- 4,449 Posts. Joined 3/2012
- Location: San Francisco
- Select All Posts By This User
Please read my entire posts and not selective portions. I have both a CD rip as well as my own personal 24-bit vinyl rip on my computer. This could be the rare example of where the CD version might been further remastered, and the vinyl might be objectively better, which is one of two reasons I listed that a vinyl of digitally mastered music might sound better. The CD could be brickwalled as you put it. I can't say for sure whether this has been the case, but in my opinion, the clarity of the analog version is definitely worse. It's not even close. Whereas the gap between digital and analog in some other records might be closer, this is one where the difference is actually extremely noticeable, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
The reason I like this particular album on vinyl, again, is because I like the tonality imparted by my rig, which it seems you do too as the improved bass is almost definitely from your rig, not the recording itself (reason #2 I listed in my previous post). So maybe we don't actually disagree at all.
Ironically, sometimes I find Shrines to be way to shrill and fatiguing because that's how they intended the songs to be, so the smoother, mellowed sound of the vinyl rip is more acceptable to my ears, especially when listening with Grados. So in this case, the lack of the clarity helps listenability. But again, this isn't a virtue of the resolution of analog vs digital, and by pure coincidence, the loss of clarity increases my enjoyability.
EDIT: In case it wasn't entirely clear, I'm not talking about dynamics here, but rather the clarity of the music.
Guess whats on my head right now?
I'm not surprised. I have many colleagues in the music industry in engineering roles, and this is blatantly false. The vast majority of vinyl releases today are poorly done and meant solely to be sold as premium novelties. I didn't say the good releases or separate masters (again, this was one of the two reasons I listed) don't exist, but they are rare. Look, I am merely pointing out facts. If you prefer not to believe these, that's your prerogative, just move along, but I am just trying to be informative and helpful to those who are interested in my knowledge.
I'm going to use my photo analogy again, but it is as parallel as can be. Unless separate masters are involved, changing mediums from a digital master to analog (and then ripping back) will only introduce artifacts, just as if you printed a photo (and snapped a picture of it). The medium cannot create more range or quality if it didn't exist in the first place. Whether or not you like those artifacts is another issue altogether, but anything additional introduced by using the analog medium is still a result of artifacts.
To be clear, I never meant to imply the analog transfer is necessarily worse sounding or if it is, that the differences were necessarily significant or noticeable, but rather, my point is just that it certainly cannot be better than the original master, which will always be the limiting factor. If the digital master is suitable, then the vinyl will probably sound good too. If it's compressed to hell, the vinyl will have all the same limitations, but analog/vinyl can't make something out of nothing, so if one is buying a vinyl expecting it to sound better than the CD, chances are, they'll be disappointed.
As MohawkUS said, this is getting off topic. This is the last I have to say on this topic. Let's see more fancy rigs!
Have a great weekend
No, you're right. The Nude Shibata stylus on the Black picks everything up. That can be good and bad, but if I keep my LP's clean, it's mostly brilliant.
You're either Australian are an Electro House/Dance fan, but to answer your question, sweet
I was floored when I put in my order to find out I had to wait (what turned out to be 2 months). I didn't think I'd be able to do it, but I did, and it was worth it. There's a Decware Taboo MkIII thread where people who have had it longer than I (not by much) are writing their impressions. I just started ordering tubes, so in the next few weeks I'll update my impressions there with that stuff. The tubes that came with the Taboo work very well though.
Apologies for staying off topic.. I'll post a pick of my cans asap :D
Just to add... I also have a 24 bit vinyl rip of one of my favorite all time albums Bob Marley's Natty Dread and I know this album very well. The vinyl rip is superior to me compared to any other cd version I've heard. Now this maybe the case that some older recordings welcome a little warmth and smoothness that vinyl gives, but I think it is more than just that. The richness and realness in Marley's vocals are better from the record, also the overall depth on everything. It just seems to be more organic sounding. The cd in comparison is clearly 'brighter' and sharper, but there is also an unwanted edge to both Marleys high notes and Andersons guitar.
Granted that your equipment plays a big part in vinyl v's cd. I have to agree that there really is nothing like getting as near to the original analogue recording as possible. Even if paradoxically you are playing it through a digital medium. Especially recordings from the 70's and the peak of analogue recording methods, Floyd, Stones, Lennon, Marley, Zeppelin, Doors etc none of these should be messed with using digital remastering. IMO
Not to keep the vinyl/quality discussion going (and noting that I own no vinyl yet), but Warner has a 24/96 backlog of everything they've released for the past few years. So if that's what's going on the vinyl, wouldn't the vinyl still be better than CD quality, even with digital recording?
Although I wish both, unfortunately, only the latter Was this close to getting my picture with them: