Comparing vinyl sound to hi-res digital remaster

[magiccarpetride]

I bumped into used vinyl record (Paul McCartney "Band on the Run") at a yard sale yesterday. The LP was in pretty bad shape, didn't even have inner sleeve, but I got it for one dollar. I then remembered that few years back I bought the "Uncompressed Audiophile 96kHz/24bit" hi-res download of the remastered album (http://www.hdtracks.com/band-on-the-run-hi-res-digital-download-uncompressed), so I decided to compare the LP with the hi-res remaster.

I was sure that the hi-res remaster is going to destroy the old vinyl (I had strong expectation bias). I was stunned when I played both formats side-by-side to hear how LP sounded much, much better than digital remaster. Especially knowing that the LP is old, abused, warped, not in the best overall shape.

Previously I wasn't surprised when I was comparing CDs to LPs and when I heard that vinyl beats the red book format. But I always thought that hi-res digital must have an upper hand compared to vinyl. Listening to both formats on "Band on the Run", I couldn't help but conclude that remastered hi-res digital sounds like a joke compared to the old school vinyl. I'm still in the state of disbelief...

[Bigman80]

I bumped into used vinyl record (Paul McCartney "Band on the Run") at a yard sale yesterday. The LP was in pretty bad shape, didn't even have inner sleeve, but I got it for one dollar. I then remembered that few years back I bought the "Uncompressed Audiophile 96kHz/24bit" hi-res download of the remastered album (http://www.hdtracks.com/band-on-the-run-hi-res-digital-download-uncompressed), so I decided to compare the LP with the hi-res remaster.

I was sure that the hi-res remaster is going to destroy the old vinyl (I had strong expectation bias). I was stunned when I played both formats side-by-side to hear how LP sounded much, much better than digital remaster. Especially knowing that the LP is old, abused, warped, not in the best overall shape.

Previously I wasn't surprised when I was comparing CDs to LPs and when I heard that vinyl beats the red book format. But I always thought that hi-res digital must have an upper hand compared to vinyl. Listening to both formats on "Band on the Run", I couldn't help but conclude that remastered hi-res digital sounds like a joke compared to the old school vinyl. I'm still in the state of disbelief...
Even though I completely agree that Vinyl is the best format, you've open a huge can of worms now 😂

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[bob4333]

Here we go then and I'll keep it short (ish). As a general principle you may be correct.

But the overriding factor is how the original was recorded, mastered, produced and pressed. I have some vinyl that sounds deep and sparkly and just wants to be played over and over again it's so absorbing: likewise I have some that deserves to be turned into plant pots.

Play me again, Sam:

Cream: Live at the Royal Albert Hall.
Fleetwood Mac: Tango in the Night
The Beatles: 1962-1966 (Red Album)
David Gilmore: Rattle That Lock
Dire Straits: On Every Street
Roger Waters: Amused to Death


Pass me a Geranium:

Free: Live (even the CD sounds better:eek:)
Genesis: Seconds Out
Led Zeppelin: Celebration Day
The Who: Quadrophenia
ELO: All Over The World

and sadly quite a lot of the more recent AC/DC stuff!

This is no reflection on the bands themselves, just the clowns in charge of the production process and those who think compressing the hell out of the music is something the public will welcome.

I have bought albums from HDTracks (expensive site in the UK, there are cheaper alternatives), but I've had a lot of success using DVD Audio Extractor to get the hi-res soundtrack off a DVD. Tubular Bells II and III Live are outstanding. You have to pay for the programme (about USD $30) but it works every time and you have the DVD of the performance as well.

Yes, you may be correct, but I think it's a qualified Correct.

[Firebottle]

...... just the clowns in charge of the production process ....

Isn't that always the problem with 're-mastered' :doh:

[Bigman80]

My Free live LP (original release) sounds great!

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[bob4333]

My Free live LP (original release) sounds great!



Best way to describe my copy (also from way back when) is it just sounds "thin" (and painful). And having seen them live on many occasions they were never that!

But doesn't this just epitomise the frustration of buying and listening to vinyl.........?

[Bigman80]

Best way to describe my copy (also from way back when) is it just sounds "thin" (and painful). And having seen them live on many occasions they were never that!

But doesn't this just epitomise the frustration of buying and listening to vinyl.........?
Haha, yes it does. Mine is fuller but a bit muddy I suppose when up against real hi-quality recordings.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[Macca]

Starting to conclude there is something wrong with Magic's digital set up ;)

It's all personal preference at the end of the day. Weird re-mastering doesn't help either, of course.

[magiccarpetride]

The Beatles: 1962-1966 (Red Album)

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

[magiccarpetride]

Starting to conclude there is something wrong with Magic's digital set up ;)

It's all personal preference at the end of the day. Weird re-mastering doesn't help either, of course.

I was probably naive to assume that remastering meant taking the original master tapes and carefully transferring them to digital. All along doing everything possible to reverently retain the closeness to the sonic fidelity. Apparently, nothing could be farther from the truth, as it now appears that artists and engineers are taking this remastering reissue project as an opportunity to revise history. To which I say: why bother? I like the way McCartney did the job originally, I am not interested in his revisions, not am I interested in the revisions some hot shot sound engineer superstar might want to shove down our throats.

I am doubtful that someone's digital setup could skew the impressions that much. Same goes for the turntable setup. Most of the mid-brow equipment available on the market today is sufficiently resolving to reveal such discrepancies, as I've described them in the original post.

[Macca]

I was probably naive to assume that remastering meant taking the original master tapes and carefully transferring them to digital. All along doing everything possible to reverently retain the closeness to the sonic fidelity. Apparently, nothing could be farther from the truth, as it now appears that artists and engineers are taking this remastering reissue project as an opportunity to revise history. .

Remastering is taking the original mix and remastering it. Hence the name. So you create a new master different to the old one.

It is sort of revising history but not to the extent of, say, the Star Wars Special Editions. It is a way to sell you the same album again, which is why there are so many re-masters of popular albums.

[Dynamics]

Ive never been a vinyl person. I think it would add a nice vinyl analogue sound but since almost all new and good music is on streaming or download or cd now i.e. Digital, it's natural to use digital sources for most music - that's unless you just rehash old vinyl albums again and again. Which would then mean playing vinyl really only predominantly for aesthetic purposes i.e. A nice deck looking good in a hi fi. This is my age old problem with vinyl.

So in this regard, and in the context of original question, the way digital music sounds is so much down to the dacs and quality of all the stuff, you can never say across all systems that vinyl is better. I don't think that was said but my digital stuff is well good enough, I don't need to bother with vinyl and I probably never will.

[Anthony K]

Max Townshend stated that cd is better than vinyl , and he created the mighty Rock

Having said that a fair comparison would be with two equally priced cd player and turntable. Most of the time I hear people waxing over vinyl is when they have £5k turntable and £1k cdp. They feel its not worth spending more on the cd end as they have already made up their mind which sounds better.

[topoxforddoc]

Nothing wrong with digital replay - and that's from an analogue diehard. I have only come to this conclusion recently, having had long held preconceptions about the superior quality of vinyl playback. As some have already said, it is all down to the mastering. Some digital remasters have just made the music unlistenable as the quiet bits are levelled up in a bid to win over the iPhone/iPod generation.

So, why have I changed my mind about digital v vinyl? It's all down to my recent R2R fetish with my 3 15 IPS 2 track studio machines. I have now bought over 50 "master" tapes (original distribution masters, Tape Project and safety copies) in the last 2 years. A few months ago, I transcribed a couple of these (Sgt Pepper's and Ziggy Stardust) to digital using a Pioneer CDR-609; this was done properly with the tape machines aligned and levels set on the PDR-609 for unity gain. Well, the digital files sound bl**dy excellent. Just goes to show that I shouldn't have been so bigoted in the past :)

[magiccarpetride]

Max Townshend stated that cd is better than vinyl , and he created the mighty Rock

Having said that a fair comparison would be with two equally priced cd player and turntable. Most of the time I hear people waxing over vinyl is when they have £5k turntable and £1k cdp. They feel its not worth spending more on the cd end as they have already made up their mind which sounds better.

Makes sense that we cannot compare two formats if one is listened to on a superior player while the other is listened to on an inferior player.

However, the topic of this thread is not 'vinyl compared to CD', the topic is 'vinyl compared to hi-res'.

[magiccarpetride]

Remastering is taking the original mix and remastering it. Hence the name. So you create a new master different to the old one.

It is sort of revising history but not to the extent of, say, the Star Wars Special Editions. It is a way to sell you the same album again, which is why there are so many re-masters of popular albums.

I thought that digital remaster is merely creating a new digital master that is different from the old digital master, not altering the original analog master. Digital remaster of the digitally mastered file is a completely different ball of wax.

[magiccarpetride]

Nothing wrong with digital replay - and that's from an analogue diehard. I have only come to this conclusion recently, having had long held preconceptions about the superior quality of vinyl playback. As some have already said, it is all down to the mastering. Some digital remasters have just made the music unlistenable as the quiet bits are levelled up in a bid to win over the iPhone/iPod generation.

So, why have I changed my mind about digital v vinyl? It's all down to my recent R2R fetish with my 3 15 IPS 2 track studio machines. I have now bought over 50 "master" tapes (original distribution masters, Tape Project and safety copies) in the last 2 years. A few months ago, I transcribed a couple of these (Sgt Pepper's and Ziggy Stardust) to digital using a Pioneer CDR-609; this was done properly with the tape machines aligned and levels set on the PDR-609 for unity gain. Well, the digital files sound bl**dy excellent. Just goes to show that I shouldn't have been so bigoted in the past :)

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.

[magiccarpetride]

Ive never been a vinyl person. I think it would add a nice vinyl analogue sound but since almost all new and good music is on streaming or download or cd now i.e. Digital, it's natural to use digital sources for most music - that's unless you just rehash old vinyl albums again and again. Which would then mean playing vinyl really only predominantly for aesthetic purposes i.e. A nice deck looking good in a hi fi. This is my age old problem with vinyl.

So in this regard, and in the context of original question, the way digital music sounds is so much down to the dacs and quality of all the stuff, you can never say across all systems that vinyl is better. I don't think that was said but my digital stuff is well good enough, I don't need to bother with vinyl and I probably never will.

I agree that listening to vinyl only makes sense if one is not interested in primarily listening to the contemporary production. I've tried my hand on purchasing a few of the contemporarily recorded and pressed vinyl records, and walked away unimpressed (I want my money back). I think I'll stick to the golden vinyl period -- 1950s to early 1980s.

[topoxforddoc]

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.

Not necessarily. In my system, I'm comparing 3 ways - 15 IPS master tape to a digital rip from the master tape to the LP played on my Platine Verdier. Even though my vinyl replay set up (PV plus 2 tonearms/carts and TRON Reference phono stage) costs in excess of £15k new, it gets stomped all over by the 15 IPS master tape and a direct digital rip of the 15 IPS master. Sorry.

[Macca]

I thought that digital remaster is merely creating a new digital master that is different from the old digital master, not altering the original analog master. Digital remaster of the digitally mastered file is a completely different ball of wax.

Depends on what we are taking about, the final mix is a master but then after that you have a recording master with compression eq and then you make generations of masters off that and send them round the world to pressing plants, or to distributors who make more copies of that master and so on.

So you may not have the original final mix, or the pre or post compression master, you may have to use the 4th or 5th gen master if that is all there is available. Obviously in analogue all that copying results in degredation. So the source of your digital version could be significantly poorer than the source of your vinyl version. I mean people don't go after 1st pressings for no reason.

As to what they do with it can vary from next to nothing, to cleaning it up a bit, to whacking the compressor right up and getting shot of all the nasty dynamic range. Although can't see why they would do that with a 'hi rez' remaster so I doubt that is the problem, although you never know.

It is unlikely that went back to the original tracks and re-mixed it but I think they did do that with the 'Stones remasters so could be so. I agree that starts to become revisionism and a bit dodgy.

[magiccarpetride]

Depends on what we are taking about, the final mix is a master but then after that you have a recording master with compression eq and then you make generations of masters off that and send them round the world to pressing plants, or to distributors who make more copies of that master and so on.

So you may not have the original final mix, or the pre or post compression master, you may have to use the 4th or 5th gen master if that is all there is available. Obviously in analogue all that copying results in degredation. So the source of your digital version could be significantly poorer than the source of your vinyl version. I mean people don't go after 1st pressings for no reason.

As to what they do with it can vary from next to nothing, to cleaning it up a bit, to whacking the compressor right up and getting shot of all the nasty dynamic range. Although can't see why they would do that with a 'hi rez' remaster so I doubt that is the problem, although you never know.

It is unlikely that went back to the original tracks and re-mixed it but I think they did do that with the 'Stones remasters so could be so. I agree that starts to become revisionism and a bit dodgy.

From what I know (and please keep in mind that I know very little) there was a time in human history when mastering engineers' job was to prepare the master tape for vinyl pressing in such a way to make sure the vinyl will sound as close as possible to the reel-to-reel master. Allegedly, not a job for the faint hearted. But some people perfected the craft and the art and the black magic science in knowing how to coax the equipment into producing the vinyl that would be pretty darn close to how the master reel-to-reel sounds.

Then came the age of Doug Sax (the Mastering Lab), when the rogue engineers said "sod that, mastering is an art in itself, so I'm gonna mess with the tape until it sounds the way I envision it!" They call it 'sweetening' the master tape. I call it bullshit.

[magiccarpetride]

Not necessarily. In my system, I'm comparing 3 ways - 15 IPS master tape to a digital rip from the master tape to the LP played on my Platine Verdier. Even though my vinyl replay set up (PV plus 2 tonearms/carts and TRON Reference phono stage) costs in excess of £15k new, it gets stomped all over by the 15 IPS master tape and a direct digital rip of the 15 IPS master. Sorry.

THAT I would love to hear!

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Remastering is taking the original mix and remastering it. Hence the name. So you create a new master different to the old one.

It is sort of revising history but not to the extent of, say, the Star Wars Special Editions. It is a way to sell you the same album again, which is why there are so many re-masters of popular albums.

Whilst in quite a few cases a marketing angle in undeniable, there remain other cases where electronics
developments, has created the ability to interpret the original master tape in a better way, giving rise to
achieving a better sound for the buyer.

The Genesis re masters for instance have managed to achieve a better sound, I do not think many
people would argue differently. The best example being Nursery Cryme

Whilst it is lovely having sometimes improvements like this to earlier recordings, it is though indicative
of a music industry in trouble, stifling new artists by way of excessive copyright and no longer talent scouting.

Frank Zappa's disassociation with Herb Cohen brings a point of financial concern music artists
find themselves in. "profiting unduly from his earnings" is the way Zappa describes it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Cohen Subsequently to extricate, artists like Zappa moved
mountains to achieve freedom.

If we compare the 1960's and 1970's to now, there is no comparison. Music flourished, now
it does the opposite.

Which gives or should give attention to Creative Commons music artists, as these people
are doing their best to bring you their music, without excessive overheads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons

[Macca]

From what I know (and please keep in mind that I know very little) there was a time in human history when mastering engineers' job was to prepare the master tape for vinyl pressing in such a way to make sure the vinyl will sound as close as possible to the reel-to-reel master. Allegedly, not a job for the faint hearted. But some people perfected the craft and the art and the black magic science in knowing how to coax the equipment into producing the vinyl that would be pretty darn close to how the master reel-to-reel sounds.

Then came the age of Doug Sax (the Mastering Lab), when the rogue engineers said "sod that, mastering is an art in itself, so I'm gonna mess with the tape until it sounds the way I envision it!" They call it 'sweetening' the master tape. I call it bullshit.

Ah well I don't know anything about that.

Charlie has the right idea: just buy the masters. Then there's no argument.

[walpurgis]

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.

I only use CD and records, but find that although the formats do present things differently, neither is superior to the other in my system. And, I have found some CD albums sound superior to the same album on vinyl (and vice versa).

[Macca]

Whilst in quite a few cases a marketing angle in undeniable, there remain other cases where electronics
developments, has created the ability to interpret the original master tape in a better way, giving rise to
achieving a better sound for the buyer.

The Genesis re masters for instance have managed to achieve a better sound, I do not think many
people would argue differently. The best example being Nursery Cryme

]

I agree some do sound better, but that to me is akin to digitally re-mastering Star Wars to sharpen it up from the old prints, which no sane person would object to, as opposed to Greedo shooting first and comedy cartoon jawas ruining moments of tension; which every sane person objects to. It isn't a fine line.

[magiccarpetride]

I only use CD and records, but find that although the formats do present things differently, neither is superior to the other in my system. And, I have found some CD albums sound superior to the same album on vinyl (and vice versa).

I only use digital transport to play FLAC/WAV/AIFF (and sometimes mp3) files. I have invested a lot of time and effort in building the best possible digital sound system (within my budgetary constraints). Many people who visit and listen to my digital playback remark how amazing it sounds, how warm and 'analog-like' it is.

But if I then play the same tracks on my turntable, there is no contest. Everyone readily admits that LPs beat digital files. What's up with that?

[Stratmangler]

The Genesis re masters for instance have managed to achieve a better sound, I do not think many
people would argue differently. The best example being Nursery Cryme

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.

[walpurgis]

What's up with that?

Perhaps it suggests that your digital source is not up to the standard of your record playing setup.

Or, that people agree with you to avoid an argument? :D

[magiccarpetride]

Perhaps it suggests that your digital source is not up to the standard of your record playing setup.

Or, that people agree with you to avoid an argument? :D

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.

[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. :D

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.:eyebrows:

[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 :)

[magiccarpetride]

Whilst in quite a few cases a marketing angle in undeniable, there remain other cases where electronics
developments, has created the ability to interpret the original master tape in a better way, giving rise to
achieving a better sound for the buyer.

That has always been my understanding regarding the motivation for remastering a CD that's already been on the market. The rationale has been that the initial stab at transferring the master tape into digital format was less than perfect, and since the equipment and the skill set has been improved, let's take another stab at doing the analog-to-digital transfer.

Of course, con artists are everywhere, and some shady businesses will take this opportunity as an attempt to make a quick buck, but I still believe that in majority of cases, remaster is an attempt at a more faithful transfer from analog to digital. Call me naive.


Whilst it is lovely having sometimes improvements like this to earlier recordings, it is though indicative
of a music industry in trouble, stifling new artists by way of excessive copyright and no longer talent scouting.

Yeah, that's the truth (sadly). Why risk anything by scouting for talent when they can milk the cash cow that is risk-free and guaranteed to bring huge profits.


If we compare the 1960's and 1970's to now, there is no comparison. Music flourished, now
it does the opposite.

Again, you're bang on. Some people would no doubt disagree and insist that music today is as good as it's ever been, but, to cite Seinfeld "not from the footage I've seen".

[magiccarpetride]

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.

True, and I'll go even a step further -- you could crunch the same file down to lossy mp3, and it will still sound impressive. I've heard mp3 files that sounded better than hi-res files, all due to quality mastering.

[Firebottle]

I am one of the few on the planet to hear this system so feel quite lucky. :yay:

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

New Chord CD player via Dave perchance? :D

[Dunluce978]

I have had analogue and digital now for a long time and I always considered that vinyl on a good system still sounded better. Recently though the developments in DACs have brought me to the conclusion that the gap has narrowed so much that I'm now about to offload all my vinyl and associated equipment. I'm building a second DDDAC NOS Dac with updated components and if it sounds even slightly better than the existing DAC then I'll be more than happy to go all digital.

Don't get me wrong, there is something nice about playing vinyl, the album covers and the romance of the turntable, cartridges and all the other adjustments and tinkering, however it's also nice to switch on, select a playlist and sit back, be lazy and enjoy the music ;)

[Jimbo]

New Chord CD player via Dave perchance? :D

Indeed you are correct. Listened to BLU ii CD player which massively upscales to DAVE and I must say it did raise the bar. After an extensive listening session I can honestly say that this new piece of technology brings Digital and what is available on CD to another level. Not quite the jump when I first heard DAVE but significant.

Main improvements were in soundstage both depth and width - astounding. Also Bass quality and precision much improved.

Overall impression was that digital at this level is like listening to Analogue from Mastertape. Cant really compare it to vinyl as it is far quieter and has much more the analogue tape experience. You could listen to this system all night with absolutely no fatigue and certainly you are not aware of any digital negatives.

Super smooth, super detailed, glorious Bass and huge soundstage. Wonderful stuff.

My last thought --- will digital eventually evolve to sound almost exactly like the best analogue on mastertape. If it does that is no bad thing.:)

[JohnMcC]

I'm interested in this because I finally bit the bullet and bought Peter Gabriel's remastered "So" on vinyl last week and was blown away by the quality of the sound and the quality of the vinyl - silent, completely silent until the music starts, then wonderful dynamic range, huge detail. So I decided to check it out against a high-res download which I bought and which - I'm guessing - is the same basic mix. And I'm quite sorry to say the download just edged it in terms of detail . . . but the vinyl is (and I hate myself for being poncey) more musical?

On the other hand I bought a remastered 2010 pressing of "Court of the Crimson King" this week, because it's had quite a few recommendations on here, and it's poor. Three or four clicks and pops on side one (after cleaning) and I'm not sure it sounded any better than my old original pressing from 1969. So I just don't know. Some will sound better on vinyl, some as high res downloads.

[Firebottle]

Indeed you are correct.

If I decide to update my CD replay kit I might well go down this route, after all one might as well get the best.

:)

[sq225917]

I have quite a few albums of the dam issue on multiple formats. It's a total crap shoot which sounds better. Vinyl is full of distortions from the physical process, these are undeniable, but they may be harmonious. Similarly some digital sounds digital, for want of a better phrase. Rarely, they sound identical.

I favour neither beyond the other.

[Stratmangler]

I'm interested in this because I finally bit the bullet and bought Peter Gabriel's remastered "So" on vinyl last week and was blown away by the quality of the sound and the quality of the vinyl - silent, completely silent until the music starts, then wonderful dynamic range, huge detail. So I decided to check it out against a high-res download which I bought and which - I'm guessing - is the same basic mix. And I'm quite sorry to say the download just edged it in terms of detail . . . but the vinyl is (and I hate myself for being poncey) more musical?

On the other hand I bought a remastered 2010 pressing of "Court of the Crimson King" this week, because it's had quite a few recommendations on here, and it's poor. Three or four clicks and pops on side one (after cleaning) and I'm not sure it sounded any better than my old original pressing from 1969. So I just don't know. Some will sound better on vinyl, some as high res downloads.

Where did you get the download of So?
There's a download code for it when you buy the record, and you have a choice of MP3 or 24/96000 Wav.
The recent vinyl release is a half speed cut, and the source for the cut is a recent 24/96000 ADC transfer from the analogue stereo master tape.

I too find the vinyl a more engaging listen, and that's despite its faults.

[Jimbo]

[QUOTE=Firebottle;862886]If I decide to update my CD replay kit I might well go down this route, after all one might as well get the best.

:)[/QUOTE

I often think along the same lines Alan, do I buy another small family car or Steves system!:lol:

It is certainly something that makes a sonic impression on the brain which is very hard to forget and even though I listen to it regularly I always get goosebumps!

I feel what he has put together finally answers any questions regarding digital vs vinyl:)

[JohnMcC]

Where did you get the download of So?
There's a download code for it when you buy the record, and you have a choice of MP3 or 24/96000 Wav.
The recent vinyl release is a half speed cut, and the source for the cut is a recent 24/96000 ADC transfer from the analogue stereo master tape.

I too find the vinyl a more engaging listen, and that's despite its faults.

Yep, from the little white card in the LP sleeve. My first post was ambiguous there - sorry. Do you think the half-speed cut thing adds anything?

[Stratmangler]

Yep, from the little white card in the LP sleeve. My first post was ambiguous there - sorry. Do you think the half-speed cut thing adds anything?

It gives the cutting head an easier time of it. It doesn't get so hot, and the groove is better cut as a result.
You need to get the eq correct when you do it - something at 80Hz translates to 40Hz at the cutter head.
Recent half speed cuts tend to use 24/96000 digital files, because they're easier to manipulate in the digital realm.
If you do it in the analogue domain every point of contact in the tape path can adversely affect the result.