Comparing vinyl sound to hi-res digital remaster

[magiccarpetride]

If you're talking about the now widely available versions, which were last messed about with in 2007, then they were remixes from the multitrack tapes.
I'm not too fond of them in digital form, but on vinyl they sound fanbloodytastic.
The original mixes were removed from general circulation after the 2007 works hit the shelves.

To me, 2007 hi-res remasters sound hollow and bleached. I agree that on vinyl they sound much better.

[Macca]

There is no argument, I don't insist that LPs sound better. It's a spontaneous reaction. People initially react very favourably to the digital playback they hear on my system (not to brag, but people tend to utter words such as 'amazing!' and such). If I then play them the same material on the turntable, they get mighty surprised, because they did not expect that such improvement in sound was even possible.

So your sound from digital is 'amazing' but switching to vinyl the improvement is of such magnitude that it seems almost impossible?

Off to bed now but look forward to more.

[Marco]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with digital reproduction. Unless you happen to hear the same recording played back on a good turntable. Then the joy is totally and irrevocably ruined.

Lol.. We've been here before, remember? Quite simply, if your digital and vinyl sources are *genuinely* top notch, as are the respective recordings you're playing on them, then there should NOT be a major sonic discrepancy between them.

If you're not getting that, then providing the recordings used are excellent, blame either source for not being good enough to reveal the full quality of the recordings, not the format itself.

Marco.

[Pharos]

It seems clear that there are two ways to think of mastering; to re-record to improve something technically without altering it artistically, perhaps to lower the S/N or eliminate clipping, and to re-record but alter its artistic presentation, often by increasing some levels and reducing others, tweaking filters and altering panning etc., which I feel is generally a disgrace.

The latter is often IMO done by young masterers who have little feel for the original, and who were not around in its original zeitgeist and hence do not have a feel for the ambience during its origins.

I think this latter is prompted by the record companies to re-sell a piece of work, and is a cynical move, and is probably done by masterers who have also grown up in a noisy environment, and who are not used to listening on a good system in a relaxed atmosphere and receptive mindset.

They probably compress it due to that and the loudness wars.

[magiccarpetride]

Lol.. We've been here before, remember? Quite simply, if your digital and vinyl sources are *genuinely* top notch, as are the respective recordings you're playing on them, then there should NOT be a major sonic discrepancy between them.

If you're not getting that, then providing the recordings used are excellent, blame either source for not being good enough to reveal the full quality of the recordings, not the format itself.

Marco.

I totally believe that to be true (in theory); what I have yet to experience is hearing it with my own ears (in practice).

I have many strong reasons to cheer for your theory. I have accumulated thousands of hours of high quality music, mostly stored in FLAC format. If I were to conclude that digital playback is indeed a big joke (like it appeared to me when I was comparing the hi-res sound of "Band on the Run" to the vinyl sound), I'd be looking at a huge expense to replenish my music library. So I'm hoping and preying that you're correct, but remain unconvinced thus far.

So which digital transport/DAC combo would you recommend I invest in so that it could match my turntable?

[bob4333]

Are you referring to the recent remastered reissue, or to the original Red Album from the 1970s?

Original 1970's. Strangely the "Blue" bought shortly after, although very good, doesn't have the same magical ring to it.

I didn't know the "Red" had been re-mastered. Live and learn.

Incidentally, the latest remaster (2015, I think) of The Beatles "1" album containing their 27 no 1 tracks does get a vote from me. Has more weight and clarity to it. So I guess re-mastering by people who have a level of empathy with the original and know what they're doing and can be a good thing.

[bob4333]

Need to drift a moment (sorry OP).

Genesis re-masters have been mentioned a couple of times in this thread. I indicated my original vinyl "Seconds Out" is quite poor - dull, lacking in any involvement even with the volume whacked up a bit.

For those that have heard - does the re-mastered vinyl of "SO" improve things? (a bit? a lot?). If so I'm off to the record shop.

Incidentally, I've ripped "Genesis - When in Rome - 2007" from the DVD using Audio Extractor into 24bit/48kHz FLAC and the result is nothing short of spectacular. Depth and weight of the music, sound stage, imaging etc. It's all there. So much so that if this were available on vinyl (which I don't think it is) I doubt I'd be queuing up to buy it.

My take is that Hi-Res digital can be a viable alternative - if, like vinyl, it's done well. Or maybe it's just different. But a very acceptable "different".

[Macca]

Incidentally, I've ripped "Genesis - When in Rome - 2007" from the DVD using Audio Extractor into 24bit/48kHz FLAC and the result is nothing short of spectacular. Depth and weight of the music, sound stage, imaging etc. It's all there. So much so that if this were available on vinyl (which I don't think it is) I doubt I'd be queuing up to buy it.

My take is that Hi-Res digital can be a viable alternative - if, like vinyl, it's done well. Or maybe it's just different. But a very acceptable "different".

It's nothing to do with it being 'hi res' - it is just good quality recording, production and mastering. You could play the same file in 16/44.1 and it would still retain all those qualities.

[Jimbo]

Yep Hi- Rez is a red herring. I am going to listen to something Hi Rez tonight but not necessarily 24bit as I think it involves CD.

If I can I will report back and put a post up as it will be quite special. I am one of the few on the planet to hear this system so feel quite lucky.

I have a feeling it is going to raise the digital bar to another level.

[magiccarpetride]

Original 1970's. Strangely the "Blue" bought shortly after, although very good, doesn't have the same magical ring to it.

I didn't know the "Red" had been re-mastered. Live and learn.

Incidentally, the latest remaster (2015, I think) of The Beatles "1" album containing their 27 no 1 tracks does get a vote from me. Has more weight and clarity to it. So I guess re-mastering by people who have a level of empathy with the original and know what they're doing and can be a good thing.

I remember back in my early youth I got the Red album from my mother as a present, and it sounded absolutely awesome. Sadly, later on it got left behind as I was moving houses. I guess now's the time to search for a decent original pressing. Thanks for reminding me