Please put the pics of 2 examples of LPs you think the later pressing is better than the earlier pressing.
Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
it will not be of the same recording. but when i get around to it i will do what i can. the original instrument recordings i'm referring to don't normally have reissues. it will be where i'm listening to an 80's pressing expecting it to sound marginal, and it's really fine. and even later 80's also carry that trend as they get better and better at it. which was a surprise. and i saw more of these type recordings the later i went. very few in the 60's, more in the 70's, then even more in the late 70's and deep into the 80's.
maybe there were lots of original instrument recordings in the 50's and 60's that are the rare spendy one's and those are unknown to me? and then there are lesser reissues of those? i don't know what i don't know. reading the jackets i did not see any reference to any of that. the early music and original instrument movement seemed to gather momentum in the 70's, late 70's and 80's. that the opportunity of the Lp prompted the focus to look back and recapture the true sound of the early music and early instruments. but it took a couple decades and some champions to launch it. which is why it took until the 70's to get going.
and i'm told it's continuing now with digital where the current original instrument recordings on digital are the best ever. i don't personally know about that myself. just very happy with the slice of it i've had dropped in my lap.
Last edited:
The reason I asked is, when you go to old recordings, or when people to refer to originals, it is not ALL the originals, but there is a whole pool of LPs - some in the pool could be from Decca, some from HMV, some RCA, etc. There are some reasonably hundreds to thousands of well-known such performances and their associated pressings, so I would be surprised if for those you found a better say Decca in the 70s.
Now, if you are comparing different performances that is different. It is quite possible for certain classical pieces decca had bad 'uns in their golden era as did other labels.
i'm sure you have a grip on this stuff leagues beyond me. i never even tried to play in that sandbox. i get the general thing you are referring to. i own plenty of the reissues of those recordings and enjoy them in my ignorance.
and again; the recordings you are referring to are not the one's i am referring to. few of my pressings are 50's or early 60's recordings. some of them are and for those i do agree that (1) i don't know what i'm talking about, and (2) i don't have and have not pursued the originals.
If you are talking about original instrument performances, which only became popular since the late 1970s, then there are certainly great recordings from specialist labels such as Harmonia Mundi, L'Oiseau-Lyre, Archiv and Chando just to name a few. Many Harmonia Mundi recordings from that era are demonstration quality. What I was referring to is more relevant to the older labels such as Decca, EMI, RCA and Mercury; their decline in quality has a lot to do with their corporate culture of maximising profits in that era. The book "Life and Death of Classical Music" by Norman Lebrecht gives a wonderful account of the inside story of these companies from the early days to the modern era. He blames the bosses in charge of these venerable labels during that era for killing the classical music industry.
yes, i was. more than half of the collection was these type pressings.
fair enough.
I too recommend this book. Any classical music lover should give it a read to understand the rise and fall of the great recording labels, their orcchestras and their stable of star performers. Lebrecht dishes on the industry's personality cults with an entertaining style. He also gives a list of "... the 100 best and 20 worst recordings ever made."
Lebrecht's Web site 'Slipped Disc' offers current classical music news and opinion.
- ISBN-13: 978-1400096589
He also has an entertaining read on Mahler
- ISBN-13: 978-1400096572
The books are available in paperback on amazon.
Talk about flawed perceptions. Mike, I find your claim here about analog being relatively musically complete to be even more bold and absurd than some of your other absurd claims in this post and thread – though I'm pretty sure I’ve not read all your claims in this thread.
To refresh our memories, earlier this year one of your visitors created a thread posting 5 in-room videos recorded in your barn that included vinyl-sourced and digital-sourced presentations. And every video contained a pretty good doses of that hollowed empty-coffee-can-like sonic signature and I commented on it then when I posted one of your videos next to an unadulterated youtube video and even my own video (same song but different artist and recording).
I’m curious. How are you with a straight face able to matter-of-factly claim you’ve achieved this elevated understanding that “analog (viny)l sounds relatively musically complete” while seemingly ignoring/overlooking all of your own vinyl- and digital-sourced presentations which all include this rather unpleasant and distracting sonic signature?
Taking into consideration not all playback configs exude this unpleasant sonic signature, shouldn’t this one sonic shortcoming alone be significant enough for one to avoid making such outlandish performance claims? Yet, here you are.
Might you be implying that this distracting sonic signature is irrelevant when developing an elevated understanding of relatively musically complete?
Or might you be implying that you developed this elevated understanding of “vinyl sounds relatively musically complete” by listening to playback configs other than your own that do not including this distracting sonic signature?
Really? See above.
How can you be serious when you compare to your own system with a completely different recording and artist?? That’s simply nonsense.
Furthermore, one of the things that seems pretty clear is that recordings made with smart phones tend to exaggerate room acoustic effects because of their microphone’s radiation pattern. An Omni mic picks up stuff you won’t hear or is suppressed with live listening. I believe you are using something more directional in your recordings, right?
Even if those relatively strong deviations from the source material are present, it is usually still possible to evaluate the relative merit of a format or pieces of gear.
Finally, your recordings have quite a bit of what you are criticizing in others (empty coffee can resonance) .
Of the three videos, I find Mike's sounds the best, the 'official' YouTube version is good but the piano sounds less natural. I'm afraid, I find your video sounds a bit 'digital' compared to this one:
Again, a completely pointless comparison with a THIRD different recording. The recordings themselves will have a dominate effect on the sound quality. The discussion wasn't about what version of Misty sounds the best, it was how close does a reproduction of a given recording sound compared to that recording directly into, say, headphones sounds.
The YouTube upload of a cd or LP, or a cd or LP of that recording, is the reference source for whatever in-room reproduction being made. You can like whatever you want but it is clear that Mike's is not a direct replication of the source material...
So you are comparing videos to judge format sound quality? Why? Just from a purist stand point a digital recording of an analog source uploaded and possibly converted to another digital format.
If the digital format is good enough for you to tell the difference in the first place how can you say digital is inferior?
How can you consider this as an accurate comparison or more importantly use them to judge how a system sounds?
YMMV
Rob
If the digital format is good enough for you to tell the difference in the first place how can you say digital is inferior?
How can you consider this as an accurate comparison or more importantly use them to judge how a system sounds?
YMMV
Rob
It’s just like Color TV commercials in the early ‘70s. They actually would have a spokesperson standing next to their TV console in the TV commercial showing you how great the picture looks- on your own TV! Today, people assessing home stereo systems from YouTube videos makes no sense to me same as those TV commercials back in the day.
Why do you feel the need to tell others that they don't hear what they think they hear?
Look, you want to critique stereo systems through your iPhone go right ahead. I myself enjoy listening to those videos too sometimes. Something about not just looking at the system but hearing it doing something as well I find satisfying. I'm just not going to try and do critical listening through a video. btw- I watched the youtube video of "Between Two Points" from Luck and Strange the other day on my HT system. I enjoyed that video as much as listening to it on my stereo. Kind of surprised me.
The torqueo TT sounded better then any digital set up with the right records at the Brussels show .
The italian design looks gorgious as well
The italian design looks gorgious as well
Attachments
Last edited:
Analog TT rules , Digital wins , because of access to tunes .
Get both and never look back .... ..
Get both and never look back .... ..
Similar threads
