This may seem like the opening of a can of worms, but I hope it isn't.
Having recently recovered some of my old vinyl albums from my folks in England, I was eager to get playing them. I purchased a Rega P2 for a good price and just finished a Hagermann Cornet2 using 12AU7 and 12AX7. I expect that with around 50 hours on it, the Cornet2 is getting burned in by now.
Anyway, I have a couple of duplicates. The first is Alan Parsons I-Robot, which I have on 120g vinyl and the first CD release.
When I played the vinyl yesterday, my wife just about fell over. She likened the sound of the vinyl to what she remembers of the father's vinyl album. She said that she hadn't realized that the CD version was poor in comparison.
We did a side-by-side, switching inputs on my Aikido preamp. The differences were phenomenal. The vinyl was full, bass strong and the music well centered in the soundstage. The CD was weak, poor bass and alsmost sounded as if it was out-of-phase (maybe my DIY cd interconnect or RCA on the Aikido are messed-up).
My CD player is pretty good (Rega Apollo).
My question is this:
Assuming that my signal wiring and CD player are correct, and that the CD release corresponds with the vinyl, then where in my Aikido would I look for improvement?
I used Sonicaps in the phono and Dynamicaps for the DC blocking caps on the output, whereas my Aikido only uses Auricaps.
My Aikido B+ is also at around 280VDC, giving 140V per side in the 6SN7s. Many folk recommend a higher B+ (up to 360VDC). Maybe this would be a big help. Would replacing my 50uF motor-run caps with Solens in the PSU help?
This evening, I'll switch inputs between vinyl and cd-player, and switch interconnects also. In case there is a big disparity between CD and vinyl of I-Robot, I'll try a comparison between Dark Side Of The Moon, which I has as original UK vinyl and CD.
Regards,
Charlie
Having recently recovered some of my old vinyl albums from my folks in England, I was eager to get playing them. I purchased a Rega P2 for a good price and just finished a Hagermann Cornet2 using 12AU7 and 12AX7. I expect that with around 50 hours on it, the Cornet2 is getting burned in by now.
Anyway, I have a couple of duplicates. The first is Alan Parsons I-Robot, which I have on 120g vinyl and the first CD release.
When I played the vinyl yesterday, my wife just about fell over. She likened the sound of the vinyl to what she remembers of the father's vinyl album. She said that she hadn't realized that the CD version was poor in comparison.
We did a side-by-side, switching inputs on my Aikido preamp. The differences were phenomenal. The vinyl was full, bass strong and the music well centered in the soundstage. The CD was weak, poor bass and alsmost sounded as if it was out-of-phase (maybe my DIY cd interconnect or RCA on the Aikido are messed-up).
My CD player is pretty good (Rega Apollo).
My question is this:
Assuming that my signal wiring and CD player are correct, and that the CD release corresponds with the vinyl, then where in my Aikido would I look for improvement?
I used Sonicaps in the phono and Dynamicaps for the DC blocking caps on the output, whereas my Aikido only uses Auricaps.
My Aikido B+ is also at around 280VDC, giving 140V per side in the 6SN7s. Many folk recommend a higher B+ (up to 360VDC). Maybe this would be a big help. Would replacing my 50uF motor-run caps with Solens in the PSU help?
This evening, I'll switch inputs between vinyl and cd-player, and switch interconnects also. In case there is a big disparity between CD and vinyl of I-Robot, I'll try a comparison between Dark Side Of The Moon, which I has as original UK vinyl and CD.
Regards,
Charlie
I think it's probably remastering, master tape generation etc that's more the cause of large sonic differences than anything else. If the CD is a low (sales) volume item, and the transfer to digital was made in the early days of CD, then based on a lot of discs I own, it was a fairly poor transfer and the sales volume isn't enough to allow the time and expense to do it again.
Wouldn't surprise me a bit. I recently got the Moody Blues Millenium Edition greatest hits. Remastered by a 12 year old. Sounds better on the radio than this CD. Like they're playing in a barrel.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn most CD's are improperly mastered, and we are missing quite a bit of the capability of CD's.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn most CD's are improperly mastered, and we are missing quite a bit of the capability of CD's.
Yeah, like kstagger I've got a lot of CDs that are simply awful, and that's why I'm getting back into vinyl. A good CD can be great, but "remastered" is absolutely no guarantee of that. I don't think the people that do the remastering have even listened to the original album, and my guess is everybody today has settled on the same studio monitors that have nothing to do with how a home system sounds. Or, maybe their hearing is shot. Don't stop listening to CDs, as they can be great, but recognize that a lot aren't and vinyl isn't dead.
I have duplicates of a number of Mercury Living Presence classical recordings both on cd and vinyl. Some vinyl is vintage, and some is more recently pressed, and despite the huge amount of care that Wilma Cozart Fine put into the CD remastering the LPs clobber each and every one of them. This is something audiophiles in my neck of the woods have been discussing vehmently since 1984, and one of the reasons why I still play vinyl despite having quite good sounding digital. (Recently rebuilt my analog front end - Thorens TD-125, SME3009S2, and designed a new very low noise tube phono stage - all this after quite a long hiatus from analog.)
The best sounding CDs in my collection are generally by outfits like Reference Recordings and Harmonia Mundi, and even here the LPs when available always sound better.
The LPs often seem to capture more sense of the acoustic space, have more natural decay into the noise floor, seem to have oodles more low level resolution, and seem to preserve the timbre of the instruments better. You'd think higher bit counts, dither and careful attention to the analog path prior to digitizing would address these issues, but it doesn't always seem to.
I will say techno and trance sound pretty good on CD and that I have no analog point of reference for this music. IMHO Old pop invariably sounds better on LP regardless of who remastered it to CD.
Linn issues a lot of their material as LPs and digital recordings of varying bit depth and rate. Material is available as downloads at good mp3 quality, standard cd quality (flac encoded) and high bit rate, bit depth to 24 bit/96KHz flac. Both Cds and SACDs as well as LPs are available by mail order. It would be very interesting to order and compare several formats as presumably Linn takes great care in the recording, mastering and production process. I would expect these recordings to represent close to the full potential of each format.
The best sounding CDs in my collection are generally by outfits like Reference Recordings and Harmonia Mundi, and even here the LPs when available always sound better.
The LPs often seem to capture more sense of the acoustic space, have more natural decay into the noise floor, seem to have oodles more low level resolution, and seem to preserve the timbre of the instruments better. You'd think higher bit counts, dither and careful attention to the analog path prior to digitizing would address these issues, but it doesn't always seem to.
I will say techno and trance sound pretty good on CD and that I have no analog point of reference for this music. IMHO Old pop invariably sounds better on LP regardless of who remastered it to CD.
Linn issues a lot of their material as LPs and digital recordings of varying bit depth and rate. Material is available as downloads at good mp3 quality, standard cd quality (flac encoded) and high bit rate, bit depth to 24 bit/96KHz flac. Both Cds and SACDs as well as LPs are available by mail order. It would be very interesting to order and compare several formats as presumably Linn takes great care in the recording, mastering and production process. I would expect these recordings to represent close to the full potential of each format.
I believe I know one reason for the poor CD mastering...
In the old days of mastering tapes for the cutting lathe...they would use all sorts of tricks to shorten the set-up time, eliminating the diameter filter..ect..ect...
In some cases they would use a reverse RIAA curve to the tape with and the tape playback machine circuit would eliminate the NAB as normal so they can go tape straight into the cutter...
WHen the smoke all clears and the record is played back, you have the proper RIAA ....but if you were to make a CD from these tapes they would sound thin and harsh....These Masters were ment for making vinyl only.... The only way to fix the problem is to go back to the vaulted 1st gen Master and make new Masters re-mixed for CD....
Chris
In the old days of mastering tapes for the cutting lathe...they would use all sorts of tricks to shorten the set-up time, eliminating the diameter filter..ect..ect...
In some cases they would use a reverse RIAA curve to the tape with and the tape playback machine circuit would eliminate the NAB as normal so they can go tape straight into the cutter...
WHen the smoke all clears and the record is played back, you have the proper RIAA ....but if you were to make a CD from these tapes they would sound thin and harsh....These Masters were ment for making vinyl only.... The only way to fix the problem is to go back to the vaulted 1st gen Master and make new Masters re-mixed for CD....
Chris
Chris,
Let me try to explain what you said to see if I understand it:
1. When music is put on a magnetic tape, the higher frequencies roll-off as a function of frequency.
2. A tape playback has a NAB filter/device to normalize this frequency roll-off.
3. To save time/effort many tape masters were simply recorded with reverse iraa. This would result in higher frequences being more pronounced.
4. When this tape is played back - into a vinyl cutting system, the NAB in the playback machine "normalizes" the inverse IRAA.
5. If this reverse IRAA is used for CD production without much time/effort, the resultant CD can sound thin and harsh.
Did I get it?
Are there any resources with this kind of stuff in a simplified manner?
Charlie
Let me try to explain what you said to see if I understand it:
1. When music is put on a magnetic tape, the higher frequencies roll-off as a function of frequency.
2. A tape playback has a NAB filter/device to normalize this frequency roll-off.
3. To save time/effort many tape masters were simply recorded with reverse iraa. This would result in higher frequences being more pronounced.
4. When this tape is played back - into a vinyl cutting system, the NAB in the playback machine "normalizes" the inverse IRAA.
5. If this reverse IRAA is used for CD production without much time/effort, the resultant CD can sound thin and harsh.
Did I get it?
Are there any resources with this kind of stuff in a simplified manner?
Charlie
Brett,
I was agreeing with you. The earlier CD-release could easily have been rushed out by over zealous industry execs. What I do know is that Parsons has been working over the last few years to remaster the originals for new CD releases.
I apologize for this thread becomming off-topic.
Charlie
I was agreeing with you. The earlier CD-release could easily have been rushed out by over zealous industry execs. What I do know is that Parsons has been working over the last few years to remaster the originals for new CD releases.
I apologize for this thread becomming off-topic.
Charlie
Does the CD actually mention anything by Parsons himself on the subjet of remastering the CD? The biggest POS CD I've ever purchased is the first CD release of "Tales of Mystery and Imagination". The idiot had put new tracks on it! He killed my favorite tracks by adding new synthesizer tracks. He actually wrote up a little blurb on the CD cover explaining this and "apologizing" to fans who might not like it (ME!). The CD has since been re-released as a remastering of the original LP, but I haven't bothered to buy it yet.
Leadbelly,
We have the CD version of Tales. We've had it for a few years. As far as I can tell there are no extra tracks added, other than the Orson Welles narrations. However, some tracks have been augmented by Alan Parsons with parts that he said were technologically unachievable in the 1970's. I really like it, but then I had not heard the original. He does at least explain his rationale for doing this, and I suppose that as one of the original composers / performers of Tales, the "idiot" (Parsons, himself) can justify making significant changes, and let's face it, Parson's professionalism and sound engineering talents would have been put to full use.
Having purchased a mint copy of the original UK vinyl release, I agree they are quite different beasts. The only negative aspect for me between this CD version and the original is that the Pavanne is seriously shortened on the CD (which I think is a real pity). I expect that if I had originally fallen in love with the vinyl version, then I would be miffed at the CD release, so I can appreciate your angst.
However, as far as sound quality goes, the original CD release is comparable to the vinyl, at least on my system and to my ears. We haven't purchased the re-released CD version, which I believe includes two disks, one with the original vinyl and the second with the re-mixed/mastered version.
Regards,
Charlie
We have the CD version of Tales. We've had it for a few years. As far as I can tell there are no extra tracks added, other than the Orson Welles narrations. However, some tracks have been augmented by Alan Parsons with parts that he said were technologically unachievable in the 1970's. I really like it, but then I had not heard the original. He does at least explain his rationale for doing this, and I suppose that as one of the original composers / performers of Tales, the "idiot" (Parsons, himself) can justify making significant changes, and let's face it, Parson's professionalism and sound engineering talents would have been put to full use.
Having purchased a mint copy of the original UK vinyl release, I agree they are quite different beasts. The only negative aspect for me between this CD version and the original is that the Pavanne is seriously shortened on the CD (which I think is a real pity). I expect that if I had originally fallen in love with the vinyl version, then I would be miffed at the CD release, so I can appreciate your angst.
However, as far as sound quality goes, the original CD release is comparable to the vinyl, at least on my system and to my ears. We haven't purchased the re-released CD version, which I believe includes two disks, one with the original vinyl and the second with the re-mixed/mastered version.
Regards,
Charlie
I guess I am not buying the argument that the inherent differences between CD sound and LP sound is solely due to poor mastering in early CDs relative to the preceeding LP issues.
I just got a copy of Black Eyed Peas Monkey Business on vinyl, given that it was recorded in the era of fully digital mastering I seriously doubt that any special consideration was given to the vinyl master, and yet it sounds a lot better than the cd version.
Also I question whether any professional would use a master recorded with the inverse RIAA (cutter) curve to cut a cd probably not even with an RIAA equalizer applied. I have not heard of this approach being commonly employed, but I will check with a friend who collects studio master tapes. (Unequalized RIAA is completely unlistenable, this isn't the problem I hear with 44.1kHz/PCM.)
I have a bunch of Mercury Living Presence recordings remastered for CD by Wilma Cozart Fine as well as some of the original pressings and rereleases - in all cases despite the great care taken in transfering to CD the LP version sounds better. It ain't subtle.
Consider the possibility that perhaps the LP does something better than CD and that is convey the essence of the music.
I just got a copy of Black Eyed Peas Monkey Business on vinyl, given that it was recorded in the era of fully digital mastering I seriously doubt that any special consideration was given to the vinyl master, and yet it sounds a lot better than the cd version.
Also I question whether any professional would use a master recorded with the inverse RIAA (cutter) curve to cut a cd probably not even with an RIAA equalizer applied. I have not heard of this approach being commonly employed, but I will check with a friend who collects studio master tapes. (Unequalized RIAA is completely unlistenable, this isn't the problem I hear with 44.1kHz/PCM.)
I have a bunch of Mercury Living Presence recordings remastered for CD by Wilma Cozart Fine as well as some of the original pressings and rereleases - in all cases despite the great care taken in transfering to CD the LP version sounds better. It ain't subtle.
Consider the possibility that perhaps the LP does something better than CD and that is convey the essence of the music.
It baffles me a bit too, as I've been transferring LPs to CD via an inexpensive Emu external interface, and there isn't much difference between what I hear on the LP, vs what I hear on the CD. If one were starting with the master tapes and a quarter mil bucks of studio quality equipment, it seems like the results should be better than they often are.
While scanning the rack for MoFis and such, I noticed one LP in the case was labeled "CBS Digital Stereo". This was the 1984 Andreas Vollenweider White Winds LP. So does that mean the original master was digital? Or something else? When did digital start replacing analog in the studio?
While scanning the rack for MoFis and such, I noticed one LP in the case was labeled "CBS Digital Stereo". This was the 1984 Andreas Vollenweider White Winds LP. So does that mean the original master was digital? Or something else? When did digital start replacing analog in the studio?
Dunno, but way before 1984:
Grusin's first all digital recording:
Dave Grusin
Mountain Dance
Catalog #GRD9507
compact disc
release date 12/10/1979
GRP Records
-although I have a Grusin "One of a Kind" CD here orig. released 1978. It clearly states "Digital Master"
I don't have the LPs so I can't compare.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.