebody ought to.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
2Bdecided
post Sep 15 2010, 18:58
Post #2


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5360
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural. That "4dB of peak limiting" on the new releases that no one was supposed to notice may be audible after all.


Problem is, to me, the question becomes "which CD releases are so compromised that the vinyl sounds better". That's not a reason to buy a turntable. That's a reason to buy a CD (so you've paid the artist), and then find a decent needle drop to listen to instead. There may be other ways of paying the artist.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Sep 16 2010, 17:18
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 2517
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 15 2010, 13:58) *
You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural.



To whom?


One should consider, too, that the master tapes were new when the original UK vinyl was cut. They're ~40 yrs old now (except for the remixed ones, of course, which are ~20 yrs old) . So it's not quite apples to apples (no pun intended).

This post has been edited by krabapple: Sep 16 2010, 17:20
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Sep 16 2010, 17:34
Post #4


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5360
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (krabapple @ Sep 16 2010, 17:18) *
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 15 2010, 13:58) *
You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural.


To whom?
Me wink.gif I suppose I should ABX it - but the faults of vinyl are clearly audible on many of those samples, as well the advantages of a given release - so it's a little different to consider only the advantages in a blind test when the faults un-blind the testing.

QUOTE
One should consider, too, that the master tapes were new when the original UK vinyl was cut. They're ~40 yrs old now (except for the remixed ones, of course, which are ~20 yrs old) . So it's not quite apples to apples (no pun intended).
smile.gif Of course. I don't believe in voodoo. There are plenty of good real explanations for the differences, which are plainly audible (and IMO+E completely unchanged) when the LP is digitised at 44.1/16.

Cheers,
David.

This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: Sep 16 2010, 17:34
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 16 2010, 18:00
Post #5





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10338
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 16 2010, 09:34) *
There are plenty of good real explanations for the differences, which are plainly audible (and IMO+E completely unchanged) when the LP is digitised at 44.1/16.

Ok, I'll bite.

What are the audible differences solely attributed to the 44.1/16 digitization of Beatles vinyl?


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Sep 16 2010, 18:21
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 3450
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



I thought he was saying that the clearly audible faults in the vinyl are still clearly audible when digitized to 44.1/16?

This post has been edited by db1989: Dec 2 2011, 12:39
Reason for edit: removing unnecessary full quote of above post
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Sep 17 2010, 09:50
Post #7


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5360
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



Yes, sorry if that was unclear - I was talking about audible changes between LP and commercial CD that are completely unchanged (IMO) when the LP is digitised at 44.1/16. So vinyl vs commercial CD is (to my ears) the same as vinyl-copied-onto-CD vs commercial CD.

I can't hear a different between vinyl vs vinyl-copied-onto-CD.

There are obvious differences in sighted testing if all the equipment is visible in the same room as the listener (you can see the record spinning around and hear the sound of the needle in the groove without amplification) - but there's no change in the sound coming from the speakers that I can detect. I wouldn't say I've tested "properly", but I heard nothing in the tests that I carried out at home to make me want to test "properly".

EDIT: I think many people who copy LPs onto CDs, even some with quite esoteric equipment, will tell you the same thing.

Cheers,
David.

This post has been edited by db1989: Dec 2 2011, 12:39
Reason for edit: as above
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cliveb
post Sep 17 2010, 14:23
Post #8


WaveRepair developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 855
Joined: 28-July 04
Member No.: 15845



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 17 2010, 09:50) *
I can't hear a different between vinyl vs vinyl-copied-onto-CD.

EDIT: I think many people who copy LPs onto CDs, even some with quite esoteric equipment, will tell you the same thing.

+1

My needle-drops use a Linn LP12/Lingo/Ittok/Karma, a Naim preamp, and an M-Audio AP2496 soundcard. Perhaps not "esoteric", but certainly "reasonably high-end". Recordings made at 16/44.1 and subsequently played through a pair of ATC SCM100A monitors are sonically indistinguishable from the original LPs.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- tonybelding   LPs that actually do sound better?   Sep 9 2010, 05:08
- - Light-Fire   QUOTE (tonybelding @ Sep 9 2010, 00:08) ....   Sep 9 2010, 06:02
|- - tonybelding   QUOTE (Light-Fire @ Sep 9 2010, 00:0...   Sep 9 2010, 13:35
- - cliveb   QUOTE (tonybelding @ Sep 9 2010, 05:08) C...   Sep 9 2010, 11:40
|- - tonybelding   QUOTE (cliveb @ Sep 9 2010, 05:40) The qu...   Sep 9 2010, 16:08
- - gottogo99   Anyone interested in vinyl sound quality, or compa...   Sep 9 2010, 13:50
- - analog scott   Such lists are tricky things. As has already been ...   Sep 11 2010, 00:19
- - analog scott   QUOTE (pdq @ Sep 15 2010, 16:46) QUOTE (a...   Sep 15 2010, 17:46
|- - pdq   QUOTE (analog scott @ Sep 15 2010, 12:46)...   Sep 16 2010, 00:48
||- - 2tec   QUOTE (pdq @ Sep 15 2010, 17:48) I suppos...   Sep 16 2010, 02:06
|- - cliveb   QUOTE (analog scott @ Sep 15 2010, 17:46)...   Sep 16 2010, 15:10
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (cliveb @ Sep 16 2010, 10:10) QUOTE...   Sep 16 2010, 17:13
- - 2Bdecided   You could have listed most of the Beatles albums a...   Sep 15 2010, 18:58
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 15 2010, 18:58) Yo...   Sep 16 2010, 11:55
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 15 2010, 13:58) Yo...   Sep 16 2010, 17:18
||- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (krabapple @ Sep 16 2010, 17:18) QU...   Sep 16 2010, 17:34
||- - greynol   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 16 2010, 09:34) Th...   Sep 16 2010, 18:00
||- - pdq   I thought he was saying that the clearly audible f...   Sep 16 2010, 18:21
||- - 2Bdecided   Yes, sorry if that was unclear - I was talking abo...   Sep 17 2010, 09:50
||- - cliveb   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 17 2010, 09:50) I ...   Sep 17 2010, 14:23
||- - botface   Another +1 with the caveat that CD copies can soun...   Sep 17 2010, 14:55
|- - markanini   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 15 2010, 18:58) Yo...   Dec 1 2011, 06:19
- - ramicio   One newer album I had on vinyl, Panic! At The ...   Dec 1 2011, 06:09
- - Seeking_Lossless   Lou Reed - Lulu already sounds great on CD. I gues...   Dec 1 2011, 09:36
- - kraut   One of the few Lps that sounded better than CD - K...   Dec 2 2011, 06:36
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (kraut @ Dec 2 2011, 06:36) One of ...   Feb 9 2012, 12:41
- - Brod   I think the main reason to buy new Vinyl these day...   Feb 9 2012, 05:21
|- - pdq   QUOTE (Brod @ Feb 9 2012, 00:21) I think ...   Feb 9 2012, 15:08
|- - Brod   QUOTE (pdq @ Feb 9 2012, 22:08) What is y...   Feb 9 2012, 17:31
- - pdq   I tend to distinguish between dynamic range compre...   Feb 9 2012, 18:06


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th December 2014 - 00:11