[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 27, 9:36am, ScottW wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:06pm, Scott wrote:

On Apr 26, 11:45am, ScottW wrote:

On Apr 25, 6:05pm, Audio Empire wrote:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:42:36 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his
LPs sound significantly better than the same albums
downloaded from HDtracks. Ignoring for a moment that this
might be true, I wonder how much depends on equipment?

Excellent question. Truth to tell, LPs are a bit of a paradox.
A cheap CD player always sounds better (to my ears, at least)
than a cheap turntable. An expensive CD player sounds very
much like a cheap one. There MAY be a sonic difference between
a $50 CD player and $5,000 CD player, but that difference is
largely subjective and may or may not show up in a DBT. OTOH,
a cheap turntable/arm/cartridge through a cheap phono preamp
may sound O.K., BUT, the same record played on a really good
turntable/arm/cartridge costing thousands and played through a
very accurate RIAA phono preamp (such as the Parasound JC-2)
will sound unmistakably better in almost every way.

That leaves the question, will the LP of a superior sounding
performance sound better on an expensive phono rig than will
the CD mastered from the same master tape and played on any CD
player?

Does this really happen today?

Actually it does.

Do people put onto CDs the same master that has been created
with all the constraints of vinyl (mono bass, compressed deep
bass and bumped (to compensate mid bass)?

Those are not actual constrants. If you check out the offerings
from labels such as Analog Productions, Music Matters and the like
you will find that they are producing dual layer SACDs and vinyl
LPs of the same titles using the same mastering engineers who are
explicitely not using any compression or summing the bass to mono
or applying any of the other mythical constrants on the vinyl
mastering.

I won't argue that there is a big difference in capability between
45 RPM LPs and ordinary LPs in allowable dynamic range (groove
spacing) but is it reasonable to use those few extraordinary
examples of the best vinyl can be to describe vinyl?

it is not just reasonable it is absolutely mandatory if one is talking
about the medium per se to use the ultimate example of that medium.
Not really sure how they are so extraordinary though. I have close to
300 of them myself. They are pretty substantial in the audiophile
reissue world.

I won't argue that the constraints and adaptations required by
typical 33 RPM vinyl groove spacing can be overcome but at which
point is the technology not comparable. It's as much apples and
oranges between CD and typical 33 RPM LPs versus 45 RPM single side
cuts.

But it is also the reality we enjoy in the audiophile reissue market
these days. With many great titles one does have the opportunity to
chose between brilliantly mastered 45 rpm LPs and brilliantly mastered
dual layer SACDs.


AND yes, audiophiles are finding the vinyl versions to be
preferable even when they are taken from the same master tapes and
mastered by the same mastering engineers at the same time.


Not all. I've a couple Classics issues with both CD and vinyl and
find them generally comparable.

Sorry, I didn't mean all audiophiles. I should have been more clear.

I've mentioned this before, but I have a Classic Records
remastering on 4 single sides on 200 gram vinyl at 45 RPM of
Stravinsky's "Firebird" by Antal Dorati and the London
Philharmonic recorded by Mercury's Bob Fine. The
aforementioned Classic Record release was mastered by the
recording's original producer, Wilma Cozart Fine who also
remastered all of the Living Presence recordings (including
the CD of this performance) for Philips in the 1990's. Fine
said in an interview at the time that the CDs were
"indistinguishable from the master tapes." That being the
case, one would think that her later 45 RPM vinyl remaster of
that same master tape would sound pretty identical to the CD.
I'm here to tell you that they sound NOTHING alike. The LP
sounds alive, with palpable imaging and much more APPARENT
dynamic range. It also sounds much cleaner and more real. I
have played the record vs the CD (with matched volume) for
dozens of people, and even though there is no doubt that they
are BOTH the same performance, every single listener has said
that the LP sounds more like a real performance than does the
CD.

I have a theory for this. CDs are capable of flat 20-20khz
response and mastering engineers don't need to tweak the bass.
LPs are not and skilled LP mastering engineers have developped
techniques to compensate.
Bumping up the mid bass to compensate for the rolled off deep
bass is common.

Your theory doesnt hold up in this case. the LP in question was
mastered by Bernie Grundman who has stated that there was no EQ
applied to this title when he cut it. The bass was cut flat. In
fact the original LPs were also cut the same way.

Who did what seems to be in question here. "The aforementioned
Classic Record release was mastered by the recording's original
producer, Wilma Cozart Fine who also remastered all of the Living
Presence recordings (including the CD of this performance) for
Philips in the
1990's."

She supervised both. Bernie Grundman did the actual cutting.

Does the reissue sound just like the original vinyl?

No. IMO the reissue sounds better.

If you are correct then it would seem that the 45 RPM and single
sided cut aspect of the reissue is just marketing ploy. They didn't
take advantage of the increased bandwidth it affords.

That doesn't make sense? How is it just a ploy? The results were
better sound. IMO that means it worked.


No mastering moves whatsoever. They were cut straight from the
three track masters through a console that folded them down to
stereo. that is it. No compression, no EQ no limiters. Nothing
extra in the mastering chain.

So Wilma did nothing for the CD release in the 90's nor for the
Classic reissue?

She did plenty. They went to great lengths to recreate the original
chain in order to accurately recreate the signal comming off the
original master tapes.

Bernie cut the Classics version exactly the same way. The only
difference was he used his cutting lathe and cut them at 45 rpm.
He even used the same playback gear that was refurbished for the
Dennis Drake CD remasters. Oh and he used a tube cutting amp.

Bernie versus Wilma. I suspect cutting and mastering are two
different processes.

"versus?" No, it was one process. Wilma supervised and Bernie did the
work.

In any case this discussion has opened far more questions than
answers.

I can't imagine why. I can't think of any example of a better
documented series of masterings than the Mercury label, be it the
original LPs, the CDs or the Classics 45rpm reissue LPs.