Cd wees wees over vinyl ?

[mikeyb]

The vinyl version of the new Priest album is very good, better than I was expecting for a hard rock LP.

[Macca]

I do remember you saying this, but not where you get the information from nor how you identify 'correct' issues/reissues. Here's an example of something I might buy. (not this particular one, I already have it on vinyl ) Looking at the 'used' copies for sale, how can I identify which one of these for sale might be best? This might be possible if you are at a record shop, charity shop or car boot, but when buying online, not so much.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gaucho-Stee...s%2C130&sr=8-1

That one says it's a remaster at the top of the ad.

Had a look and can't see an original CD release for sale on eBay or Amazon, keep checking one will come up at some point. The 2000 remasters aren't bad. my Gaucho CD is from 2000.

Lots for sale on Discogs you could try there but there's a lot to trawl through to find an original.

Usually they say if it's a remaster. Or they give the release date. Anything mainstream had been released on CD by the end of the 1980s so if it gives a later date you know it's a remaster or re-release.

Early CDs 1983/1984 don't have barcodes which is a tell. I think they were introduced in late 1984.

Not all remasters are a disaster. I have a Ten Years After remaster which is excellent. But they can be shockingly bad. Use the DR Database to see which issue is the best. Ironically it's rarely the SACD.

[Pete The Cat]

I don't buy the idea that record companies are doing it to push people to vinyl.

That was a bit of a provocation on my part The problem is probably that many CDs simply get the same mastering as other digital files, so are compromised by a sound that's aimed at headphones, smart speakers, cars etc, whereas vinyl is being mastered separately just as you'd hope. But it's worth remembering how clever the record industry has been at getting us to re-buy or to upsell to us over the years - mysteriously a better version always seems to become available. How many folks here wonder how they came to have 5 copies of a favourite album?

To the original question, I find CDs up to the mid 1990s are a good bet. After that the "loudness wars" make them risky and you end up having to scour forums and the DR database to decide whether to take a punt.

Pete

[Lawrence001]

The vinyl version of the new Priest album is very good, better than I was expecting for a hard rock LP.

As in Judas? I didn't know they were still recording. I might have seen a gig advertised recently mind you.

Sent from my PCT-L29 using Tapatalk

[mikeyb]

As in Judas? I didn't know they were still recording. I might have seen a gig advertised recently mind you.

Sent from my PCT-L29 using Tapatalk

Best album they've released in years

[Barry]

Some interesting and thoughtful comments have been made concerning the relative dynamic range of vinyl vs. CD. The maximum theoretical dynamic range for vinyl is 70dB and for CD it is 95 - 105dB; though these figures depend on how the dynamic range is defined.

A very informative article on what recording engineers have to do to make the task of lacquer cutting possible can be found here:
Vinyl 101 How To Prepare Your Audio For Vinyl - Furnace Record Pressing
https://www.furnace.com

It also summarises all the limitations of vinyl replay and how with care some of them can be minimised at the mixing stage.
Despite being somewhat lengthy, it is well worth reading.

[Pete The Cat]

Despite being somewhat lengthy, it is well worth reading.

Thanks Barry - I enjoyed it with a cup of coffee The site shows what a craft record making is.

I didn't understand the criticality of mastering until I reached that puzzling moment when improvements in my system made some albums sound less satisfying. The difference between versions of the same album caused by varying mastering quality can be as great as making them sound like remixes. Even back in the vinyl heyday they didn't always get it right, eg I have Led Zeppelin II's from the 70s that range from phenomenally gutsy to bland, depending on the engineer.

Pete

[Macca]

I think 'quality' is the wrong term.

It's a deliberate decision taken when remastering classic recordings to reduce the dynamic range to next to nothing.

It's not due to incompetence, deafness, stupidity, bad equipment etc. It's how they wanted it to sound.

They could do it differently, but they often don't. It sells more if it's mastered that way. Sad, but true.

Most people who buy music are not concerned about sound quality. It doesn't even occur to them.

[Qwin]

I think 'quality' is the wrong term.

It's a deliberate decision taken when remastering classic recordings to reduce the dynamic range to next to nothing.

It's not due to incompetence, deafness, stupidity, bad equipment etc. It's how they wanted it to sound.

They could do it differently, but they often don't. It sells more if it's mastered that way. Sad, but true.

Most people who buy music are not concerned about sound quality. It doesn't even occur to them.

The old master tapes from the classic era of vinyl will have detreated somewhat by now.
When they remaster, they'll have to use so many digital filters to clean it up, take out background noise etc, it will kill the dynamic range.
Multiple filters has that effect, whether in the studio or in a DSP XO. One of those occasions where less really does equal more!