Lies about vinyl vs digital

[semente]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I appreciate that what you are doing is very sophisticated, John, and take my hat off to you for going to the effort. However ... I still see it as an exercise in "unmixing" to some degree, and then remastering, to make it more 'palatable' to many people - I see it in the same way as I have heard multiple versions of Yes albums, courtesy of the audio friend down the road; some so "nice" you could play them in an elevator, 😁. But the version that always stands head and shoulders above the rest is the original, 'untainted' one, the first off the rank - it has the guts, the verve, the sparkle, the depth of captured music making that makes one enjoy what's going on - rather than think, this is one for the maiden aunt to listen to, 😝.

 

The thing is you are not appreciating because you are not comprehending what @John Dyson is doing, and worst of all you can't even identify the problem in the first place which is a very serious issue indeed.

 

John is creating what you call an "original, 'untainted' one, the first off the rank - it has the guts, the verve, the sparkle, the depth of captured music". Have you ever heard of mastering?

John is correcting inadequatelly mastered recordings.

[semente]

12 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

 

Please provide examples of:

 

1) "inadequately mastered" recordings:

 

 

 

2) What you consider "adequately mastered" material:

 

 

Here's an example, same track, different mastering (top has DR = 10, bottom has DR = 6):

 

 

@John Dyson raised a relevant question regarding the existence of recordings made with Dolby A that were not de-emphasised for CD.

 

I listen mainly to classical so I really can't complain much.

[semente]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I am very demanding ... which is why I dismiss, immediately, nearly all high end rigs I come across - they are getting so much wrong, and making  a mess of a recording I know well - to me, at that moment, they are no better than an AM radio - a very old VW, in Porsche clothing ...

 

 

The "problem" is that the mastering is of a type that makes added distortion from the playback chain very, very obvious ... you see, I use those styles of recordings that John is processing, in their original form, to assess my progress in optimising  - they "make it difficult" for the system, and tell me how 'robust' the playback integrity really is.

 

Otherwise, it's like having a Mercedes which you can't drive over certain, everyday roads - they have "nasty bumps", and the suspension bangs and crashes trying to navigate them - the engineering is not up to scratch.

 

 

Why are there all these remastered Yes albums? Because people didn't like how the original one, with "the guts, the verve, the sparkle, the depth of captured music" sounded on their setups - so, there was a market for the "baby food" versions. "Inadequate" is a subjective decision, not an objective one.

 

We are discussing formats here and sound quality. A badly mastered album may help you trace down "problems" in your setup but that all its good for.

 

As for why all these remastered albums? Profit.

It has nothing with people not liking the original; audiophiles are a minuscule, rarefying minority and as such they're an insignificant fringe of the overall market. Normal people won't have 3 releases of Time Out, 5 of Kind of Blue and 12 of DSOTM...

[semente]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I am very demanding ... which is why I dismiss, immediately, nearly all high end rigs I come across - they are getting so much wrong, and making  a mess of a recording I know well - to me, at that moment, they are no better than an AM radio - a very old VW, in Porsche clothing ...

 

 

The "problem" is that the mastering is of a type that makes added distortion from the playback chain very, very obvious ... you see, I use those styles of recordings that John is processing, in their original form, to assess my progress in optimising  - they "make it difficult" for the system, and tell me how 'robust' the playback integrity really is.

 

Otherwise, it's like having a Mercedes which you can't drive over certain, everyday roads - they have "nasty bumps", and the suspension bangs and crashes trying to navigate them - the engineering is not up to scratch.

 

 

Why are there all these remastered Yes albums? Because people didn't like how the original one, with "the guts, the verve, the sparkle, the depth of captured music" sounded on their setups - so, there was a market for the "baby food" versions. "Inadequate" is a subjective decision, not an objective one.

 

The problem is not just remasters, many rock and pop and other genre newly produced albums are being released with poor mastering.

This is Radiohead's "Nude":

 

[semente]

1 hour ago, SJK said:

But doesn't that make the argument for the LP in this case.  I have the first release CD and the Special Edition CD, both have the same clipping.  The file below is what I recorded from the LP.

 

Edit - The Radiohead Nude track, not the Neil Diamond.

 

If you can afford to own two source systems and aren't disturbed by vinyl's distortion footprint then it makes a lot of sense to get the best release.

 

I listen mostly to classical music and that sounds a lot better in digital so it doesn't really bother me much.

[semente]

I've linked for the video to start at 6:22 when it describes the limitations of vinyl as a medium:

 

[semente]

@John Dyson I really think that this discussion deserves its own topic. Perhaps you could ask @The Computer Audiophile to split and move the relevant messages.

 

Cheers!