[LFF]

Quote:

A well mastered CD will always be better than vinyl because the CD format exceeds vinyl in signal to noise, distortion, wow and flutter, dynamic range, etc.

THIS...

 

[bigshot]

DGG recordings from the 60s are good, but in the 70s they fiddled with multi-miking and overdubbing on the BPO/HvK records and the soundstage in their recordings went to hell in a handbasket.
 
All classical labels have great sounding recordings... RCA Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence, Decca/London, DGG, EMI/Angel, etc. Classical music is almost always well recorded. You have to really search to find bad ones. When CDs replaced LPs, classical was the genre of music that benefitted most from the upgrade in sound quality.
 
In my own collection, I have good sounding recordings and not so good sounding recordings... 15,000 records and at least as many CDs, if not more. I've tweaked my system to a nice neutral response and use sophisticated DSPs, and now most everything sounds at least "pretty good". I generally don't worry about sound quality much. If I want to hear Fats Waller or Heifetz or Caruso, it's the music that really matters to me. I have a few standout recordings that I listen to to tweak my system's response, but that is about the only time I really fuss with it.

 

[duncan1]

LFF-- You are another person just jumping in without reading ALL my posts . I have ALREADY STATED that there is no argument over CDs having lower noise etc. My comments were . does it sound more realistic than vinyl?? in other words more natural --READ MY PREVIOUS  POSTS!! I hope the next poster has taken the trouble to read what I said.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

The Beatles CDs that were remastered by EMI were terrible . I said they ADMITTED that and REMASTERED them again 

 
The Beatles catalog has been remastered twice for CD. Once for the original release, and again recently for the box sets. The mono box hadn't been released before, so there's no comparison there. But the stereo box is VERY close to the same as the original CD release. The primary difference is that the newer release is a hair more compressed. Not enough to make a huge difference though. The Beatles have always sounded good on CD. But some albums, like Rubber Soul and the White Album depend on a flat response to sound good. If you have a bass heavy system certain songs won't sound right.
 
The only Beatles records that were remixed were Rubber Soul (stereo) and Let it Be (naked). Rubber Soul sounds OK, but Let It Be (naked) sounds awful to me. Thick and muffled.

 

[bigshot]

Whether or not a recording sounds natural or not depends on the placement of the microphones, carefulness of mixing and fidelity of the sound reproduction. Both CD and LP are capable of natural sound. But CDs have an edge in fidelity.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

A well mastered CD will always be better than vinyl because the CD format exceeds vinyl in signal to noise, distortion, wow and flutter, dynamic range, etc.

With emphasis to help...
 
I think the ALWAYS includes terms like naturalness, timbre, tone, accuracy, etc etc.
 
As a mastering engineer, I really do LOVE vinyl, but facts are facts and facts do matter...unless you are Steve Guttenberg.
 
It constantly surprises me how in this day and age, people are still HUGE believers in myths.

 

[bigshot]

I think it's easier to blame bad sound on the format than it is to blame it on tin eared engineers. It's hard to believe that anyone would take good sound and deliberately make it bad, but it happens.

 

[duncan1]

If you mean fidelity as relating to science --correct--no argument there--its just the human subjective aural response that is different and   a typical human being is looking more on a "musical" presentation. Maybe its the result of centuries of listening to live music that the human DNA has adapted  to equate   "perceived " music  as "how it should be" with all its faults and therefore sounds more realistic to the brain regardless that seemingly "perfect" music is technically perfect but that's humans .

 

[bigshot]

"Sound Fidelity" is the degree of accuracy in reproducing the music. Better fidelity is more like the music. Poorer fidelity is often because the recording format has introduced noise and altered the sound.

 

[duncan1]

With better digital fidelity after going through a digital analyzer and conditioner where the music is "cleaned" I agree its just that most humans don't accept that. Don't think I am all alone it may surprise you to find out that most music lovers and those with expensive hi-fi equipment in the UK actually agree with me.And its the perfect digital equipment isn't always the best sellers.. Don't take my word on that check out the UK hi-fi scene. Biggest sellers multi $1000 record decks are no 1 here .That's why in the US/Canada UK buyers can buy analog equipment cheaper than in the UK.    

 

[Radio_head]

Quote:

With emphasis to help...
 
I think the ALWAYS includes terms like naturalness, timbre, tone, accuracy, etc etc.
 
As a mastering engineer, I really do LOVE vinyl, but facts are facts and facts do matter...unless you are Steve Guttenberg.
 
It constantly surprises me how in this day and age, people are still HUGE believers in myths.

Thanks for that enlightening post, your links are very informative.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

With better digital fidelity after going through a digital analyzer and conditioner where the music is "cleaned"

 
That isn't how mastering works. If you're interested in learning what the difference is between mixing and mastering and what's involved, LFF is the guy to ask.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

 
That isn't how mastering works. If you're interested in learning what the difference is between mixing and mastering and what's involved, LFF is the guy to ask.

Or...you can try Google.

 

[duncan1]

And what difference  is that going to make on my subjective position on judging by what I hear rather than looking at statistics that say--Advert.= hey!! this amp is the tops its  0.001 THD very low IMD very fast rise time . high bandwidth and technically near perfect.so buy it. That would put me off . I judge--like 1000000s of others round the World by how it sounds. SUBJECTIVELY . And I always will if it sounds good then in my book of subjectivism its good.Do none of you remember the Japanese amps from the 70s extremely low distortion but sounded bad in relation to tube amps. The majority of hi-fi users in the UK agree and so do some ADEs  who design SS amps with moderate distortion but they sound better than -100 DB amps.You must know in reading my posts in the past that I am no tube enthusiast but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate  the smooth qualities of tube equipment  and so do 1000s on this web site. If this web site was an offshoot of Electronics World which is totally objective then I could understand your position I would then be an "unwelcome intruder" persona non grata but its not . Obejectivism is an Minority point of view here . .The vast majority of posters here are subjective in nature and ask subjective questions looking for subjective answers -. You are not going to deny the obvious are you? Or are you trying to "brain wash" the majority  to your objective point of view??. That's okay if you are a training electrical engineer. .But how many  posters out of the 1000s here  are EEs??  and want totally  spec. answers. It still wont tell the poster ---How it SOUNDS.to a human being.not a spectrum analyser. If your --"cold light of day"position is correct . Why not just  buy  one PERFECT-in your view-amp and say --you dont need to buy any other amp just this one because it is technically perfect??? There again it wouldnt be in your --business/financial interests would it??? so where are your high ideals then?

 

[bigshot]

Uh... we're talking about remastering. Remember?