The truth about vinyl.vinyl vs digital

[DonH50]

You have outlined the reason i have an analog only set up. I’m a big jazz fan and many of the CD transfers of jazz albums had a “gutted” (great term btw) sound. I collected jazz vinyl out of necessity.

I have a first pressing of Animals on vinyl, one of my favorite rock albums on my system.

Animals got me in trouble back when I worked for an audio store... That one line about the "old hag" (you know the one) was playing loudly on our main system for a customer (his choice) and overheard by a couple that complained to the manager. We had to pull that one song from our play list... Harder to do in the days when demos were mostly LPs and not CDs.

 

[Gregadd]

As long as we want to debate too general and ambiguous terms there is little to be told than misinformation. It is an intrinsic problem of short post or videos.

Analog and digital , Inferior and superior, necessary and unnecessary. Unless we carefully express what we are really wanting to say our sentences can be arbitrary interpreted as right or wrong.

I generally agree. As I have said I have already learned more about digital than I care tp know. Still my knowledge is lacking.
As an end consumer just how much am I supposed to know?

 

[Gregadd]

The weakest link is the recordings. That is where analog is quite superior.

Also, the flexibility. Analog can be tweaked much more to suit the system.

Why is it that digital recordings are the "weakest link?" Indifferenc? Incompetence? ADC?

 

[bonzo75]

Why is it that tdigital recording the "winkest link?" Indifferenc? Incompetence? ADC?

Well even later analog reissues were nowhere close to originals. Equipment and engineers were the main reason. But then this will lead to those with laptops and mobiles saying how can new recordings be worse, windows 10 is an improvement over windows from 1986

 

[jeff1225]

This is understandable. Jazz can be hit and miss. I have two masterings on CD of Art Pepper + Eleven, as well as Miles Davis Sketches of Spain and prefer the later mastering on each. The Count Basie record 88 Basie Street sounds really great, with very good dynamics (even explosive on some tracks) and full timbre, on the regular $10 CD, but just awful -- "gutted" indeed -- on the audiophile XRCD (what a waste of money that was).

A lot of the digital remasterings on Blue Note, done by Rudy van Gelder himself, sound excellent on CD. I have heard a comparison of Lee Morgan's The Cooker on LP and digital, and the latter compares very favorably. I have that recording on a Lee Morgan 5-CD set from Blue Note, on which all 5 albums sound really good. Those masterings are from the late 1990s/early 2000s I believe.

I find a lot of new jazz recordings very good as well on digital.



When I come to visit you one day, this will be a must hear then!

I should have been more clear, my comments are specifically about early digital. Because of all of the audiophile recordings and transfers available now, I do t think it’s as much an issue now.

I started collecting jazz about 30 years about when I was in high school. At the time, the more esoteric post and hard bop jazz was simply not available on CD. I still have an early CD of Miles Davis Miles Smiles where it sounds like a record was recorded by a dictaphone and transferred to CD.

 

[bonzo75]

This is understandable. Jazz can be hit and miss. I have two masterings on CD of Art Pepper + Eleven, as well as Miles Davis Sketches of Spain and prefer the later mastering on each. The Count Basie record 88 Basie Street sounds really great, with very good dynamics (even explosive on some tracks) and full timbre, on the regular $10 CD, but just awful -- "gutted" indeed -- on the audiophile XRCD (what a waste of money that was).

A lot of the digital remasterings on Blue Note, done by Rudy van Gelder himself, sound excellent on CD. I have heard a comparison of Lee Morgan's The Cooker on LP and digital, and the latter compares very favorably. I have that recording on a Lee Morgan 5-CD set from Blue Note, on which all 5 albums sound really good. Those masterings are from the late 1990s/early 2000s I believe.

I find a lot of new jazz recordings very good as well on digital.



When I come to visit you one day, this will be a must hear then!

When you say you have heard Lee Morgan and others on LP, how do you know they are originals?

 

[PeterA]

When you say you have heard Lee Morgan and others on LP, how do you know they are originals?

Al, Ian, and I compared an original Miles Davis Kind of Blue to a re-issue LP and then to some digital files or streamed versions. I much prefer the original LP, despite its higher level of service noise.

As my system has improved in terms of resolution, I now much prefer my original LPs, both jazz and classical, to any 180 g or 200 g reissues despite all the claims to the contrary about superior sonics. The new system lays bare the unnatural enhancements on the remasterings. The problem is that originals are so hard to find and expensive.

Frankly, I think it is a futile exercise to compare a digital recording in one system to an original analog recording in another system. There are simply too many variables between the recording the format the system in the room context.

it makes much more sense to compare each one individually to live unamplified music and then make an assessment about quality reproduction. That original analog recording of Kind of Blue just sounded the most real.

 

[bonzo75]

So Peter, this is the first press that goes for well over a 1000 USD in NM?

 

[microstrip]

Well even later analog reissues were nowhere close to originals.(...)

What is meant by "close to the original"? The stereo master tape or the cutting tape?

 

[bonzo75]

What is meant by "close to the original"? The stereo master tape or the cutting tape?

I meant sonically. Not in generation copy

 

[Al M.]

DaveC: " ...some conclusions are made that have no basis in reality."


Al M.: "....misinformation is spread from both sides...."


Microstrip: ..."incorrect conclusions presented by both sides..."



Fransisco, frankly I am having difficulty understanding what you three are claiming here: questionable conclusions, misinformation, incorrect conclusions. We can't get to a better understanding about this topic if no one is willing to clarify what they mean and to cite examples to futher the discussion.

Here is one attempt to directly get to the heart of the issue. Agree or disagree with ddk's statement, I think it is worth contemplating. And his questions are worth trying to answer.



Personalities are not the issue, that is a diversion. You, Al, and Dave have made some interesting claims. Why not give examples and discuss them? This is an audio discussion forum. Understanding why you are describing them that way is how we begin to learn things and perhaps how the industry at large can move forward to improve sound reproduction. Or we can simply avoid controversial ideas for fear of offending people who disagree and simply move on getting nowhere toward a better understanding of this interesting topic.

For some reason, Peter, it must have escaped your attention that I mentioned an example earlier in the thread.

 

[Al M.]

Al, Ian, and I compared an original Miles Davis Kind of Blue to a re-issue LP and then to some digital files or streamed versions. I much prefer the original LP, despite its higher level of service noise.

As my system has improved in terms of resolution, I now much prefer my original LPs, both jazz and classical, to any 180 g or 200 g reissues despite all the claims to the contrary about superior sonics. The new system lays bare the unnatural enhancements on the remasterings. The problem is that originals are so hard to find and expensive.

Frankly, I think it is a futile exercise to compare a digital recording in one system to an original analog recording in another system. There are simply too many variables between the recording the format the system in the room context.

it makes much more sense to compare each one individually to live unamplified music and then make an assessment about quality reproduction. That original analog recording of Kind of Blue just sounded the most real.

Yes, in this instance I strongly preferred the original LP as well, but the digital to the reissue LP.

 

[Lagonda]

I agree, another lost opportunity at the expense of dueling egos. I'll disagree as who lit the grenade in this particular (inevitable) brouhaha. As I recall, ddk threw out the gratuitous personal insult -- now moderator deleted. Of course it triggered -- just as it was intended to do. And this leads to a tribal attack on the one who was triggered. Nicely done.

I thought Dave C's observations were interesting. Maybe some don't like his presentation, but there's plenty of arrogance thrown around here from obvious to sideways insults that are far worse imo.

I sometimes wish there were a woman or two in this group. If there were actually any female audiophiles, I can't imagine one wanting to wade into this swimming hole, lol!

What difference would a woman or two make in this gathering of opinionated males ? If anything there would be another reason to show of !

 

[Al M.]

Thank you! I am probably going to have to revise my opinions since my copies are much older. There was a lot of angst in the original switch from LP to CD, and then in the late 80's through the 90's some simply horrible "third party" remasters (Guthrie not involved) were released and that has probably colored my opinion. There were plenty of bad records released during that time, too, as well as many good ones (e.g. the rise of the "audiophile" records from the likes of Sheffield, Telarc, et. al.)

In classical, later remasters can be better too. I have the legendary 1967 Walter Legge recording of Mahler's Lied der Erde (The Song of the Earth) with Christa Ludwig and Fritz Wunderlich as singers (Klemperer cond.) in two versions.

The first version is the original CD release from 1985, the second one a remaster from 2009, I believe. Both sound almost identical in voices and most instruments, in timbre and dynamics, but there is one exception. The violin section of the orchestra sounds much more believable in the remaster. It doesn't have that slight HF screeching of the early digital, and sounds a bit more open in texture.

 

[microstrip]

I meant sonically. Not in generation copy

I see now you were only addressing pressings.

It is known since long that unfortunately "close to the original" is an impossible ranking criteria in stereo - the reproduction is always too far from the original. At best we can exclude some noticeably poor reproductions, and still risk someone disagrees. It is why most our debates are inconclusive and/or endless.

Anyway do you consider that vinyl reproduction can be preferred to master tape? Surely I am excluding cases where the master tape is now degraded.

 

[bonzo75]

I see now you were only addressing pressings.

It is known since long that unfortunately "close to the original" is an impossible ranking criteria in stereo - the reproduction is always too far from the original. At best we can exclude some noticeably poor reproductions, and still risk someone disagrees. It is why most our debates are inconclusive and/or endless.

Anyway do you consider that vinyl reproduction can be preferred to master tape? Surely I am excluding cases where the master tape is now degraded.

I have never seen you show knowledge of pressings so this is very difficult to discuss with you, as you have said negative things about original LPs without having experience with them

 

[PeterA]

So Peter, this is the first press that goes for well over a 1000 USD in NM?

Ian referred to it as an original recording but I don’t know details beyond that.

 

[microstrip]

I have never seen you show knowledge of pressings so this is very difficult to discuss with you, as you have said negative things about original LPs without having experience with them

Yes, I do not care about pressings - it is not part of the hobby for me.

My comments on the vinyl format are general, independently of pressings. My reference for analog is tape, not vinyl. It is why I asked you "Anyway do you consider that vinyl reproduction can be preferred to master tape? Surely I am excluding cases where the master tape is now degraded."

 

[PeterA]

Yes, I do not care about pressings - it is not part of the hobby for me.

My comments on the vinyl format are general, independently of pressings. My reference for analog is tape, not vinyl. It is why I asked you "Anyway do you consider that vinyl reproduction can be preferred to master tape? Surely I am excluding cases where the master tape is now degraded."

I have read people stating preferences for direct to disk over master tape. Perhaps in rare cases both were made of the same performance.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, I do not care about pressings - it is not part of the hobby for me.

My comments on the vinyl format are general, independently of pressings. My reference for analog is tape, not vinyl. It is why I asked you "Anyway do you consider that vinyl reproduction can be preferred to master tape? Surely I am excluding cases where the master tape is now degraded."

The original LPs that are known for their sonic qualities are mostly cases where master tape has degraded or is not available for audiophiles to listen to. The tape copies of those are not as good.