Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:55:40 -0800, Keith Hughes wrote
(in article ):
Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:36:12 -0800, wrote
(in article ):
snip
but I'll give you an
example, anyway - just to show where I'm coming from with this line of
thinking.
I have two copies of the Mercury Living Presence recording of Stravinsky's
"Firebird" ballet with Antal Dorati and the Minneapolis Symphony. One is
the
CD mastered by the recording's original producers Wilma Cozert Fine, and
Robert Eberenz. It sounds OK. Then, several years ago, I purchased the
Classic Records re-mastering of the same work on vinyl.
snip
Right, so on the basis of two totally different masterings (i.e. the
actual spectral composition was changed between formats, not 'just' the
requisite RIAA curve application) of the performance, you think you can
make a valid comparison of formats? Sorry, not possible - whatever
format comparison you choose (MP3-Vinyl-CD-SACD-etc.).
Keith Hughes
That's not important. The LP sounds incredible, the CD sounds mediocre. I'm
not inferring ANYTHING from that other than what I said. There are four ways
to buy that performance: 1) find a used original issue or later Phillips
issue of the LP, 2) buy the Classics Records 45RPM disc set, 3) buy the
original CD and 4) get the recently re-mastered SACD release. I have all
four. The Classic Records 3-sided 45 RPM CD sounds the most like real music
and is, without a doubt, one of the best sounding recordings I've ever heard.
The SACD sounds better than the original CD release, but not as good as the
Classic pressing. The original LP sounds better than both CD releases but not
as good as the Classic Records pressing.
That's the problem with most comparisons of LP and CD. The reference is
always relative to the other recording, not the original master
recording. Sure, LP may sound better than CD or SACD, but how do you
really know how good it is unless you've heard the original master
recording? The LP could have made the original recording sound more
pleasant with less dynamics and a less harsh top end. I'll admit that
LP recordings tend to sound more plaeasant to me than alot of CDs I
have. But that, to me has alot to do with CD having a way superior
dynamic range, so dynamics hit you harder, and probably harsher, than
LP. CD has no limit in its high frequency response compared to that of
LP, whereas LP has to roll off the high frequencies because the medium
just can't handle it. Therefore, any unpleasantness or hardshness in
higher frewquencies is presented to you, full blown from the CD. The
mastering engineer has to work much hard to make a pleasant CD because
it deliver's everything to you, warts and all. In the LP, some mistakes
are swallowed up or pleasantly washed over due to its limitations.
I know 2 people who have access to master tapes, and they say when CD is
done right, no question. LP does not even come close. The issue lies
with duplication and mass production.
Now, with SACD, I gather that Sony made a considerable effort to make
sure it sounds great, so they employed some great mastering engineers in
their productions. Also, SACD is inferior to even CD in technical
ability in terms of high frequency noise above 10 Khz. I get the feeling
that the noise shaping algorythms used in SACD that tranfer the noise to
the upper frequencies tend to make a performance sound more pleasant. A
loose analogy I would make is with the audio cassette. When you make a
cassette recording with no noise reduction, the resulting recording has
alot of hiss. When playing that recordning, the hiss makes the recording
seem to have a higher frequency response than it actually does during
playback. I get the vague notion that the noise shaping circuits in SACD
have a somewhat similarly pleasant effect on a recording.
Just my 2 cents.
CD