[dgs]

Just my 2 cents, but I am most interested in the music as the artist intended it.

With that in mind, if the album was originally meant for release on vinyl, I can only assume that the artist intended it to sound the way it did--with the participation of engineer, producer, etc.--and that the "color" of vinyl was taken into account when listening to it. I can't imaging Jimmy Page producing a Zep album and saying, "someday it will come out how I intended it, but for now, it will have to sound like this." In fact, when the Zep albums were released on CD, Jimmy Page remastered them, I'm assuming because he wanted to make them sound the way he intended them to...certainly, I find Rock and Roll more prone to this phenomenon than jazz or classical, where there is less sound processing in the first place.

Nowadays, music is recorded on digital equipment and intended for release on CD, so putting it onto vinyl would be equally a distortion of the artist's intentions...

But these are just my opinions, and quite frankly, might be completely ridiculous.

 

[TimSchirmer]

This is true. I have digital and analog front ends, mostly because I like a lot of music on both formats.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by kuma Smooth sound of vinyl? you know, that's a stereo type.

A stereotype too...

My current cartridge is actually quite analytical and detailed, there's very little about the sound I'd call "smooth." Shure cartridges are a good bet for "smooth," just as Stanton delivers "analog warmth" (midbass hump) to those who prefer it.

One thing I really appreciate about vinyl is the ability to easily alter SQ to fit personal preference -- for the most part, CD's pretty much sound alike in different players.

BTW I agree with the thread starter... when vinyl is bad, it's BAD... but when it's good, it can be sooo incredible... like the child's ditty about the little girl with a curl in the middle of her forehead.

 

[kuma]

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch BTW I agree with the thread starter... when vinyl is bad, it's BAD... but when it's good, it can be sooo incredible... like the child's ditty about the little girl with a curl in the middle of her forehead.

yeah.. certain types of turntable/arm/cart. can make sound more analytical than digital counter part. I just have to chuckle when many say analogue sounds so much *smoother* than cd player. I've heard plenty of CD players that sound too mellow for instance.

they really vary in sonic signature just as much as cd players. However, they do have an easier time preserving the flow of music along with closeness.

And another thing, it feels to me that you have to be a part of *club* or something.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by kuma And another thing, it feels to me that you have to be a part of *club* or something.

IMO it's only that way for purposes of discussion/socializing on many forums. Anyone can just get a turntable and never even mention it, then you aren't a member of any club (except what you like listening to).

 

[ironchef9000]

Call me crazy, but I really don't suspect that artists in the 60s and 70s WANTED pops, hisses, warping effects, etc. for their albums.

However, the technology at the time limited them as to what they were able to do, and who then would've foreseen digital reproduction in the form of compact discs?

Same way now, where SACD/DVD-A is blossoming into a new format, albeit slowly, and multi-channel recording is slowly being adopted by the industry.

Maybe in 20 years, we'll be listening to a new technology (sa TG's), and we'll look back at CDs and go "wow, they don't make 'em like they used to" and say the new technology isn't meant for how, say, "The Fragile" should sound.

I had 3 LPs of "who's next", the remastered CD of "who's next", and the original CD press of "who's next".

I can without a shadow of doubt say that the remastered edition of "who's next" is one of the great reconrdings I have ever heard.

Sure, when Pete Townshend was making the album, he probably didn't think about any formats beyond vinyl...however, that doesn't take away from the technological benefits of digital remastering and digital playback, IMO at least.

 

[kuma]

Quote:

Originally posted by ironchef9000 I had 3 LPs of "who's next", the remastered CD of "who's next", and the original CD press of "who's next".

...and I have the MOFI version in addition to all three.

'Who's Next' is a kick ass album, indeed. One of the few I have multiple copies.
Next one down is Roxy Music's 'Avalon'. I didn't AB it, but, even the ****ty original release of this album can sound great! in some systems.

Other remastered CD ( well, this one is a DVD-A) that sounds better than the original LP is Donald Fagan's 'Nightfly'. This was an odd LP that was recorded in digital in the first release. Properly mastered, DVD-A in two channel mode sounds like really paid off. I even dare say it sounded like 'analogue'.