In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Robert Orban" wrote in
message
news
Through hard experience I've found that with
recordings of this vintage, it really pays to find
sealed, unplayed copies even if one has to wait for them
to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more.
There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the
late 60s, and even one play through some of them could
audibly damage the vinyl.
Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have
to observe that the audio quality of the run of the mill
vinyl from that era was pretty bad. It got a lot better
starting in mid-1969, probably because a new generation
of disc cutters was just coming on line.
I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people
evidently have for the audio quality of vinyl from that
era.
Bob Orban
I don't find a whole lot to disagree with here.
Except when you start free-associating with the usual vinylista propaganda
about certain LPs sounding more realistic than any CD.
What does that have to do with your quote?
There
was a lot of junk out there, as there is presently in
digital.
The difference is that the junk problem with the LP could never be
adequately solved. The junk problem with CDs is simply that there's no
accounting for taste.
Whatever. There are bad LPs and there are bad CDs. So?
Just about all Columbia and DGG was very bad in
the 60s. A shame considering the performances they
recorded. Most of Mercury, Decca, EMI, Harmonia Mundi,
and much of RCA sounded terrific on the other hand.
Still had the usual litany of vinyl noises, distortion and coloration.
And many sounded more like music than any CD I've heard. That's based on
the highest authority for the purposes of my music listening: my ears.