On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:11:00 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:22:17 -0700, wrote
(in article ):
In the first test "better" was the same. In the current test it was
different but has next to no relevance on the question of "better"
because
we must conclude the content is different. The "better" is the original
content not the medium.
Of course in my anecdote, we have no idea which of the copies sounded the
most like the masters since we don't have the masters (originals) to
compare
to. I can only hope that the LP is a closer approximation to the master
than
are either the HiRez copies, the Red Book CD, or the SACD, because they
definitely sound less like "real music" to all concerned.
My suggestion would be to make a digital copy of the CD - any CD - and mix
it with some uncorrelated noise, maybe even some blank groove noise ( a
silent track if you can find one) and see if the "magic" of the LP comes
through. The artifacts of LP reproduction are the only difference between
the two media (aside from bass reproduction), and I predict that they must
constitute the reason for all this discussion.
Gary Eickmeier
No, that's not the only difference. LPs are EQ'd differently than CD
production (if done right). Besides this test has been done and it is
definitely NOT the reason these LPS and digital copies sound so different.