HydrogenAudio

CD-R and Audio Hardware => Vinyl => Topic started by: tonybelding on 2010-09-09 05:08:57

Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: tonybelding on 2010-09-09 05:08:57
Hi all. . .  I'm new here, but I've been pointed towards this site many times in the past to settle questions about audio -- especially about digital compression.

So anyhow. . .    I got me a turntable!

What prompted me to get it was a series of records that National Geographic published back in the 70s and which never were released on CD.  They were high production quality stuff: gatefold, elaborate liner notes, etc.  It was supposed to be a history of American music -- an early example of edu-tainment, you might say.  I fondly remembered some of these from when I was little, and I thought it would be cool to collect the LPs (thanks to the modern miracle of eBay) and digitize them, and put them in my iTunes library.  QED, right?

I first thought I'd get one of those cheap USB turntables, but then I did a little research and found out they were basically crummy, so of course I wanted a better one. . .    and one thing led to another.    I ended up with a Technics SL-D2 with a Shure M95ED cartridge, which seems to be working pretty well so far.  It's been a long time since I had a turntable, and this is way better than any I had before.

So, I dug out some other old LPs.  One that particularly pleases me is Blue Oyster Cult's The Revolution By Night.  It sounds way better than the CD.  The CD is one of those early releases that were. . .  messed up.  I don't know exactly what the explanation is, but it seems around 1984-86 there were a fair number of CDs that came out sounding thin, harsh and bright.  I suspect it had something to do with the mad rush to convert whole back catalogs ASAP while engineers were still getting used to the new format and equipment.

Adding insult to injury, the CD was a "budget" release with the (excellent IMHO) cover art shrunk to about cassette size and surrounded with a useless border proclaiming what a bargain it was.  The sleeve art was jettisoned entirely.  Gee thanks, CBS Records!   

I've tinkered with the CD rip before, applying equalization -- greatly reducing the higher frequencies -- and re-normalizing it, and I was able to make the CD sound a lot better.  Even so, apparently I never totally figured it out, because the LP still sounds better to me.

At the end of this long story, I'm left wondering. . .  Can anybody suggest other LPs that are notably better than their CD release?  I mean examples where the CD was messed up in some way, whether it was equalization or over-compression, clipping, whatever, while the LP was OK.  Bonus points could be awarded if the LP has great cover art, gatefold art, etc!

We could even make a list of these; it seems like somebody ought to.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: Light-Fire on 2010-09-09 06:02:45
... Can anybody suggest other LPs that are notably better than their CD release?


Have you considered remastered CDs?

I kinda like the Legacy remasters from Sony/CBS, etc.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: cliveb on 2010-09-09 11:40:34
Can anybody suggest other LPs that are notably better than their CD release?  I mean examples where the CD was messed up in some way, whether it was equalization or over-compression, clipping, whatever, while the LP was OK.

It's not that simple.

The quality of individual pressings of a particular album on LP can be extremely variable. Different masters are cut in different geographical territories, and when titles are reissued; the quality and weight of vinyl used will vary between pressing plants; stampers get old and lose high frequencies; etc, etc.

CDs get reissued multiple times with different masterings; some are good, and some not so good. (And it's not always the most recent issues that sound best, of course).

Example 1. My vinyl copy of 10cc's "Sheet Music" sounds better than my CD copy, but that's probably because I have an original British pressing (on the UK label) on heavyweight vinyl, and the CD version I have is an old Castle Communications version. If you were to go out and buy a vinyl copy of this album, chances are you'd get a reissue that would sound worse than a CD.

Example 2. I bought a copy of Yes's "Going for the One" on CD back in the 1980's and it sounded *so* bad compared to my beaten up vinyl that I returned it. I suspect it was mastered from an LP cutting tape. A few years later, it was remastered for CD and this time sounds OK. If you were to buy a CD of this album today, you almost certainly wouldn't get the dodgy version.

Example 3: Adrian Belew's first two albums "Lone Rhino" and "Twang Bar King". Original Island Records vinyl sounds pretty damn good. If you get the Japanese CDs, they are fine. If you happen to buy the 2-on-1 Gott CD version, you're hosed. (There's a new remaster on BGO that I've never heard).
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: tonybelding on 2010-09-09 13:35:35
Have you considered remastered CDs?

I kinda like the Legacy remasters from Sony/CBS, etc.


I'll look into that.

I'm aware of a few instances where a remaster saved the day.  One that comes to mind is Nektar's Remember the Future.  The CD was notoriously poor, until the remaster came out in. . .  2002, I think it was.  But you know, the way the remastering fad has gone, I'm avoiding most of them.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: gottogo99 on 2010-09-09 13:50:36
Anyone interested in vinyl sound quality, or comparing various pressings of CDs and LPs, should check out the Steve Hoffman Music Forums.  http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=2 (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=2)
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: tonybelding on 2010-09-09 16:08:41
The quality of individual pressings of a particular album on LP can be extremely variable. Different masters are cut in different geographical territories, and when titles are reissued; the quality and weight of vinyl used will vary between pressing plants; stampers get old and lose high frequencies; etc, etc.


I was vaguely aware of that, but hadn't given it much thought. . .  I think I remember reading somewhere that Japanese and European pressings tend to be better, on average, than US pressings.


Quote
CDs get reissued multiple times with different masterings; some are good, and some not so good. (And it's not always the most recent issues that sound best, of course).


This brings to mind the first six ZZ Top albums. . .  Early on there were generic CD releases that seemed to suffer from the thin-harsh-bright effect I described earlier.  Then they decided to redo all six albums to take advantage of the CD format -- but mere remastering wasn't enough!  They decided to re-mix them, so that became the ZZ Top Six Pack set.  (It was actually a three-CD set with two LPs per CD, but they were also released as six stand-alone CDs.)  The problem is, the remix really changed the sound in ways that a lot of ZZ Top old timers didn't like.  So that was strike two.  Recently they came out with new remasters (from the original mix) of Tres Hombres and Fandango.  These are the best-sounding CD versions of those two albums, but they're pretty compressed.  They aren't totally brick-walled (the way Mescalero was!), but. . .  It's still more compression than I really care for.

That's a whole lot of CD releases, and it's arguable that they were all bungled in various ways and to various degrees.  Plus, opening the LP gatefold of Tres Hombres and seeing that huge 24X12" Tex-Mex spread is still one of the great experiences in album artwork.   
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: analog scott on 2010-09-11 00:19:19
Such lists are tricky things. As has already been pointed out, there are many cases (most really) in which there are multiple masterings on vinyl and/or CD. Another issue is the hardware. The playback gear can be a substantial factor. It isn't just the source gear either although that is cirtical. The system as a whole, whatever it is, will be colored and some colorations may favor certain masterings. IOW the best mastering on one system may not be the best masteing on all systems. Then you have the problem of preferences not always being universal. Your favorite mastering of a given title may not be the same as mine. I think best masterings is a topic worthy of discussion but a definitive list will always be suspect. As has been noted, one can find extensive discussions on this topic at Stevehoffman.tv. What really does not belong in the discussion is silly attempts to turn any such discussion into an LP v. CD or analog v. digital debate. *If* an LP version of a given title turns out to be superior to any other version to any person's ears then it is the superior version for that person. Period. Trying to argue the limitations of any medium in the face of any given personal pereference is just an obnoxious, passive aggressive attemtp to discredit a person's preference. It's ego based B.S. and completely unconstructive.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: pdq on 2010-09-15 16:46:00
Name a record that IYO sounds better than any of it's CD counterparts.
I'll start the list with one entry and we can go from there.
1. Yes, Fragile. Released by Analog Productions. In blind comparisons it beat out every CD version I own including the latest Mofi CD.

How about a list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl?
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: analog scott on 2010-09-15 17:46:45
Name a record that IYO sounds better than any of it's CD counterparts.
I'll start the list with one entry and we can go from there.
1. Yes, Fragile. Released by Analog Productions. In blind comparisons it beat out every CD version I own including the latest Mofi CD.

How about a list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl?


Well if you want to start a new thread called "A list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl" Feel free to do so. But it would be limited to LPs and CDs that were mastered exactly the same way in that the exact same signal was fed to the cutting lathe preamp as was the A/D converter....
If you want to start that list I'll give you your first entry.
1. James Boyk, Pictures at an Exhibition on Perfomance Recordings. It was offered as a comparison package. Now that entry does come with an asterix. It was better on my system using my TT rig and preamp and my CDP. Your results may vary.

But the topic of this thread is "LPs that actually do sound better, let's make a list." The difference is substantial and more importantly the goal of the OP in trying to create such a list is obviously quite different than what would be achieved by what you are proposing. IMO your proposal would lead to nothing more than a typical fruitless garden variety circle jerk pissing contest between CD advocates and vinyl advocates and would serve no purpose to those genuinely interested in better sound.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2010-09-15 18:58:32
You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural. That "4dB of peak limiting" on the new releases that no one was supposed to notice may be audible after all.


Problem is, to me, the question becomes "which CD releases are so compromised that the vinyl sounds better". That's not a reason to buy a turntable. That's a reason to buy a CD (so you've paid the artist), and then find a decent needle drop to listen to instead. There may be other ways of paying the artist.

Cheers,
David.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: pdq on 2010-09-16 00:48:20
Name a record that IYO sounds better than any of it's CD counterparts.
I'll start the list with one entry and we can go from there.
1. Yes, Fragile. Released by Analog Productions. In blind comparisons it beat out every CD version I own including the latest Mofi CD.

How about a list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl?


Well if you want to start a new thread called "A list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl" Feel free to do so.

Sorry, I guess I was a little out of line.

I suppose one would have to admit that it is possible for some listeners to prefer the LP version of a piece over the otherwise identical CD version if the distortions introduced by the vinyl reproduction chain made for a more pleasing sound.

Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: 2tec on 2010-09-16 02:06:29
I suppose one would have to admit that it is possible for some listeners to prefer the LP version of a piece over the otherwise identical CD version if the distortions introduced by the vinyl reproduction chain made for a more pleasing sound.

I find that despite the short-comings and the trouble it takes, I still listen to my LPs occasionally. It's almost exclusively music recorded earlier than the eighties for several reasons. One, I still have the LP. Two, it's not available as a CD, FLAC or mp3 or I haven't purchased it yet. Three, I personally feel more like I'm somehow "back there" when I listen to these recordings through my older tube based Quad ESL system. However, I suspect I've just grown particularly accustomed to, and fond of, this particular sound.

I have ripped some vinyl to digital, but I generally prefer to wait for the LP to be issued digitally as I find the quality higher than what I am able to produce.

It would be possible to list not only particular albums but even particular pressings using Discogs (http://www.discogs.com/).
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2010-09-16 11:55:23
You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural. That "4dB of peak limiting" on the new releases that no one was supposed to notice may be audible after all.
Found it!

http://www.beatledrops.com/index.html (http://www.beatledrops.com/index.html)

These clips all seem to be under 30 seconds, so I believe are acceptable under HA TOS.

Cheers,
David.

Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: cliveb on 2010-09-16 15:10:46

How about a list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl?

Well if you want to start a new thread called "A list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl" Feel free to do so.

I thought pdq was talking about albums that are not available on CD at all.

I'll start the ball rolling with a story. My wife had the vinyl of the Original Cast recording of Godspell. She then saw it on CD and bought it, only to be dismayed to find that the CD version was the Original *Los Angeles* cast, while her LP was the *London* cast (David Essex, Jeremy Irons, Julie Covington, et al). The CD had the same cover art as the LP, so I think she was entitled to assume it would be the same recording. We returned it and continue to use the needle-drop I made from her (rather battered) LP. As far as I'm aware, the Original London cast recording of Godspell still isn't available on CD.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: krabapple on 2010-09-16 17:13:34

How about a list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl?

Well if you want to start a new thread called "A list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl" Feel free to do so.

I thought pdq was talking about albums that are not available on CD at all.

I'll start the ball rolling with a story. My wife had the vinyl of the Original Cast recording of Godspell. She then saw it on CD and bought it, only to be dismayed to find that the CD version was the Original *Los Angeles* cast, while her LP was the *London* cast (David Essex, Jeremy Irons, Julie Covington, et al). The CD had the same cover art as the LP, so I think she was entitled to assume it would be the same recording. We returned it and continue to use the needle-drop I made from her (rather battered) LP. As far as I'm aware, the Original London cast recording of Godspell still isn't available on CD.



Same story with the original LP release of 'Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat'.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: krabapple on 2010-09-16 17:18:40
You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural.



To whom?


One should consider, too, that the master tapes were new when the original UK vinyl was cut.  They're ~40 yrs old now (except for the remixed ones, of course, which are ~20 yrs old) .  So it's not quite apples to apples  (no pun intended).
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2010-09-16 17:34:20
You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural.


To whom?
Me  I suppose I should ABX it - but the faults of vinyl are clearly audible on many of those samples, as well the advantages of a given release - so it's a little different to consider only the advantages in a blind test when the faults un-blind the testing.

Quote
One should consider, too, that the master tapes were new when the original UK vinyl was cut.  They're ~40 yrs old now (except for the remixed ones, of course, which are ~20 yrs old) .  So it's not quite apples to apples  (no pun intended).
Of course. I don't believe in voodoo. There are plenty of good real explanations for the differences, which are plainly audible (and IMO+E completely unchanged) when the LP is digitised at 44.1/16.

Cheers,
David.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-16 18:00:38
There are plenty of good real explanations for the differences, which are plainly audible (and IMO+E completely unchanged) when the LP is digitised at 44.1/16.

Ok, I'll bite.

What are the audible differences solely attributed to the 44.1/16 digitization of Beatles vinyl?
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: pdq on 2010-09-16 18:21:38
I thought he was saying that the clearly audible faults in the vinyl are still clearly audible when digitized to 44.1/16?
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2010-09-17 09:50:01
Yes, sorry if that was unclear - I was talking about audible changes between LP and commercial CD that are completely unchanged (IMO) when the LP is digitised at 44.1/16. So vinyl vs commercial CD is (to my ears) the same as vinyl-copied-onto-CD vs commercial CD.

I can't hear a different between vinyl vs vinyl-copied-onto-CD.

There are obvious differences in sighted testing if all the equipment is visible in the same room as the listener (you can see the record spinning around and hear the sound of the needle in the groove without amplification) - but there's no change in the sound coming from the speakers that I can detect. I wouldn't say I've tested "properly", but I heard nothing in the tests that I carried out at home to make me want to test "properly".

EDIT: I think many people who copy LPs onto CDs, even some with quite esoteric equipment, will tell you the same thing.

Cheers,
David.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: cliveb on 2010-09-17 14:23:23
I can't hear a different between vinyl vs vinyl-copied-onto-CD.

EDIT: I think many people who copy LPs onto CDs, even some with quite esoteric equipment, will tell you the same thing.

+1

My needle-drops use a Linn LP12/Lingo/Ittok/Karma, a Naim preamp, and an M-Audio AP2496 soundcard. Perhaps not "esoteric", but certainly "reasonably high-end". Recordings made at 16/44.1 and subsequently played through a pair of ATC SCM100A monitors are sonically indistinguishable from the original LPs.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: botface on 2010-09-17 14:55:28
Another +1 with the caveat that CD copies can sound better if clicks etc have been removed. My set up is not esoteric either. It's a mix of vintage, modern and homemade (Thorens TD124/Rega RB300/Denon DL304 into a homemade phono stage and a Terratech EWX 24/96 card)

As for LPs that actually sound better - I've not heard CD releases of "Crime Of The Century" (Supertramp), "Bridge Of Sighs" (Robin Trower) or "The Celts" (Enya) and one or two others that sound as good as my vinyl copies. However, as others have said or implied I don't think the vinyl is necessarily superior it's just that the CD masterings differ in some ways and so the end result is different to what I'm used to hearing.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: ramicio on 2011-12-01 05:09:20
One newer album I had on vinyl, Panic! At The Disco's "Pretty. Odd." was a completely different mix than the CD version, and I mean some songs used completely different instruments and vocals sounded like they weren't sung the same.  I preferred the vinyl mix, and it was a very very good pressing.  Then I ditched all my records because I was sick of dust and its noise, and I didn't want to go down the rabbit hole of spending tons of money for minimal returns.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: markanini on 2011-12-01 05:19:03
You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural. That "4dB of peak limiting" on the new releases that no one was supposed to notice may be audible after all.


Problem is, to me, the question becomes "which CD releases are so compromised that the vinyl sounds better". That's not a reason to buy a turntable. That's a reason to buy a CD (so you've paid the artist), and then find a decent needle drop to listen to instead. There may be other ways of paying the artist.

Cheers,
David.

Beatles remasters sound great but they forgot to include the real stereo mixes for some tracks which were only avalialbe in German pressings. Obviously they want to be in line with the UK releases even though better quality mixes were available. 
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: Seeking_Lossless on 2011-12-01 08:36:53
Lou Reed - Lulu already sounds great on CD. I guess the vinyl take the sound to another level.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: kraut on 2011-12-02 05:36:47
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.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: Brod on 2012-02-09 04:21:30
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/ (http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/)
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: Porcus on 2012-02-09 11:41:34
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.)
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: pdq on 2012-02-09 14:08:37
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/ (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.
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: Brod on 2012-02-09 16:31:17
What is your definition of "brickwalled"?


Dynamic range compression.

http://www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1537547,1537644 (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
Title: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: pdq on 2012-02-09 17:06:32
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.
Title: Re: LPs that actually do sound better?
Post by: old tech on 2017-07-25 08:11:23
Sorry to resurrect an old thread but this topic is quite relevant to how I choose my music and on which format.  The whole debate on whether a particular album has been mastered better on vinyl or CD is somewhat subjective and opens a can of worms.  As others have pointed out, there can be different masterings on various LP releases and different masterings on various CDs of the same album.
Which is best?  There are so many variables, which album, which release, how does a particular mastering interact with your playback chain and room acoustics, what are your subjective preferences?  This is why there can never be a definitive best release of any LP or CD which satisfies everyone.

For example, one member here claimed that the original Beatles LP pressings sound better than later digital versions.  To my ears it is an album by album proposition.  I prefer the sound quality of the 2009 CD remasters of most of the later albums, the 1987 CDs for the White Album, Sgt Peppers and Abbey Road and LPs for the rest.  But even with the LPs, there are some albums I prefer the later 1978 blue box pressings over the original pressings and even the Japanese Red wax for others.

Another member expressed a view that the LP version of Supertramp’s Crime of the Century is the best sounding of this album.  To my ears, the best sounding is the MFSL CD version, even compared to the MFSL and Speakers Corner LPs.  The only problem with the CD is that it is mastered very quiet and can sound weaker than the LPs at normal volume.  But crank it up and it clearly is superior IMHO.

It is difficult to compare a digital recording with vinyl as they rarely are mastered the same way, even if the same masters are used.  However, given equal quality mastering CDs typically come out ahead, as every measure of fidelity says it should.  The closest comparison I can think of is Brothers in Arms below (for a digital master) and Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of  the Moon Japan Pro Use LP vs the early non TO Black Triangle CD as they used the same 15ips master tape.  Both are excellent but the CD comes out ahead if only because of better dynamics and consistency across the album, ie no IGD toward the end of the side of each LP.

The upshot of all this is that what is the best or better is very subjective to the individual and influenced by many variables apart from the actual mastering – excluding those CDs which are obviously squashed or LPs which are slightly off-centre of course.

The main mystery I have is why some people prefer the LP half speed cut versions of Dire Straits Brothers in Arms over the original CD when it was originally a 16 bit digital recording.  I have no doubt that those that do hear the LP as sounding better probably do, but surely in this case it has nothing to do with the recording or mastering.