LPs that actually do sound better?, Somebody Should Make a List |
![]() ![]() |
LPs that actually do sound better?, Somebody Should Make a List |
Dec 2 2011, 06:36
Post
#26
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 215 Joined: 24-November 10 Member No.: 85965 |
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. This post has been edited by kraut: Dec 2 2011, 06:42 |
|
|
|
Feb 9 2012, 05:21
Post
#27
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 29-November 11 From: Australia Member No.: 95472 |
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/ This post has been edited by Brod: Feb 9 2012, 06:19 |
|
|
|
Feb 9 2012, 12:41
Post
#28
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 1476 Joined: 30-November 06 Member No.: 38207 |
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.) -------------------- geocities.com/hydrogenaudio: http://goo.gl/tqYZj
|
|
|
|
Feb 9 2012, 15:08
Post
#29
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 3083 Joined: 1-September 05 From: SE Pennsylvania Member No.: 24233 |
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. |
|
|
|
Feb 9 2012, 17:31
Post
#30
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 29-November 11 From: Australia Member No.: 95472 |
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
This post has been edited by Brod: Feb 9 2012, 17:35 |
|
|
|
Feb 9 2012, 18:06
Post
#31
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 3083 Joined: 1-September 05 From: SE Pennsylvania Member No.: 24233 |
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.
|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th May 2013 - 21:02 |