![]() |
Vinyl Asylum Welcome Licorice Pizza (LP) lovers! Setup guides and Vinyl FAQ. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Sorry but this is wrong! posted by John Elison on August 13, 2005 at 14:30:21:
1.)
> > While many commercial CDs might lack some of the ambience and low-
> > level information found on vinyl, none of my digital copies seem
> > to be deficient in this area.
If you read any of my other comments on analog v. digital you'll see I don't make any assumptions based on comparing CDs to their vinyl counterparts because I think the mastering/manufacturing process or playback equipment are the real reasons for differences between these formats.But I can and do believe that Cds as a whole have a more generic/mechanical sound character than LPs as a whole - this comes not by comparing the two formats directly but by comparing the overall results I've been able to achieve with each.
I've made digital copies of vinyl recordings and have been amazed by how much of the analog quality is transferable to digital. But ultimately I still think there is a difference between the formats - but not nearly enough for one to be considered somehow vastly or even decisively "superior" than the other in an evenly balanced system.
I'm not sure how far apart we actually are on this issue. Surely my opinions could be clouded be extraneous issues ( ie. recordings and my systems ability) - but I'm fairly confident yours are subject to the same constraints as well.
//****************
2.)
> > Again you begin with “I think,†which indicates an opinion rather
> > than fact.
Of course it's my opinion - there's no reason to present my opinion as facts.
Then you follow up with the comment immediately below to which I could start my response with a similar comment - "I beleive" and "I think" but won't. It's fine that we both admit we are talking about our own opinions and experiences.
> > Personally, I think most CDs sound pretty much the way their
> > creators want them to sound. Of course, there are certainly many
> > poorly mastered CDs just as there are many poorly mastered LPs,
> > but I believe that Redbook is quite sufficient to capture the
> > essence of any LP in my collection.
But John this doesn't jive with what you said when you disagreed with item 1 above where you said
> > While many commercial CDs might lack some of the ambience and low-
> > level information found on vinyl, none of my digital copies seem
> > to be deficient in this area.Now I'm perfectly content with accepting our differences in item 1 above and with your agreement with item 3. But I find your disagreement with this second item as being most surprising. All I'm saying is a poorly mastered CD sounds worse than a well produced vinyl and vice versa. Surely I have many poorly produced records as and I have many poorly produced CDs. It's easy though for me to find CD remasters of older (predigital) vinyl releases that are worse sounding than their vinyl counterparts - but conversely most newer release sound better in the CD format than they do on vinyl.
//************************
3.)
> > I agree.
Yep and that's what audio is all about.//I don’t agree with you on this point.
That's fine but as far as I know most vinyl releases roll off well below 20Khz - and adding a high frequency boost allowed many listeners to believe their systems had more "resolution" and or extension. In fact if most vinyl recordings were rolled off, and I believe they were/are, then a high frequency boost actually helped restored information lost in the manufacturing process.The point here is that systems optimized around the kind of rising high frequency responses as you describe them would be more susceptable to things normally called digital "nasties" - shrillness or harshness of high frequencies.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Sorry but this is wrong! - Don T 08/13/0518:21:24 08/13/05 (2)
- You're right.... - John Elison 19:09:54 08/13/05 (1)
- No you're right.... - Don T 19:34:16 08/13/05 (0)