Prog albums - CD vs. vinyl

24 bit exists for SACD and DVD Audio, processed at a higher rate for Blu Ray. 16 bit is the encoding that is used for the CD format and digital audio conversion is reversed to analogue from digital so that the digitally remastered recording now sounds good on vinyl. I once read that the LP bit rate was equivalent to 8 - 10 bit. Of course I'm not sure if that means pre-1983 LPs (as well as a lot afterward) or the current price for a record - (limitless).

I've heard horrible LPs. The thing get stuck on is seeing as far as the format itself. But while vinyl most certainly had many faults the worst was the varying quality of the tape genration that was disributed to various pressing plants. Which is why Japanese LPs were always the best, German second, British 3rd, US and Aus a poor 4th and NZ about 259 out of 258 countries.

I've recall hearing the first CD of Phiysical Graffiti and thought that I used to like this album. It sounded dreadful. No mastering for a new format, no care. As a side issue a, along with being kept on the lowest royalty rate for years it made me wonder ... about the true merits of the Ertegun tribute gig.

At least now we can be sure that recordings are sourced from a common master. This is why Japanese CDs always get those extra tracks, everyone gets good recordings but the expensive Japanese market demands something extra. Even the Stones' Exile On main Street box set had an extra track. I mean.. really. An archival limited release.

I've got the vinyl of On Your Feet Or On Your Knees (BOC) and it's the same as the unremastered CD you get in those varying little Original Albums CD series. The remastered CD  is better than both, not hugely but it's clearer and punchier.

The Genesis remasters, especially of the older albums are revelatory. Honestly, if there was integrity in the music industry these bands should have had time and expertise to have brought their recordings to the best they could rather than the LPs slung out for devoted pop fans to consume said product.

Older CDs (my (Mussorsky) Pictures and Rhapsody In Blue are very dated sounding CD masters. I really need updates. Classical gets the 24 bit treatment so much (I've stacks of SACDs which sound superb) but our pop music does not. Still more of a fan relationship manipulating cash cow arrnangemnt than art music.

I recall the CD issue of Songs From The Wood (Tull to all those who have been here so long they forget, unlike the fresh newbies) - it sounded, well, sticky. My Japanese remaster sounds beautiful.

Still I'd like to hear and read more about the Zep and Floyd new masters. I read here that the vinyl of the latest Zep masteres are better than the CDs. Is this the CDs before the current masters of the current CD masters.

Just for giggles there are now 2 vinyls of the Mothership compilation (both pre 2014 and current masters). yet I do not know if the CDs are current masters or old ones. Or which sounds beter or worse - and frankly I don't care.

All this does is illustrate what a mess the inefficient music industry has made of things. Now I dare not buy something I see in a shop in case there is (usually) a better version, more complete, the deluxe edition, the super deluxe edition or the super dooper deluxe edition.

So yes, sometimes I have a look around the Hoffmann fora (136 pages and counting on Bowie's 5 years box alone makes me wish for a resource more compact, a summary of what's best.

Incidentally and it may be just me but I've never known the ears bleeding over compressed brick walled problem so many moan about. Is it that people are so used to something that sounds awful but they are accustomed to it (Exile, Foxtrot) that something clear sounds different and this is "logically" interpreted as bad? Or are my ears shot from the beautiful mastering of Page's DW2? (Hang on too your old records and CD issues though).

Anyway I refer to the review pages often but there isn't much about the new masters and how they stand in the new playback technology etc. Some are mentioned but only a few reviews; it's like no one has the attention span to write a few paragraphs with a good conclusion and thoughtful recommendation. Trust me; it's appreciated.

As and when. No pressure.

cheers

dr wu23 wrote: I have no idea about new quality vinyl that many here are buying and I assume they are pressed better than the ones from the old days.

Well, if this whole discussion isn't relative to the eye of the beholder I don't what is!

Too many variables at stake to definitively say what medium really does a specific recording it's true justice.
However, I shall list just a few.
1) outcomes of frequency depth or DNR is greatly affected to what he/she owns audio equipment wise. Sound reproduction and accuracy can be greatly gained or lost relative to what you process in your living room or on your head.
2) who was in charge of the audio recording itself? Certainly some audio engineers are much better than others.
3) the whole inception or purpose of CDS was to allow for a stronger and more accurate DNR because CDs on General can house far more data/information than vinyl but the unfortunate problem was that (and still is) most audio engineers in the business would abuse the digital medium by essentially making things far too loud by maxing out various frequency thresholds. Take for example the use of radio. Now on order to have a cd played through a radio wave medium to broadcast it you essentially had to record the album "louder" so when that album was broadcasted you could hear it more on a greater level, but the level of compression had to be pushed and abused to do this, so a faithful recording was simply lost. Sadly.
4) it is amazing how much data/information actually exists with in a 16 bit-depth at 44.1K.
If you have an audio engineer who actually knows what he/she is doing you can get some unbelievable SQ greater than vinyl and of course vice versa.

I read through this form/thread and I have to say some of the opinions made are just so incredibly false it almost angers me, but I for sure won't get into any detail about that because as we all know...well at least most of us do...that it's all about the music baby!!

Now. Just to keep to Wurthers topic of discussion. In my experience just about every Alan Parsons album possesses a greater sonic experience on CD than vinyl because of the DNR level.
Iron maiden 1998 cd remaster issues don't hold a candle to the Vinyl pressings.
Genesis remasters (2007) For my tastes, definitely better for me on CD but really do sound utterly fantastic on both mediums. Then again, this is again relative to what kind of sound equipment you process.

Also, it is important to note that some cd and vinyl recordings were intentionally recorded in a specific manner to tailor to and for people, with higher end audio equipment. Actually, a case in point, those 2007 Genesis remasters on CD are a perfect example of just that.      . Processing lower end equipment or modest budget systems make for those remasters by Nick Davis and Tony Cousins to sound like complete and utter sh*t.

All in all though. Both media formats are great!! And isn't it lovely how we all get the adventure to see or hear what we ultimately love more. It's great to have choices. I for one, appreciate both.

Yeah!!!!

Rock, let's rock!

The time has come to forget all the bullsh*t and rock!

Barbu wrote: That's the price to pay to live in the ''plus meilleur pays du monde'', I suppose. Me, I call this Thievery!

Barbu wrote: ^ no thanks, dude. Vinyl : $47.66 CD : $12.88

^ no thanks, dude.




Vinyl : $47.66

CD : $12.88

moshkito wrote: Hercules wrote: moshkito wrote: When I look back to almost 50 years, I'm glad that the LP's are gone.  They are actually increasing sales faster than any other medium and pressing factories are being set up to cope with demand, actually! LPs are VERY much still here.     I have to tell you that on a recent trip to Fry's, the LP's they were showing off to people, I wouldn't have bought today, and when I started my collection the music I bought was way better than the crap they were advertising on a very cheap and poor turntable ... to make sure Led Zep 2 sounded even worse!   All in all, my concern is that the wrong stuff is being released and pushed by people that never understood or heard the fidelity in the music, enough to have any idea of what the differences were.  The majority of those LP's in there, did not have one half the quality that MP3's on 256K would have.   Over rated, and I will continue closing down my record library ... 1200 LP's to go, and I will only keep about 200 to 300 of them because they are too special for me for the cover or similar something or other.

Hercules wrote: moshkito wrote: When I look back to almost 50 years, I'm glad that the LP's are gone.  They are actually increasing sales faster than any other medium and pressing factories are being set up to cope with demand, actually! LPs are VERY much still here.

Yesterday is the past, the future is tomorrow and today is today......Rock n roll was dubbed a "fad", longest existing fad there is in my mind . Vinyl is not a fad, it never went away and doubt it ever will, ask the pressing plants all over the world that have 3-6 month order files and waiting list. CDs have more of a chance of going away than vinyl does, unfortunately. CDs are not even looked at for portability anymore...why would you?? Vinyl never was, the cassette tape was the vinyl killer in the 70s, especially for portability. Today it's the digital file, regardless of resolution....the fad item is the CD, it only exists because they are cheap to make. Better sound comes in the form of hi-rez 24bit digital files, the CD pretty much is at the bottom of the audio quality spectrum with redbook standard 16bit audio.