|
|
|
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:42:15 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/20/2004 8:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: y9bLc.143763$Oq2.122370@attbi_s52
When we're talking about one medium which has a hundred times lower
distortion and ten to a hundred times lower noise than the other,
'gross' seems like quite a mild term to me..................
Oh, I thought you might actually be talking about the actual listening
experience, an experience that is inherently riddled with distortions that
arguably look gross compared to either CD or high end LP.
In listening also, CD is noticeably less coloured than LP. It does
help if you use speakers such as mine, which have handily lower
distortion than a high-end vinyl rig...................
"Grossly outperformed" would indicate a sign of trouble to me. especially when
CDs rarely out perform LPs on my system.
Sure they do, you simply have a personal preference for the well-known
*added* artifacts of vinyl.
But I didn't realize you were talking
measurements and not listening experience.
In listening, I would tend to say that CD noticeably outperforms LP,
it's only in measurements that the gross difference in fidelity to the
original master is obvious.
I reckon that I get as good sound as anyone
else does from vinyl,
I doubt that but that is another topic.
Well of course you doubt it - but that's another topic.
it's just that the *medium* is fundamentally
limited.
Every medium is limited. You were refering to gross outperformance. I made the
mistake of assuming you were speaking of what you were hearing.
I hear that CD is obviously more stable in pitch, has obviously deeper
and clearer bass, has significantly superior dynamic range, and much
better treble detail. I guess some would say that this constitutes a
gross difference - especially those who claim to hear 'night and day'
differences among cables!
If it is "grossly" being outpreformed IME
it would be likely one of two things. The rig isn't working right, the records
are subpar in quality and/or condition or the listener is profoundly biased.
Nope, CD simply outclasses vinyl in every possible way, as a high
fifdelity sound source.
And yet I keep getting better sound from my records most of the time.
No, you simply keep *preferring* those added artifacts - which are
easily reproduced by making a CD-R copy of LP. That's always seemed to
me to be an obvious pointer to the transparency of CD, vs the euphonic
distortions of LP.
but *all* of my
thirty-odd XRCDs exceed the fidelity of their vinyl equivalents, and
that is simply down to excellent mastering on a fundamentally superior
medium.
What titles are you talking about? Which LP issues did you compare them to? I
am always on the look out for better masterings. And I am quite a jazz
enthusiast.
Try the 'XXXXX with the Miles Davis Quintet' series. Every jazz
enthusiast has at least one version of those classics.
I am not familiar with this title. Is it a compliation? I have just about
everything the Miles Davis Quintet released on vinyl though. What LPs did you
compare this particular CD release with?
Oh, very funny. As any Davis fan would know, I am of course referring
to four albums - Relaxin', Cookin', Steamin' and Workin' with the
Miles Davis Quintet, classic Davis albums from the mid '50s. The
Prestige LPs are IMHO the best vinyl versions you'll find, but are a
pale shadow of the XRCDs.
Of course, I could also mention 'Kind of Blue', but that has been
released so many times with so many remasterings that an 'apples for
apples' comparison is very difficult. Let me simply say about 'Kind of
Blue' that most of the CDs I have heard sound more lifelike to me than
most of the LP versions I've heard.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
|