Zero Distortion: Tango Time
- Thread starter bonzo75
- Start date
Tang has the Rostropovich Decca original and the super analog reissue. He can compare the two.
This old LPs have less dynamic range is a very strawman argument. There are many old LPs and a high variance which is why collecting them is such an art. We can pick up two LPs of the same performance one crap the other magnificent.
This old LPs have less dynamic range is a very strawman argument. There are many old LPs and a high variance which is why collecting them is such an art. We can pick up two LPs of the same performance one crap the other magnificent.
Zero Distortion: Tango Time
Tang, for your second system at your place, you could get Wilsons, SS amps, and EMM labs/dCS types digital to post different music Johannes Brahms?
www.whatsbestforum.com
As you have stated, there is a lot of variance so no generalization would be correct (as usual with anything) and I have chosen my words carefully thinking that. I am well aware some first pressings have good sound, the reason for it can be many including what you think. I also said new reissues *may* sound closer to master tapes. They have the potential. This is not an argument, this is information straight from engineers who makes remasters or cuts these reissues. They have access to master tapes and we don't, so I can only relay what they are saying.
About the dynamic range issue, I said compression has been used. It does not mean it was compressed to death. It is widely used in tracking (recording), mixing and mastering. It is possible that general record collector or music listeners do not know what compression is and think all of it is evil. Actually compression has been with us a long time and it is a tool and it does not just squash and make music lifeless. Fairchild 660 compressor was on the famous Vox classical recordings. We would not have crooners without it, all capitol engineers used the famous Fairchild compressors on these vocals. Rudy Van Gelder used it when cutting lacquers and he used it heavily along a lot of eq (+5db at 4khz)!
Also, one can enjoy the older eq'ed version! It may work better for your expectations or your system. It still does not mean it sounds closer to master tape and this does not even matter, there is no need to argue. We were not at those recordings and we do not hear the master tapes, we have no reference. Just enjoy whichever one suits you better and if you have access to these first pressing, that is very good, and not only for sound. I wish I had too but sadly it is hard.
I did compared the two. I once wrote
"The General sent me a while ago two Schubert Arpeggione cello by Rostropovich. One a Decca SXL6426 the other a London Super Analog disc..Japanese I think. I do not like the Super Analog one and much like the Decca. The Super Analog has a dynamic boosted to it. The sound is also a bit larger and warm. I think they put in a bit more reverb to it too. It lacks the dynamic contrast and clarity in tone of the Decca. Loss of nuances can be heard on piano strike."
I sent back the Super Analog to G long time ago. But this is really the case when you can choose one over the other. If I cannot choose I would enjoy listening to the Super Analog pressing anyway. @zerostargeneral knows best about record pressings. I think he sent me two different pressings for me to learn. This forum has introduced me to many great great audio mentors.
Sorry, I am saying the new ones are compressed more than the older ones. It is very obvious. The new ones "may" sound closer to the older master tapes? No, those tapes have degraded. A recording engineer today means nothing, unless you are discussing directly with those who recorded this then. These engineers could have minimal knowledge of the great pressings today. Just find some good recordings and compare them on any system, you don't need one set up to play older recordings
ERC also copy from master tapes you can compare them to originals as well
What tang has said here will apply to all compares without exception of the good old pressings to new ones. We have compared so many. Anyone who finds an old pressing that doesn't match up has the wrong pressing
I think there is a misconception here as if the louder one sounds better and closer to master tape but “generally” louder one is more compressed and dynamics are lost. As @kodomo said earlier old pressings “usually” have more compression compared to new audiophile pressings.
On the other hand most new pressings are crap but there are some very good ones sound better in every way. I think London Super Analog Disc is an example for former than latter which doesn’t tell the whole reissue story.
Sterling mastered RCA Living Stereo and Acoustech mastered double 45rpm titles are better than originals.
jazz titles from Speakers Corner are not good but classical titles are great especially Deccas. Matrix numbers on dead wax matches old pressings’. They most probably used old metal parts for new reissues but I still prefer those titles to be cut from original master tape at Sterling Sound.
On the other hand most new pressings are crap but there are some very good ones sound better in every way. I think London Super Analog Disc is an example for former than latter which doesn’t tell the whole reissue story.
Sterling mastered RCA Living Stereo and Acoustech mastered double 45rpm titles are better than originals.
jazz titles from Speakers Corner are not good but classical titles are great especially Deccas. Matrix numbers on dead wax matches old pressings’. They most probably used old metal parts for new reissues but I still prefer those titles to be cut from original master tape at Sterling Sound.
Lol @ speakers corners classical titles being good.. They are good for those who cannot access the originals. the louder is better is an hypothesis put forward by you then negated by you to show that you are on the right side of the argument.
Last edited:
I didn’t say louder one sounds better, quite the opposite I said it is conceived as better. It’s not just my claim but the whole music industry’s. If you don’t know what I’m saying check “loudness wars”
My point was you brought the louder point in and argued against it. The loudness wars was not mentioned here. You are arguing against some strawman
Can we get specifics? Which well known originals have you compared to the reissues
Ben webster- see you at the fair, miles davis-kind of blue (columbia six eye), john coltrane blue train, ben webster meets gerry mulligan, getz and gilberto, ella and louis, heifetz- sibelius etc.
Now you tell us which ones you compared?
Your statement :
means all the original good pressings are better than all the new ones including the best new pressings.
it is a bold statement and requires all reissued titles from all companies with all variations to be tested to be proofed. It’s impossible to be done and irrational IMHO.
Oppositely my statement is very easy to be proofed. I say some of the new pressings are better than originals and if I only find one new pressing which is better than the original (there are more than one) than I make good. IMO that’s basic logic.
Last edited:
I have put all my compares in many past posts and write ups. Lots of details. Many in this thread itself if you read from the beginning. After you finish this one go here https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...m-pnoe-thomas-mayer-vyger-original-lps.27231/
Ps: you hardly have any classical in there except for the Heifetz. While his performances are good his recordings usually are ok compared to other greats
Ps: you hardly have any classical in there except for the Heifetz. While his performances are good his recordings usually are ok compared to other greats
Last edited:
I theorize that the producers and mastering engineers of many of the 'epic' old lps cared little ( perhaps too little ) for making these great records easy to track for the average cheap deck of the day. They pushed for an ideal. If you dig through crates of lps ( not 5 figure cherry picked copies ) you will hear groove damage at the dynamic peaks on many, and I believe that some of this is due to them being played on equipment unable to track correctly.
So the good survivors were either played on the best of the best of then available turntable systems or perhaps not played much at all.
This doesn't even touch on 'hot stampers' etc
So the good survivors were either played on the best of the best of then available turntable systems or perhaps not played much at all.
This doesn't even touch on 'hot stampers' etc
I guess the way to express oneself is limiting it to direct personal experience even if one knows what you'll get after some experience with audiophile labels. I'm with Ked, IME every 180g or heavier reissue I bought from all the well known "audiophile" labels on heavy vinyl has been dead sounding, boring, not engaging and for the most part unlistenable for me and I'm only comparing them to vintage reissues from 60's and 70's not the great original pressings that Tang plays and this is even true for rock music too.
Modern digital or analog recordings is a different matter, they are what they are and currently no better version exists for the most part. In case of digital recordings I mostly opt for the CD instead of the vinyl which can be defective and IMO doesn't offer any sonic advantage.
YMMV!
david
That wasn't an issue when LP was the medium of the day and you could always acquire another copy if needed. As far as the mastering engineers caring or not about crappy record players they had no control over it but they did their job well where they could. IME many average pressings are adequate.
david
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |