I have had it up to here waiting for the Beatles catalogue to be remastered

lol my shit sounds tight homie, no distortion

also harsh mastering actually adds distortion when shit hits the ceiling

let's put our cards on the table here - who here has A/B'd material, participated in the recording/mixing/mastering process etc.

i'll put my cards on the table right now and say I don't know what I'm talking about, esp. regarding sound quality, etc. actually, regarding most things.

i'll put my cards on the table

http://www.3ofakind.com/images/full-house.jpg

Only the former for me. I can tell an appreciable difference if I am listening super close (esp. with headphones), but since I spend exactly 0 time listening to music like that in my day to day life (an amount of time which I think corresponds to basically all non-16 year old shut ins) I think it's basically complete bullshit to pretend that these difference is something anyone should really care about. I mean so what this piece vinyl sounds a little better, I'm not going to be able to set up my turntable on desk at work or carry it on the bus with me.

i am listening to an ipod right now.

but it's not that hard! i dunno. i just usually listen to my stereo about an hour after hubby goes to bed, reading a book. am i a weird shut-in? i dunno. i go out a fair amount. it's not like IMPOSSIBLY hard to read and listen to a record or CD IMO.

how do you people WATCH TV? it's CRAZY? i only watch clips of sportscenter on my phone, way too busy

If I am reading a book or making dinner I am not listening closely enough to a record to care about the minute sonic differences between CD or vinyl. So you are special and obv there are a few like you, but I think most people (justifiably) think that this "oh you don't know what you are missing" thing is a lot of bullshit, cuz the way most people listen to music most of the time they aren't actually missing it.

true enough

i dunno i don't think i have particularly refined ears or anything, shit that sounds better just tends to sound better than shit that sounds worse

also i would say the difference between a CD on a good system and an MP3 on an ipod is WAY more than the difference between a CD and an LP on a good system

Yeah I don't think anyone would disagree that there is a pretty substantial difference between CD/Vinyl and mp3 fidelity (right now anyway.) I don't listen to mp3s at home very often and even on the bus or at work I can find my iPod at bit jarring after a while.

they talk about really good audiophile servers now for like flac and all that stuff, but they are super duper expensive, down the line that would be sweet though

It'll happen. Just to provide an excuse for all us with a bunch of 320 mp3s to have to buy them (or steal them) again.

yeah i mean hard drive space is so cheap now there's really not much actual need for something as small as MP3s...five years from now i can't imagine how much space you'll get for like $100

So if they go from the 24-bit master to vinyl, you bet the vinyl could sound better than the CD.

Shame vinyl isn't capable of capturing even 14 bits worth of dynamic range and is usually rolled off with the 20-20k range that plain CD captures entirely.

It's not about fidelity or numbers, vinyl replay is a series of happy euphonic accidents - it (can) sound richer, sweeter, warmer, with the illusion of front-to-back depth, more "air", etc. But this is partly because it's actually lower resolution than CD, and electromechanical replay just introduces all this...stuff to the experience. I still love LPs to bits. Har-de-har.

I understand the push for more bits/higher sampling rates for archival/remastering/(especially) tracking and mixing, but I'm not convinced there's any great need for it at the playback end.

MJ is on the right track. Dynamic range of vinyl - 75 dB, CD - 96 dB, SACD - 120 dB, DVD-A - 144 dB. Tape - 60 dB. Despite the fact that vinyl degrades with every play, distorts high frequencies when linear velocity changes as the spiral groove gets smaller towards the center, has at least 30 dB crosstalk and harmonic distortion, I understand why some people like that sound. Many interpret that distortion as "warmth." It's just kind of funny when they try to claim it's superior to digital.

Keep in mind that recordings have not been made directly to vinyl since the invention of magnetic tape in the 1930s. The tape, being non-linear, also creates low-order harmonics that are perceived as "warm sound". That effect is quite easily achievable through electronic means in a (yes) digital environment. It's actually a somewhat common practice in mastering to insert effects in the digital stream that will add "warmth" to the sound by adding low-order harmonics (e.g. distorting the sound). This distortion is obviously not true to the original music. However, it is an effect that older generations are used to and nostalgic for.

PBS's Wired Science show addressed this issue, but it was disappointing because the science was pretty flimsy. They had engineers Colin Miller & Jean-Marie Horvat of Animal Records, and two members of the band Great Northern do one A/B listening test to just one song randomly flipped between analog and digital. The “big surprise” was that no one could consistently tell the difference. The engineers guessed which was which correctly 55% of the time (so much for their “golden ears”), the band 53%. It’s not clear whether they tried to judge which sounded better and failed, or didn’t bother to try. They also interviewed engineers Steve Albini and Ken Andrews. Albini is no dummy, and rather than get himself into trouble, he simply said analog was superior to MP3s (duh), and mentioned how digital mastering was screwed up when CDs were first introduced in the 80s. The only thing conclusive here is that host Ziya Tong is a total babe.

Until someone comes up with conclusive scientific evidence via extensive double-blind testing that proves vinyl is superior to digital when using the same master, I say let's move on. But we don't even necessarily have go go beyond CD range. Even though SACD and DVD audio have clearly better range, it doesn't mean anyone can tell the difference. The bandwidth of CDs are 44.1 kHz sampling rate (44,100 samples) x 16 bits x 2 channels = 1.4 Megabits per second. With a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz you have an effective frequency response of up to 22.05 kHz (way above what most people will statistically be able to perceive as sound). HD-DVD/DVD-audio offers 9.6Mbps, with 128 kHz sampling rate at 24 bits. While the higher sample rates correct the distortion of high-end frequencies that occur in 1.4 Mbps CDs, those frequencies are only audible to dogs, cats and bats, who, when asked, would probably say they prefer CDs as they wouldn’t hurt their ears as much.

Additionally, the transducers on both ends of the audio chain are too limited to properly take advantage of 128 kHz, or even 96 kHz. Paul Lehrman, a composer, educator, and consulting editor for Mix magazine, points out that the frequency responses of most mics and digital musical instruments roll off at around 20 kHz. Thus, anything recorded above 20 kHz at a 96 kHz sampling rate "is probably junk," claims Lehrman. In response to the argument that it's the digital filter in 96 kHz systems, and not the extended frequency response, that's responsible for the improved sonics, Lehrman says that, in A/B tests, he has "never been able to tell, definitively, the difference between a well-constructed 44.1 or 48 kHz oversampling converter and a 96 kHz converter."

Vinyl and CD sound different; there's no reason why anyone should be questioned for preferring one to the other. Only thing I note is that I seem to get ear fatigue much more quickly these digital days than I used to with records.

The experience of ripping open vinyl Sgt. Pepper, looking at the cover up close, pulling out the inserts, studying the gatefold, reading the lyrics while it plays, etc. should be experienced by all 8 year olds.

Anyway, Within You Without You is awfully cool (and way more hypnotic) in mono vs. stereo. Not a compelling argument one way or another, but worth noting.

They also interviewed engineers Steve Albini and Ken Andrews. Albini is no dummy, and rather than get himself into trouble, he simply said analog was superior to MP3s (duh), and mentioned how digital mastering was screwed up when CDs were first introduced in the 80s. The only thing conclusive here is that host Ziya Tong is a total babe.

lolz yeah I saw this and had the exact same reaction

I AB'd a recording of the only thing my bands have ever put out on record. The end result was so bassy it almost hurt to listen to! (Not physically but emotionally =)

I was 20 and had never heard of 'the curve' which basically says if you're putting it on vinyl turn the low down and the highs up!

I think with vinyl there are some number of factors that get overshadowed with the 'sound quality of the music' bit. For instance:

1. For one, every time you play it the record degrades a little more, changing the sound ever so slightly. So every time you play it is, essentially, a whole new listening experience.

2. Since it degrades every time, and since records can be 'worn out' that means records have a natural lifespan. ie. They have a life, which is something that I think we pick up on subconsciously and add to their preciousness. MP3s are so disposable because they are eternal entities unless you hit the 'delete' key and then there's bound to be a copy somewhere on the cloud...

I've finally come to a place where I can admit to myself that I like vinyl records because of object-fetishism and a sense of the persistence of analogue life in a world increasingly mediated and dictated to by the digital. Same reasons I sometimes like to shave with goop foamed up by a brush and a razor with a single blade that clamps into it. I'm half deaf (quite literally, kids) from going to loud rock shows without earplugs in, so even fucking MP3s sound pretty OK to me usually. And I love my iPod, just when I'm at home the interactivity of the LP (the browsing & selection process, the ritual, the non-shuffleability of the medium, getting up to change sides every 20 minutes) means as much to me or more than any sound-quality hoo-ha.

While Old Fart is on the line, kids, let him tell you to shell out the bucks and get yourself a good set of fitted earplugs. You won't notice you've lost it till it's gone, and it won't come back.

Um, sorry 'bout that. Back to the Beatles thread:

Totally agree with you about the earplugs. I think I'm turning into an Old Fart myself now. I like "Old Fuck" better though (via George Carlin)....

Where online can I start my lo-fi revolution?

i mean no-fi

"Technology exists to have a higher sampling rate"

Ah, the old "music falling through the gaps" nonsense.

I s'pose 1993 would be the first time I started to get involved in this particular debate - I think I was still quite swayed by the audio press in those days and, even though with my physics background I understood Nyquist (which Fr3m3r clearly didn't), I found the more esoteric reasoning for vinyl's superiority quite persuasive back then. I mean, all these audiophiles (and I was definitely aspiring to be one) can't be wrong, right?

I'm glad the debate sort of settled down over the years (I'm sure you can still find the old arguments being rehashed on rec.audio.opinion by the same people who've been at each other's throats for 20 years) - some sort of consensus seems to have been reached as to what analogue tape is good for, what digital is good for, that the special sound of vinyl is really quite easily explained, not necessarily in terms of the deficiencies of 16/44.1k but in terms of what analogue replay adds.

There are still folk out there who insist that digitisation of any sort destroys music but it's a pretty fringe viewpoint now (in the mid-'90s it really seemed to be gathering force as the underlying credo behind all audiophile opinion).

The whole vinyl vs. CD argument is misplaced in this thread, IMO. The reason the original Beatles albums on CD sound like shit is simply because they weren't mastered, transferred, etc. correctly. Like others have pointed out, recent reissues like Love and Beatles 1 sound very good indeed.

Well, seems wrong to say they weren't transferred correctly, more that they didn't know what they were doing yet in 1986 and 1987. For the time, they were state of the art, and they were widely praised for their sound quality, especially from Rubber Soul on.

I'd be kinda curious to know precisely what the shortcomings (by today's standards) were in the original Beatles digital remasters; it can't simply be down to bitrate/headroom (being ultra-safe and peaking at whatever those CDs peak at: -6dBFS?). Plenty of DDD classical recordings from that time still sound fine, so what was it about mastering old rock/pop tapes for CD that was so challenging in 1987?

Well, for starters, the first four were in mono only. And not even the same mono mixes they were released in originally.

Otherwise, I think the process was just lazy, as all processes were back then. As for DDD recordings, they usually don't need remastering, but there's a lot of brushing up to do with old analogue tapes to make them sound digital.

All processes in 1986 and 1987 were lazy?

Basically, yes. There was this new thing called Compact Disc that was soon taking off, and they needed every single title ever released out as quick as possible. So they didn't really do a lot of it to get the best out of the sound. Also because they thought that "Oh, it's CD, it sounds great anyway".

There are still folk out there who insist that digitisation of any sort destroys music

On a slightly different note, I also have a problem understanding those synth purists who claim that a modern generated analog synth, or a softsynth, doesn't sounds as "warm" as the old analog synths. I mean, I am a bit analog fan, but I just cannot hear the difference at all. Except old analogue synths go sour.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I essentially agree with Geir here. It may be an oversimplification to say the record companies were just throwing everything on CD without any thought two decades ago, but there was a LOT of crappy jobs. Miles Davis' catalog, for one, was completely disrespected when his albums were first released on CD. It took years before decent-sounding reissues came out.

With Miles Davis, are you talking about the Columbia Jazz Masterpiece deals?

Speaking of this, what I do have more problems with is if one album is being remastered at the best technology (24 bit and all). And then 2 years later, the same album is being re-released again in a "Deluxe" edition, completely with a second disc mostly consisting of demo and/or live versions of the same songs that are already on the album. Now that is pointless!

The exception is when people such as Pet Shop Boys fill that second disc with great b-sides and great extended/alternative mixes, adding non-album singles from the same era. Those 2 CDs work. Also the Donna Summer "Hot Girls" with lots of 12 inch mixes behind does. But I am never interested in hearing demo/live.

Interestingly, Amazon.co.uk is listing the remasters as being £8.99 each, or £15.99 for the doubles.

the rudy van gelder series of jazz remasters are really amazing sounding CDs, kind of blue is one of them

Kind of Blue isn't an RVG (it sounds good tho). RVG just does the Blue Note and Prestige reissues. Watch out bringing those up -- some audiophile nuts loathe them for some reason. They sound great to me, for the most part.

With Miles Davis, are you talking about the Columbia Jazz Masterpiece deals?
I believe so.
I have the 1992 Columbia Mastersound Gold CD of Kind of Blue, and it sounds great.

The original Miles CDs not only were poorly mastered (Columbia routinely overdid the noise reduction, often completely obscuring things like quiet cymbals), but in at least one instance (Miles Ahead) alternate takes were used for the CD in place of the master takes.

i think there were some pitch issues that were resolved in the remasters on kind of blue, like originally some tracks were slightly sharp or flat

never mind about the beatles catalogue - what about kraftwerk !?
i mean they are all done and dusted, with a special promo box of them all even appearing on ebay from time to time.
what on earth is holding up the proper full release of those !
and yes, the latest reissue of 'kind of blue' does indeed resolve the speed issue.

what on earth is holding up the proper full release of those !

The remastering job accidentally removed all the brushed snares, confusing the sound for static and hiss.

never mind about the beatles catalogue - what about kraftwerk !?

According to the guy in an indie store in Oslo specializing in synthpop/EBM, the were so dissatisfied with the remasters they chose not to release them. I believe they are available for download though.

i have basically put up my whole collection, all the albums plus Past Masters, on Amazon. i will get an average of five dollars a CD and have already sold most of it, that's $80 towards these new box sets.