[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:18:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

.
We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", compared to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.

Volume-wise, you're probably correct, but today's newly remastered and newly
pressed vinyl from people like Classic Records et al, are generally of older
titles that had a reputation for sounding great back in the day. These
include jazz titles from Verve, Blue Note, and Riverside, (the last two
largely recorded by Rudy Van Gelder), and classic titles from RCA Victor,
Mercury, British Decca, Vox Turnabout, and Everest among others. Just about
every vinyl title that ended up on somebody's "to die for" list is available
again on really high quality pressings. Often these are DMM mastered and
pressed on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl, some are cut at 45 RPM, and some are
even single-sided. All are much better than the original pressings from the
original label's manufacturing facilities. And where the same title is also
available on CD, the vinyl USUALLY sounds better.


Says who? The majority of impartial listeners in a double-blind, level matched
comparison of media struck from exactly the same mastering chain?

If not, or if such a subject pool doesn't exist in substantial numbers, then
to say it USUALLY sounds anything, is overstepping...unless you mean,
usually *to you*. In which case the caveats about DBT, level matched etc
still apply.



is evident in the final product. and it's a very rare thing these days. I've
noticed (as have others) that the JVC XRCD Red Book releases of the old RCA
Living Stereo titles actually sound MUCH superior to BMGs own SACD
remasterings of these same titles!

So, why would that be? Do you think the SACD releases, whose background has
was covered well in the audio press, actually was significantly less careful
than JVC's XRCDs?

(Personally, I have the XRCD of the Reiner Bartok, and since getting the
3-channel SACD, haven't looked back. They both sound great to me.)


That's pretty irrelevant to the point here, isn't it Arny? Looks to me that
you have pulled up that old argument confusing quantity with quality. The
purpose of this exercise is to discuss the shortcomings of commercially
available CDs which make them APPEAR to be a medium that is inferior to LP,
SACD, DVD-A and high-resolution downloads, when in fact, it's purely the
execution of those CDs, and not the medium itself which is responsible for
these phenomenon.

Then you're confusing quality and quantity too. You're discussing pop CDs,
mostly. "Commercially available" CDs also include a subset of CDs
that aren't loudness war victims.


Also, I can't help noting that you're not saying anything that hasn't been
said dozens of times before, on this newsgroup....all in the service of
reviving a 'dead' group?

Yes, CD is technically superior to LP on all practical fronts. We know.

Yes, modern recording and mastering practice, particularly of 'popular'
music, often does not exploit the fidelity potential of CD, but does exploit
the loudness potential of digital. Therefore LPs mastered to 'audiophile' standards
could well sound better than their CD counterparts that have been mastered to
a different standard. We know.



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine