A new cd or a new vinyl (for those who have TT)

There is a large variation in the mastering and pressing quality of LP's - some record companies don't seem to show much care these days, however the differnce between a good and poorly mastered CD is still pretty huge. I am lucky to live in central London, I still find over 70 percent of the new music I like on vinyl (Pop, dance, chart,rock,jazz). Of these maybe a couple a year are so poor on vinyl they get swopped for the CD version.

The upside is that ( to my ears ) most modern vinyl pressings still bring more music and a bigger smile to my face than their CD counterparts. Whilst I can still get music on vinyl AND it still offes superior musical satisfaction to alternative formats I will keep on targeting it as my principle medium. This is not based upon sentimental reasons, rather musical involvement.

Simon ( sondek,aro,prefix,x-1 Vs CDS1)

I love my CD player but when my vinyl is singing......

these days i buy/play mostly cd's. however, everynow and then i play vinyl (still have a large, now non-expanding collection) and i go wow!!

i have now convinced myself that vinyl sounds "organic", whereas cd sounds "genetically modified".

now, if you really push me, i won't be able to explain exactly what i mean, but i am sure you get the drift.

enjoy...

ken

The question is - so I think - if a new didgital recording sounds better on a LP - which machine trnslates better the digital data the CDI at home or the commercial machine at the pressing house ?

Arie

Arie

I have a Roksan Xerxes and a naim CDX. Out of the two I prefer the sond of the Xerxes. However finding good quality records is the difficulty, I buy most new releases on CD as vinyl is not available, but I have a record library of about 500 records which I will not replace with CD and I therefore use both sources.

If I was looking to upgrade either source I have to say I would buy a Roksan TMS. The Xerxes is very good and in my opinion sounds better than any CD I have heard, but he TMS is in a different league.

Go listen and enjoy

NB

NB,

I also have a TT and LP's but as I said before I wonder if new good quality digital mastered CD's,
are not better quality than lP's that were converted from digital to analouge at the pressing house.

I wonder if someone with a good TT and a good CD player has both CD's and Lp's that are original digital mastering - to tell us which is better.

There is no doubt in my mind that analogue recording are much better on LP's than on Cd's - and that mean that converting from analouge to digital is not a good idea.

Arie

Take something like the Experience Hendrix reissues. Though the lps were made from the same 16-bit masters as the cds (see Stereophile interview with the producer, Eddie Kramer), the lps sound bigger, sweeter, more dynamic, than the cds. But the real advantages are with back catalog, where the original releases almost always significantly outperform the best digital remasterings. Luckily, there are tons of analog mastered lps out there at giveaway prices.

--Eric

Arie, it would be my pleasure. Three examples of digitally recorded CDs outperforming their original mastered vinyl versions ( I check this by correlating the mastering credits with the LPs scribbling and matrix number on the run-out groove).

1) The Nightfly - Donald Fagen
2) Pirates - Rickie Lee Jones
3) Mr Heartbreak - Laurie Anderson

All are much better on CD than LP (by any means of comparison PRAT, hifi stuff etc etc), all are digitally recorder and mastered (1&2) or digitally mastered (3). There are plenty of other examples I could site.

Equally I can site analogue recordings that are way better on vinyl.

Eric, have you heard Classic Record's Axis Bold as Love in mono? My god, its fantastic. What a mix! Buy it now! Their Led Zeps are something else too.

Fox, I would be wary of making sweeping statements about one type of recording being better than another. Experience tells me it not what you use it the way that its used (to almost quote the Fun Boy Three). I've heard great digital recordings and sucky analogue ones, I would not use it as a case to write off analogue though.

[This message was edited by Martin M on FRIDAY 19 January 2001 at 10:01.]

Martin,

It seems logical to me (although we know that in sound systems sometimes what seems to be obvious
doesn't work).

When I had a Nait3 my Lp12 sounded much better than the Cdi. The 72/140 improved the sound of the Cdi in a way that it gives a very good fight to the sondek. Someone said here (Ithink Mike Hanson) that the better the pre is the better the cd player sound and I think it is true - therefore I doubt if it is a good idea to buy a vinyl if the source was recorded digitaly and avialable on a cd.

Arie

Well, if I had done that same comparisons 15 years ago with the CDs and LPs I mentioned earlier I would have gone for the LPs. I believe that the critical element is the CD player, 15 years ago 16-bit resolution just didn't happen, also you tended to find missing 'codes' in the D/A convertors etc, just results in lots of distortion. Fix that and the rest of the system has a fighting chance. I've heard good CD players through a 32-5 and it was too much for my ears, too screamy. CDs through my 52 do the business.

I also tend to find early analogue sourced CDs bad news. Try the original Steely Dan CDs (mastered in 1982). Eeek. Talk about scream. Compare them to the new ones (just a bit bright on a few). Much better but not as good as the (original) vinyl.

I have an orignal 1983 Sony CDP-101 at my parent's place. I might go get that and place a few CDs through my 52. That will put Mike's hypothesis to the test!

Martin,
I don't follow it, but I remeber that I'd read that there are sound engineers who learned a lot about microphone siting out of the didgital mastering and then they started to master new records in the analogue way with the new mic. siting and get great sound quality recording.

do you folow this stuff ?

Arie

I don't follow it really. The microphone argument I've heard before, it dates back to the mid-80s. Apparently some sound engineers were somewhat shocked at how bad their recordings sounded on CD. Some others (e.g Tony Visonti) thought it was great. Others noted that the CD pressing plant had used the masters prepared for the LP cut for CD, this is normally thought to be bad news and LPs demand different treatment from CDs - more de-essing etc.

Anyway, some of the ones who thought it was bad blamed the CD exposing their mic technique. LP obviously was not good enough for this (sic). Sounds like an odd explanation to me.

Digital processing (as is any processing) is undoubtably lossy. However, all things being equal the only theoretical compromise in quality in all digital chain from recorder A/D to playback D/A is the sample rate convertor. This is required because professional digital recordings are made at a 48 kHz sample rate or multiples of this rate. Proffesional quality SRCs (e.g DCS 963??) are undoubtably a good piece of kit so I wouldn't worry too much about those. CD was deliberately set at a 44.1 kHz sample rate to samke direct digital copying difficult from CD to tape. Obviously the passage of time has made a mockey of this.

In general the quality of CD players has got better to the point where to my ears the majority of digitally recorded CDs sound much better than their vinyl equivalents. If this were not the case I'd question the quality of my system as quite obviously something is going badly wrong somewhere. My comments are tempered as I haven't heard 24 bit sourced vinyl vs 24-bit noise shaped to 16 bit on CD.

More examples of digital CDs and inferior vinyl:

Peter Gabriel - 4
Bruce Springsteen - Tunnel of Love.
Frank Zappa - Broadway the Hard Way

The LPs sound like mud by comparison.

Examples of analogue LPs urinating on CDs

Led Zeppelin 1 (classic records version)
Bob Marley - Exodus
Nick Drake - Pink Moon (I haven't heard the HDCD version whats this like?)

I could go on!

ashley ,

Can't argue the point that if you don't have a cd player then you can buy LP's only....

Arie

Martin,

I agree it is superb--shows what could be done if the others were mastered AAA instead of ADA.

--Eric

Martin--

I agree with most of your examples except the Springsteen "Tunnel of Love" album--my LP wipes the CD.

Cheers,

Bob

Ride the Light !N

"Nick Drake - Pink Moon (I haven't heard the HDCD version whats this like?)"

I have a nice but muddy sounding original LP - like a lot of 70s LPs they only needed a few goes on an SP25 with a Sonotone ceramic cartridge and they lost it. However the new CD sounds superb - so much so that Pink Moon is, if not my favourite, then now on a par with the other 2 - something I thought I'd never say.

Apropos of not very much I just visited a record fair in Bristol and bought, for £2, Dory Previn's 'Mythical Kings and Iguanas' LP (1971), unplayed - sounds wonderful.

Thanks Chris, I'll get the new version of Pink Moon - its my favourite Nick Drake CD.

Maybe the US version of Tunnel of Love is better than the UK one. These things happen. Great record though. Reminds me I need to get a copy of Nebraska. And John Martyn's Solid Air and The Beta Band's The Three EPs.

BTW Simply Vinyl's version of Dylan's Blonde on Blonde is a well worth the cash, better then the CD and gold CD.

Hi folks.

At a record fair a couple of weeks ago, I was talking vinyl with a friendly dealer. He mentioned to me that the Simply Vinyl discs were created without access to the original master tapes (but with a license for the material), and that they simply made an analogue disc from a CD copy, even going as far as trying to source the original vinyl and colour-photocopying the sleeve for their printing.

This seemed to me to be almost unbelievable, but nevertheless, can anyone confirm or deny this?

I've not yet bought any Simply reissues, but am interested in some of their releases...

John

Simply vinyl releases are variable. For example Blonde on Blonde is from an analogue tape, Highway 61 from digital. Their Byrds releases suck while the Bowie is OK.

To be exact the Blonde on Blonde is from the UK copy master made in the 60's. The original master in the US is lost and so the SV version is as good as you are going to get (unless the original master shows up or you can find a good quality original US vinyl). The master to Blood on the Tracks is allegedly missing too. How they can 'lose' such a thing god only knows, but I digress.

They'll use analoge if they can get hold of them, which I read to mean most of the time its digital. There are exceptions, the SV EMI re-issue are cut at Abbey Road from the analogue masters. So keep your eyes peeled for SV Pink Floyd or Beatles. They'd be well worth having.

What a great thread, folks! Nice to see it's flushed out other devotees of our wonderful Bristol vinyl fair (at the Watershed (docks); last Sunday of every month – shameless plug).

In my opinion, there are so many variables involved in the production of both LPs and CDs that it is impossible to formulate a consistent set of "rules" which if satisfied, will result in a good-souding product. Consequently, if a recording sounds good, it is often a happy accident resulting from the desire of those involved to produce a "good sound" (each individual having their own definition of such) and somehow failing to do anything to bugger it up.

However, we are completely in the hands of the industry which produces the product (these days, basically Sony ), and what they push as the "standard" becomes what the market expects, and therefore gets. In the pop market, which seems to be even more of a law unto itself, so much is spent on marketing that it becomes more expedient to "correct" an out-of-tune or out-of-time musician electronically (or simply employ someone else for the session, as in "Black Box"), than to have the extra studio time to get it right. With attitudes like this prevailng, it's amazing any music at all is available!

Several points do accur to me though:

1. However something is recorded, the more information that finds its way onto the master tape, the (potentially) better the result.

2. All "processing" is subtractive – it removes information which is lost forever from that point on.

3. Simultaneous production of CDs or LPs in more than one location is a Bad Thing – it introduces more variables, and requires copying of master tapes, or worse.

4. Ultimate, no compromise pressing quality is only of benefit if everything else is OK. Well played and recorded music pressed badly is still enjoyable, whereas over-processed fluff is still crap even on virgin vinyl, Gold CD, etc.

Phew!

Best;

Mark

(an imperfect
forum environment is
better than none)

Yep, its not a difficult task to name a big pile of Audiophile Vinyl and Gold Cds that suck big-style musically. Name your plinky-plonk sonic wallpaper here.

The converse is also true. Try Anne Peebles 'I can't Stand the Rain' and The Upsetter's 'Super Ape' for unparalled combinations of musical bliss and sonic hell.

John says

quote:

---

This seemed to me to be almost unbelievable, but nevertheless, can anyone confirm or deny this?

---

I don't KNOW if it is true - but I BELIEVE it is.
People are doing worse things in order to earn money.

Arie

There's a web-site with all the SV info in it (not SV's oddly). I'll get the URL and post it. It'll be Tuesday before this happens.

I don't know if this is the case with the British release, but the latest Shellac lp on Touch & Go comes in a box which includes a copy of the album on cd, in addition to the analog lp cut at Abbey Road (sans digital preview). Guess which one sounds big fat and meaty like it should?

As to Simply Vinyl, yes they do often use digital tapes, and I've heard their cover art is not the best. To whomever didn't like their Nick Drake original, please send it to me. The SV version is reputed to be quite good, however.

As to the quality of records, I don't think the reasons some sound good are mysterious, they are just opaque to the end users. I'm on a list-serv with a couple of mastering engineers (Stan Ricker and Steve Hoffman) and I think they have a pretty good idea how to make a good sounding record or cd. The problem is so many others don't care or have different ideas about good sound than we do.

--Eri

Eric-

You should, next time you're back in Chicago, arrange to visit Electrical Audio (Steve Albini's two-suite studio on Belmont just west of the river). Haven't looked in the liner notes for 1000 Hurts to see who mastered it, as I don't own a copy, but Ken Christianson and I have tracked at least one Naim Label disc there.

Sorry, for those of you not in the know, Steve Albini, reputed indie engineer, with Bob Weston, other reputed indie engineer, IS Shellac (mostly.)

Their monitors leave a lot to be desired, little B&W things for nearfields (great "domestic" loudspeaker, but no top end information--not analytical enough for a studio environment) and Westlake Audio agglomerate stuff in the soffits, run off Haflers.

If you get the small recording mag Tape Op, they seem to coo at his feet most of the time. Good reading, however, but I digress...

Dave Dever, NANA

[This message was edited by David Dever, NANA on FRIDAY 26 January 2001 at 06:41.]