Interesting article on Vinyl vs CD

[Jimbo]

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/bas/0408/

https://www.dagogo.com/records-sound-better/

[Made in 1968]

I noticed the mention of first CD ever mass-produced in America, Born in the USA, I always thought it was Abba Arrival!

[bob4333]

Bob Ludwig's (and I mastered the first CD ever mass-produced in America, Born in the USA) idea of a well mastered recording and my own must be different.

I have one of the very early copies of this CD, only the second I bought back in the 80's, and I rarely play it it's so bright. Goodness knows where the bass finished up.

I have good and bad CD's, the same as I have good and bad LP's so I'm way past the CD vs Vinyl debate. In my view it's not the medium, rather more the expertise of the recording and mastering engineer that makes for a standout product. Take a listen to some of the stuff Giles Martin has done with the original (and old) Beatles recordings. He couldn't change the way they were recorded but he sure changed the end result.

[Macca]

Bob Ludwig's (and I mastered the first CD ever mass-produced in America, Born in the USA) idea of a well mastered recording and my own must be different.

I have one of the very early copies of this CD, only the second I bought back in the 80's, and I rarely play it it's so bright. Goodness knows where the bass finished up.
.

It's a pop record though and had lots of singles on it so maybe it was mastered for radio play? They don't like too much bass on the radio.

I've only got it on vinyl so can't compare.

[Marco]

Take a listen to some of the stuff Giles Martin has done with the original (and old) Beatles recordings. He couldn't change the way they were recorded but he sure changed the end result.

Yes, and it's debatable whether that 'end result' is as good as the original pressings (when played in mint condition)... Mono, done well, can be superb;)

Don't get me wrong, I rate the Giles Martin remasters highly, but for me they lack the 'rawness', sonically, of the originals (essential for this type of music to sound real), due to their rough edges having been a little too 'well polished'. IMO, the resulting sound is just a little too 'sanitised'.

I own numerous examples of both, so can carry out quick comparisons, and for me, there's still nothing to touch the originals, accurately conveying the essence of The Beatles 'sound':)

Marco.

[Jimbo]

Yes, and it's debatable whether that 'end result' is as good as the original pressings (when played in mint condition)... Mono, done well, can be superb;)

Don't get me wrong, I rate the Giles Martin remasters highly, but for me they lack the 'rawness', sonically, of the originals (essential for this type of music to sound real), due to their rough edges having been a little too 'well polished'. IMO, the resulting sound is just a little too 'sanitised'.

I own numerous examples of both, so can carry out quick comparisons, and for me, there's still nothing to touch the originals, accurately conveying the essence of The Beatles 'sound':)

Marco.

And probably the way they intended it to sound?

[Marco]

Exactly... So for me, robbing recordings of that 'sound' does not make them better, regardless of whether the end result is more sonically appealing to audiophiles;)

Marco.

[struth]

Think we have been over this before in that original Beatles stuff was mastered to be replayed on fairly low quality gear and still sound ok. More folk now either listen on higher quality gear or in many cases headphones from their phones. hence the stereo imaging is much more centraland of course the loudness up(imo too far up)

[AJSki2fly]

I noticed the mention of first CD ever mass-produced in America, Born in the USA, I always thought it was Abba Arrival!

℅ Wiki

"The first commercial compact disc was produced on 17 August 1982. It was a recording from 1979 of Claudio Arrau performing Chopin waltzes (Philips 400 025-2). Arrau was invited to the Langenhagen plant to press the start button. The first popular music CD produced at the new factory was The Visitors (1981) by ABBA."

On Discogs NM copy Philips 400 025-2 is around £60, and there is a Mint one for £999.99 if anyone fancies it.

[Barry]

No doubt the very first CD produced of the Chopin waltzes was given to Arrau to mark the occasion.

[Marco]

Think we have been over this before in that original Beatles stuff was mastered to be replayed on fairly low quality gear and still sound ok. More folk now either listen on higher quality gear or in many cases headphones from their phones. hence the stereo imaging is much more centraland of course the loudness up(imo too far up)

Yes mate, but that's not what I'm getting at! For me, the original Beatles stuff still sounds better (to my ears), replayed on the very best gear, *provided* that said gear allows those recordings to shine. It's not a hi-fi thing; it's a musical thing:)

Stereo imaging doesn't apply when recordings are in mono!;)

Marco.

[struth]

We're not all in mono but I get ur point.
I prefer the new ones personally.. More depth

[Marco]

Nope, but IMO the best ones were! For me though, Beatles albums aren't about 'depth' - just raw-sounding pop, bristling with joie de vivre, and therefore anything that dilutes that effect is a negative.

Marco.

[magiccarpetride]

Nope, but IMO the best ones were! For me though, Beatles albums aren't about 'depth' - just raw-sounding pop, bristling with joie de vivre, and therefore anything that dilutes that effect is a negative.

Marco.

I dislike Giles Martin's remixes of the Beatles. There, I said it.

I prefer original UK pressings (country of origin rule). I have many different pressings of a lot of Beatles LPs, including high quality Japanese pressings, but nothing sounds nearly as good as those original UK pressings. The sound is just so alive, so detailed, it jumps out of the speakers when I play those phenomenal UK pressings!