Vinyl vs CD - In The Lab.

[Paul R]

I've thoroughly searched my hard drives and located two (!) more CD versions, one from A N Other's collection I have a back up of the other from the complete John Coltrane at Columbia set. These are both different again, the first shows the crass limiting of one of Ross' examples, the latter is similar but not so bad.

Using the infallible tool of audio worthiness, the Dynamic Range meter, I get,

Orig CD - 16
Late CD - 12
JC set  - 13
SACD    - 14
HD      - 14

So that settles it.

Paul

 

[Tony L]

Ah yes, I've got the Complete Miles Davis And John Coltrane box too, and that 'So What' does look rather different to my go-to copy from the 71xCD box:

Not convinced it's quite as limited as Ross's copy, but it may just be different magnification ratios. It's certainly got some drum stuff hitting the end-stops though.

 

[Paul R]

The later speed corrected CD (bottom) against the JC box set,

It looks like someone's been casual with the polarity too.

ISTM that if you follow a practice of sourcing old CDs as a preference you'd not be too wrong too often.

Paul

 

[merlin]

ISTM that if you follow a practice of sourcing old CDs as a preference you'd not be too wrong too often.

Paul

Except for the fact that digital decimation processes, SRC in general and filters have come on leaps and bounds in the last fifteen years or so according to people I know in the professional world.

 

[darrenyeats]

You might want to see this http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2161255&postcount=592

The Colombia 1986 I mention in the link above is listed last here: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_album=kind+of+blue&sort=dr&order=asc

 

[Paul R]

My 'CBS Jazz Masterpieces' CD matches the Columbia 1986 in DR except for Flamenco Sketches where I get 14 and the database shows 15. They are probably the same master.

Except for the fact that digital decimation processes, SRC in general and filters have come on leaps and bounds in the last fifteen years or so according to people I know in the professional world.

True, but that's only one factor. In most cases where I have access to an early CD mastering and a later 'remastering' the earlier is preferable. This is extreme with the RvG Blue Note editions which are worthless, but is also apparent with the likes of Led Zeppelin and REM.

Paul

 

[Brian]

I rate 1970s vinyl far, far higher than 1980s. The rot started in the very early 80s when recycled vinyl became the norm, many pressing plants did away with the 'groove-guard' (the raised run-in and raised label area) and vinyl became far thinner and generally more crackly. Sleeves suffered the same with cheap thin card with a semi-gloss sheen replacing the older heavier card-stock or nice solid gloss laminated sleeves. Many indie labels bucked the trend and produced good quality product (4AD, Mute, Rough Trade etc), but the majors were turning out a lot of really rather horrible vinyl for much of that decade. Comparing say a mid-70s Island, RCA, EMI or Virgin pressing with the equivalent from the mid-80s is a real eye-opener, the former are usually superb, the latter flimsy cost-cut crap. It wasn't until vinyl eventually died and was resurrected in the late-90s as a premium product that things got a lot better again. I'd say on the whole we are back to something close to 1970s quality now, albeit at a stupidly inflated price. By saying that I suspect warps and eccentricity are far more common now though. The quality peak was unquestionably the late-50s to mid-60s.

Agree with this regarding good and bad vinyl.

I bought Rumours when it was first released and bought it again years later when I unfortunately damaged a track on the first one. You could tell just by looking at the second purchase that it was inferior quality and it sounded inferior too. The grooves were much smaller, the tracks squeezed into a much smaller space with a much larger gap between the last track and the label (whatever that area of the record is called). It sounded flat and lifeless. A waste of money.

I've since scrapped all of my vinyl and switched completely to digital, so I bought Rumours again on CD. If comparing CD with vinyl it's pretty clear it's to do with the mastering and the recording more than the format. Specifically with Rumours I would rate the CD as superior to vinyl if I was comparing it with the second record purchase, but CD would be inferior to vinyl if comparing with the original record purchase.

I try to buy old CD's these days though I'm mulling over going back to vinyl just for the hell of it.

 

[Sumo]

In most cases where I have access to an early CD mastering and a later 'remastering' the earlier is preferable. This is extreme with the RvG Blue Note editions which are worthless

Could you give some specific examples of what you find so bad about RvG?
(Not for dispute - I'd just like to check some time with the CDs I have.)

 

[Yank]

Are we talking US or UK here?

I was speaking of the US.

 

[RossB]

Back to Kind of Blue. This is the latest HD Tracks 24/192 download in mono, and then the stereo version, said to be the best sounding versions yet, particularly the mono version. The stereo one looks remarkably similar to my Japanese CD. Neither version has the ridiculously high peaks that previous Columbia versions showed, or the massive differences between channels in the stereo version.

FWIW, quoted from the HD Tracks website:

Kind of Blue Becomes Digital, by Engineer Mark Wilder

"Since the Kind of Blue mixed masters are multiple generations from the original (due to excessive play/wear), we decided to go directly to the original session reels. Not only does this put us at the original session as a starting point, but it also allows us to deal with the pitch issue as well.

The three, 3-track half-inch tapes are in good condition, but age has force them to “scallop” a little, meaning that the edges curl away from the tape head. This changed the initial focus from mixing from the originals to archiving them before mixing and working from the archive files. This allowed us to gently guide the tape against the playback head to get optimal contact and fidelity.

The archiving was done at 192kHz/24 bits, played from a modified Ampex ATR 104, and hard-wired to HDCD Model 2’s directly patched to a Lynx 2 sound card.

An upside to working from the archive files was the ability to chase the original fader moves done during the mix in 1959. We constantly compared to an early pressing - mono and stereo - and worked bar by bar to duplicate the level moves on the three tracks to match as well as possible.

Each channel was converted to analog and passed through a GML mixer, bussed to stereo or mono - depending on the release format - and converted once again to 192Kc/24 bits. At the GML, we inserted processing where needed.”

– Mark Wilder, Battery Studios

Mono

[/URL][/IMG]

Stereo

 

[Paul R]

Could you give some specific examples of what you find so bad about RvG?
(Not for dispute - I'd just like to check some time with the CDs I have.)

For example, with Art Blakey's Moanin',

Original Blue Note CD uppermost. To add insult to injury the RvG remaster is clipped and contains numerous digital 'overs'.

And the clincher is that the old one sounds better.

Paul

 

[Sumo]

Ok thanks, that looks pretty clear. Not sure I have the original too but will find it & check it out.

 

[merlin]

As for Kind Of Blue, I don't think you've heard it until it's been played back on a lovely old TT with an Ortofon SPU mounted on it.

For me the SPU is worth having simply to listen to Miles and early Blue Note. I really wish I still had my 85th anniversary.

If it's adding something, then it's simply pleasure.

 

[Sumo]

Fortunately my pleasure in music does not hinge on the kit but I'm sure wouldn't regret hearing it that way

 

[merlin]

And apropos of earlier comments about why system optimised for vinyl might lead you astray here is the spectrum of the same section of the same song from three different sources, one is digital, the other two are needledrops from vinyl via two different turntables, although the only significant difference is the cart.

The three traces are not level matched, so you have to look at relative differences. The vinyl clearly has bass and treble rolled off and the LP12 cart has a downward tilt from may be 1kHz up. I've been fixing the roll off with digital magic using a curve derived from this plot and I think the results are a great improvement. The LP12 has an original Linn Arkiv retipped and serviced by EsCo, the SP10 an AT33PTG.

Paul

Interesting to see the amount of editorializing the LP12 package does even compared to a good turntable like the Technics.

It strikes me that the more you editorialize the sound and curtail the frequency extremes. the more immediately toe tapping the result. So the LP12 is deemed musical simply because it throws a lot away , just as CD is deemed the opposite by some because it gives you what's on the recording.

There is no other explanation for supposed "timing" from a source. It is simply selective in what it presents, and this selection is successful with some musical genres to some people. Less extended bass = better timing. But it's not high fidelity in the strictest sense.

 

[adamdea]

Fortunately my pleasure in music does not hinge on the kit

Easy, Tiger, folks don't like that kind of language around here.

 

[Paul R]

Interesting to see the amount of editorializing the LP12 package does even compared to a good turntable like the Technics.

If I swapped the carts the traces would swap too. Nothing to do with the LP12 per se. I might be able to dig up some proof of this from old needledrops, the AT33PTG started its life in the LP12. I don't know if the 'dullness' is exaggerated by the EsCo stylus shape, but it's a theory.

I have a fresh Troika to try sometime, I think that is an intrinsically more lively cart than the Scantech sourced Arkiv.

Paul

 

[merlin]

Interesting. The LP12 here certainly sounds rather fat in comparison with all references despite the same cartridge being used. I might have to try and look at a spectral analysis some time.

I know cartridges like the Klyde where renowned for their falling response but I didn't know the Arkiv was.

 

[Paul R]

I don't know what the Arkiv is renowned for, but this is how it is, in its EsCo restored form. It would be really rather disappointing if I hadn't experimented with eq, whereupon it seems to be really rather good, especially for the £200 odd it cost to have brought back to life.

I found a track which I'd grabbed with the LP12/Ekos/AT33PTG and with the LP12/Ekos/Arkiv, unfortunately it is James Booker with just a piano, but it shows the cart difference,

The only other difference is 6dB extra gain in the ADC when using the Arkiv.

I think the Klyde is/was a Goldring production? So different mechanics.

My LP12 is fitted with one of the Flatpopely/YNWOAN early prototype Rubikon subchassis. It's possible this has a de-tubbification effect, and I make these recordings in the quiet, so acoustic feedback is minimal. There were some needledrops back in the old days where it was immediately obvious which was the LP12...

Paul

 

[merlin]

It's possible this has a de-tubbification effect

I like the idea of that so am off to do ISLAGIATT on the turbo for a couple of hours.

Still, the differences in graph two are an order of magnitude less than those in the first one it would seem -they are to all intents and purposes identical in the midrange for instance.