70s prog on vinyl

By the way for those seriously interested in the history:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/edhtml/edcyldr.html

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ CD, hands down ... the signal to noise ratio is simply better.

Thought so. So any music that makes use of extended periods of silence, like John Cage's, should be listened to on a CD.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Unfortunately the human brain is easily deceived ... that's why there are listening tests. People fail to tell high quality sources apart (for example CD vs. vinyl) in controlled experiments, but there will always be people who try to tell you that one is vastly superior to the other. My verdict: vinyl can sound great, CD can sound great!

Nah, it's all crap.  The format I prefer is that cylinder tin foil thingy that Edison first came up with.

Yeah baby, that's the ticket!


Edited by Slartibartfast - November 21 2007 at 16:56

I wonder which format can generate a deeper silence...

I was left a Pink Triangle Anniversary TT and around 800 vinyl albums (about 65% prog) by my late partner. He raved about vinyl's sound quality, but I had always thought CDs better.

No more - there's no comparison. The Pink Triangle eases the most unbelievable levels of detail out of the grooves and it all sounds so natural. I use my CD player for new releases not around on vinyl, but when I have a choice, it's vinyl every time.

Not at all - I got a Project Debut III USB for that very reason

Edited by Certif1ed - November 21 2007 at 15:26

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Listening to Dream Theater - Systematic Chaos right now ... on vinyl. 180gr, awesome artwork ... it's quite a package compared to the CD edition. Still, can't say that it *sounds* better.

Edited by Nightfly - November 21 2007 at 10:36

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Yes, but much of the new stuff is being released on vinyl. I've become quite a collector ... I even ordered the new special vinyl edition of Porcupine Tree's Fear of a Blank Planet yesterday - costs me 60 EUR including shipping, the most expensive album I've ever bought.   It's almost pointless buying modern LPs, as most are recorded digitally.   The whole point about early LP's vs CD is simply that an analogue master -> analogue consumer item sounds better than its digital counterpart.   I conducted a simple test with a work colleague of mine;   I recorded a first pressing of The Doors "L.A. Woman" at 24-bit/192khz - it was a monster WAV file, but sounded extremely close to the vinyl source. Ok ... let me just point out here that the mere fact that something is recorded digitally doesn't seem to be a problem, since you say that the digital copy you made sounds almost like the vinyl source. Indeed - the key phrase here is "extremely close". Note that I didn't say "identical" or anything like that   I then re-rendered it to 16-bit/44.1 khz, and ripped the same track from a CD @ 16/44.1.   Two questions: 1. What do you mean by re-rendering? I recorded it using a professional DAW in raw audio format. To get the music data into a portable format, such as WAV, it has to be rendered. 2. Is the CD which you used considered to be a good mix? There are some pretty bad CD versions of classic 70s albums ... just because something is recorded in 16bit/44.1khz doesn't mean it's "CD quality".   Indeed - the quality of CDs varies as much as if not more than vinyl. 16/44.1 is widely recognised as "CD Quality" - the term is very commonly used to mean exactly that.   However, the end sound quality depends entirely on the source, the means by which the music got into the computer in the first place and the amount/quality of digital processing performed on the mix. My colleague (who is a Hi-Fi buff, with an expensive soundcard, valve headphone amps and reference headphones) then played the 3 files back to back, and was immediately impressed with the presence, separation and dynamically musical quality of the 24-bit file.   Next preferred was the 16-bit version of the vinyl recording.   Last was the CD rip - despite being "the same" sound quality as the vinyl rip, and having a greater range - more top and bottom - it was felt that the CD was altogether more harsh and less musical.   This without knowing which was which - so I thought it fairly conclusive, although surprising, as I didn't think that a digital rendition of a vinyl recording would do it full justice - and compared to listening on my home system, even the 24-bit file seems a bit lifeless and lacking in (subjective) musical colour.   Sorry, but this only tells me that the particular CD you used in this example appears to be flawed. Why should CDs generally sound horrible compared to the 16 bit version which you ripped yourself? Of course you can draw whatever conclusions you like - this is by no means a generalisation, it's a specific test. The fact is that the CD in question sounded worse - and there are many answers to the question you pose, all of which would be guesswork.   I could assume that the CD in question was taken from a later generation master tape, processed using early, cheap or badly written software and then written using cost-cutting mass production methods onto cheap CDs - but that would not apply to every CD that exists, of course.   This is just a simple test that anyone can perform for themselves - you don't have to use a DAW, you could use free software like Audacity - but I think that's limited to 24bit 96Khz rather than 192. There should still be a notable difference - and much depends on the Audio Converters on the soundcard you use for ripping.   I've bought a few LPs recently, but most have been disappointing. The best by far was by Jet. The worst was by the Engineers, who sound great in concert (very Floyd), but sound awful on vinyl.     Back to '70s prog, Camel sound utterly incredible on vinyl - particularly Mirage and Moonmadness  If you're up for a little experiment ... try Oceansize - Everyone Into Position on vinyl. Or any Porcupine Tree, or Opeth. They sound really great! I'll probably skip those, as I'm not a fan of any of those bands. I do possess one Porcupine Tree EP - "4 Chords...", and while the sound is OK, I don't like the music or the over-compressed production. There seems little point in putting something with such a clearly digital source onto vinyl! I'd imagine that the CD would sound pretty much the same, except with more headroom at the top and bottom, because of the wider dynamic range available to the medium.

A few years ago, I had taped a Status Quo ablbum, the vinyl version of "Blue for You" onto a blank tape, the quality was poor the playback was, but I don't blame the vinyl itself, it could be something to do with it going from one format to another maybe?

I have been told before by someone that  "LPs tend to have the sound at the back of the speakers, whilst CD are heared on front of the speakers when played" - surely that is a load of bull.

Problems I find with with some CD remasters are not always original to their vinyl releases, especially the 1980s CDs,
bands like ZZ TOP added 80s sound effects to their first 5 albums, with the naff 80s drum machine sounds etc, however now a couple of their album have been recently remastered now and includes the original mix, because TUSH didn't sound right with those blinking 1980s style drum remixes: however it sound better now in it's original mix.

 I think at one point they did this with FREE as well I remember at one point "All Right Now" had those annoying drum remixes.

Frank Zappa re-recorded the rhythm section of Were Only In It For The Money and Crusing With Ruben and the Jets, thi was when they were first on CD in 1986, however since then WOITFTM on the 1995 CD remaster had it's original master tapes of the bass and drums, however CWRATJ still remains in it's dubbed 1980s remix/re-recorded on CD.

OZZY OSBOURNE's first 2 albums were also messed up with on the 2002 cd reissues, BLIZZARD OF OZZ and DIARY OF A MADMAN were slightly re-recorded in 2002 removing  the original bass and drums with new ones, whilst the 1995 remasters are remastered with the ORIGINAL bass and drums. Also the 2002 reissue of BARK AT THE MOON has had a major remix and some people have complained about it sounded different to the original, also the volumes and certain solos are now spoiled apparently, but that album was not rerecorded in any way apparently.

Remasters are good as long as they are not heavily remix or not re-recorded and are remastered properly.

Neu!, Neu! 2 and Neu! 75 were remastered and reissued on CD in 2001, apparently Klaus Dinger and Michael Rother had the albums remastered 3 times to make sure it sounded the way it should, quite amazing that story.


Edited by PROGMAN - November 20 2007 at 19:41

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Yes, but much of the new stuff is being released on vinyl. I've become quite a collector ... I even ordered the new special vinyl edition of Porcupine Tree's Fear of a Blank Planet yesterday - costs me 60 EUR including shipping, the most expensive album I've ever bought.   It's almost pointless buying modern LPs, as most are recorded digitally.   The whole point about early LP's vs CD is simply that an analogue master -> analogue consumer item sounds better than its digital counterpart.   I conducted a simple test with a work colleague of mine;   I recorded a first pressing of The Doors "L.A. Woman" at 24-bit/192khz - it was a monster WAV file, but sounded extremely close to the vinyl source. Ok ... let me just point out here that the mere fact that something is recorded digitally doesn't seem to be a problem, since you say that the digital copy you made sounds almost like the vinyl source.   I then re-rendered it to 16-bit/44.1 khz, and ripped the same track from a CD @ 16/44.1.   Two questions: 1. What do you mean by re-rendering? 2. Is the CD which you used considered to be a good mix? There are some pretty bad CD versions of classic 70s albums ... just because something is recorded in 16bit/44.1khz doesn't mean it's "CD quality". My colleague (who is a Hi-Fi buff, with an expensive soundcard, valve headphone amps and reference headphones) then played the 3 files back to back, and was immediately impressed with the presence, separation and dynamically musical quality of the 24-bit file.   Next preferred was the 16-bit version of the vinyl recording.   Last was the CD rip - despite being "the same" sound quality as the vinyl rip, and having a greater range - more top and bottom - it was felt that the CD was altogether more harsh and less musical.   This without knowing which was which - so I thought it fairly conclusive, although surprising, as I didn't think that a digital rendition of a vinyl recording would do it full justice - and compared to listening on my home system, even the 24-bit file seems a bit lifeless and lacking in (subjective) musical colour.   Sorry, but this only tells me that the particular CD you used in this example appears to be flawed. Why should CDs generally sound horrible compared to the 16 bit version which you ripped yourself?   I've bought a few LPs recently, but most have been disappointing. The best by far was by Jet. The worst was by the Engineers, who sound great in concert (very Floyd), but sound awful on vinyl.     Back to '70s prog, Camel sound utterly incredible on vinyl - particularly Mirage and Moonmadness  If you're up for a little experiment ... try Oceansize - Everyone Into Position on vinyl. Or any Porcupine Tree, or Opeth. They sound really great!

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - November 20 2007 at 17:28