Skip to main content

Topic: LPs that actually do sound better? (Read 25133 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • kraut
  • [*][*][*]
LPs that actually do sound better?
Reply #25
One of the few Lps that sounded better than CD - Kind of Blue....until the remastered and pitch corrected version came along.

Any of the Robin Trower's LPs I have sound better digitally (torrents are still legal in Canada)  than on the LP versions I own.

The best LP I have - the canadian (1st?) edition of the first Rolling Stones LP. Amazingly clean, well produced and sounding great.

The worst...too many to mention (tough to select, even if I only own about 2000.)


Quote
greatly reducing the higher frequencies


why would you do that? When I still ran my behringer deq 2496 for room correction, I had the RTA running all the time. There is on most CDs very little content compared to the total spectrum above 16kHz.
  • Last Edit: 02 December, 2011, 12:42:32 AM by kraut

  • Brod
  • [*]
LPs that actually do sound better?
Reply #26
I think the main reason to buy new Vinyl these days is for the albums that are brickwalled on CD only. There are plenty of them out there...

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
  • Last Edit: 09 February, 2012, 12:19:50 AM by Brod

  • Porcus
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LPs that actually do sound better?
Reply #27
One of the few Lps that sounded better than CD - Kind of Blue....until the remastered and pitch corrected version came along.


With so many CD releases of KoB, there's gotta be one or more which are lesser than an LP.  Now at least one CD remaster fell prey to the loudness war. Before that, some of the CDs used pre-emphasis, which could possibly lead to incorrect frequency response due to
- the studio's pre-emphasis circuit being slightly off mark (not uncommon!), and/or
- the consumer's de-emphasis cirquit being slightly off mark (absolutely not uncommon), and/or
- the consumer ripping to file and playing back without applying de-emphasis at all (who hasn't?), and/or
- the CD by mistake getting pre-emphasised signal, but not flagged in TOC/subchannel, and/or
- the CD getting the pre-emphasis flag, but by mistake the un-emph'ed signal.

(And it wouldn't even surprise me if some moron didn't know the difference between CD pre-emphasis and RIAA pre-emphasis and mistook the tapes.)

  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LPs that actually do sound better?
Reply #28
I think the main reason to buy new Vinyl these days is for the albums that are brickwalled on CD only. There are plenty of them out there...

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

What is your definition of "brickwalled"? Usually this refers to a low-pass filter with a very sharp cutoff.

  • Brod
  • [*]
LPs that actually do sound better?
Reply #29
What is your definition of "brickwalled"?


Dynamic range compression.

http://www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1537547,1537644

Quote
A "brickwall" refers to the image of sound with no peaks or valleys, just a maximized loud sound - square like a brick
  • Last Edit: 09 February, 2012, 11:35:17 AM by Brod

  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LPs that actually do sound better?
Reply #30
I tend to distinguish between dynamic range compression and limiting. In this case are you referring to extreme dynamic range compression, or hard limiting? Just trying to understand your terminology.