Jump to content

Why LPs suck


Parrot

Recommended Posts

Geesh!

Now we get to start noting exceptions title by title!

The point is there are disasters in both camps.

And the average pressing quality of the normal commercial vinyl record from ~1970 on SUCKED!!!! ...You know, when STEREO finally became predominate instead of your having to select the mono or stereo version and albums finally surpassed 45 single sales?! REMEMBER!!??

Hence the market for MFSL and all of the other 'audiophile' pressings!!! Or was MFSL, Polydor, Japan and the others simply supplying a market demand that did not exist!?

I LIKE records! But arguing that they absolutely superior to a well made CD is complete NONSENSE!!!!

Two simple examples of the potential!:

Johnny Winter Second Winter re-mastered re-release! Wow!!! They actually added a bass player! One wonders why Randy Jo Hobbs was even listed in the credits on the original record! And the processing is terrific! And compare the included bonus Live at Royal Albert Hall recorded in April 1970 with the seriously anemic (but terrifically performed!!) Johnny Winter Live AND. The differences are DRAMATIC!

And I don't care if you have a $20M turntable, the record SUCKS in comparison! And I have pristine copies of the original LPs!!!

The second example is even more dramatic. Listen to Mickey Hart's re-mastering of American Beauty by the Grateful Dead on DVD-A. I think this may be the single most dramatic example of the potential of the format yet completed! It's almost a totally different performance! There are parts and instruments present that you couldn't even distinguish by reading the credits on the original record! And the imaging!! Absolutely incredible! I defy ANYONE to compare the original versions on vinyl & CD to the new version and disagree! The irony is that the original record and the original CD that were once considered pretty good, are alike in that they both stink in comparison!

And for all of you who like various re-released CDs, you have not heard anything like what has been accomplished here!

Except for the principle of collecting and having a complete discography, the record and original release of the CD of these titles serve NO purpose except to demonstrate how bad both of the originals really are compared to an intelligently and skillfully done job!

And while I should stop, let me mention one other example of a problem that will not be overcome sufficiently in dealing with the legacy masters. And Michael Colter will kill me, so I will apologize in advance!!!! (Sorry, Mike![:$])

But let's focus on a great band who committed some great performances to tape - Led Zeppelin.

Regardless of what you think of the band, and how great Bonham's percussion was - and he WAS!, his brain dead opposition to close micing has left us with a plethora of great performances mediocrely recorded! The tapes are mush with little definition - or let me say, lacking significant definition! Not only did the records reflect that, but far too often the recording techniques of the period reflected it! And these techniques are as much a part of records as the lousy record pressings themselves.

So why doesn't everyone listen to what they have and what they like - as this emotional nonsense is just that! Nonsense!

I will listen to the best version on the format that is available. I am fortunate to have much of my library on both formats.Including lots of board recordings from the years I and friends were on the road as well as a plethora of non-commercial special releases (no- not the promo 'stuff'!!!). And there are still significant limitations to both! But there is also the potential for high quality recordings and pressings on both! So if you want to talk about 'special' releases and debate them, fine!

But for the MAJORITY of the mass market commercial releases, both the records and the initially produced CDs suck compared to what is possible.

And friends, the limited quality vinyl pressings are what the MAJORITY of the world has access to! And unfortunately, the initially released CDs simply offered about the same terrible productions as the records albeit with an increased S/N factor.

Like classic cars, appreciate them for their aesthetics or some other particular quality, but don't try to make the case that they are in all cases superior to present capabilities! I mean, I love the classic shaped Porsche 911 variants available through 1989 (and yes folks, that version is referred to by clubs as the 'classic' style cabriolet http://www.classiccarclub.co.uk/carpages/por_911.asp )... But no one is going to convince me it is superior to the 2006 911 GT3![:P] If you like the original's particular qualities and characteristics, let your right side of your brain luxuriate in it! But don't insult the left side of my brain![:P]

This debate simply goes in circles, with folks using exceptions to try to prove generalities!

Bottom line, mass produced vinyl is not superior to all digital technology. And the fact that material may be in the digital domain does NOT insure that it is superior to analog! But the convenience, capacity, S/N, as well as the pronounced advantages of signal processing once material is in the digital domain DOES blow analog away. Get used to it.

So learn to take advantage of the best of both worlds, and acknowledge that there is far too much trash in both! Unfortunately, those limitations do not appear to be fatal for digital as it advances further. And as some of you delude yourselves, vinyl is NOT making any significant comeback! No more then the Mac is poised to supplant the PC anytime soon! And I personally wish the Mac would do exactly that!!!

So everyone quit reading this nonsense and go listen to the music![:D][:P]

And seriously, listen to the two titles mentioned![:)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Everyone here makes such an intelligent argument for their favorite formate my head is swimming. I think what some people call an inconvenience with vinyl, I call a ritual. Fire up the Nitty Gritty, get the cleaning fluid, etc, etc, drop the hammer and enjoy the music. Very relaxing to me somehow. Must be a character flaw:) I read somewhere that the worst way to listen to music is with the remote in your hand, I have to agree. I just ordered a Sota Sapphire TT and personally, cant wait to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnny Winter Second Winter re-mastered re-release! Wow!!! They actually added a bass

player! One wonders why Randy Jo Hobbs was even listed in the

credits on the original record! And the processing is terrific!

And compare the included bonus Live at Royal Albert Hall recorded

in April 1970 with the seriously anemic (but terrifically

performed!!) Johnny Winter Live AND. The differences are DRAMATIC!

And I don't care if you have a $20M turntable, the record SUCKS in comparison! And I have pristine copies of the original LPs!!!

I was always partial to side four of the double LP Second Winter, and surely you cannot defend the remastering for CD of this last side!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my earlier post I should have elaborated some on the bass. There are some records where this cannot be done as it destroys the entire tone of the record and even changing the low end frequency spectrum on the fly the restrictions keep the boost somewhere down below 60hz. Keep in mind my hearing range is 19hz to 12.5khz. I never knew I could hear 19hz until I hooked up the RSW-12. My bass expectations are predicated on the levels I hear with live bands, and vinyl is not even close.

JJK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the average pressing quality of the normal commercial vinyl record from ~1970 on SUCKED!!!! ...

So why doesn't everyone listen to what they have and what they like - as this emotional nonsense is just that! Nonsense!

But for the MAJORITY of the mass market commercial releases, both the records and the initially produced CDs suck compared to what is possible.

And

friends, the limited quality vinyl pressings are what the MAJORITY of

the world has access to! And unfortunately, the initially released CDs

simply offered about the same terrible productions as the records albeit with an increased S/N factor.

Bottom line, mass produced vinyl is not superior to all digital technology. And the fact that material may be in the digital domain does NOT insure that it is superior to analog!

go listen to the music![:D][:P]

i have tried to Distill your excellent post, D-Fyr, 'cause i think it exceeds the attention span of some here

I , for one ditched vinyl for CD in 1988.....

simply because i was tired of returning 3-4 copies of Every album ...

...........what happened to "Virgin" Vinyl ....???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I ocassionally rip an LP to disc with Sound Forge I have to usually normallize the sound to balance the channels, employ click & scratch filter twice, clipped peak filter once, on the fly low end equalizer boost, a touch high end boost, edit out needle thump at beginning and end, employ noise reduction filter once, some huge glitches have to be cut out because they cannot be processed. After all this they sound pretty good. I have found that I can cut out very loud pops and still can't tell if anything was cut. The low end boost ends up usually +12 db from original and the high end maybe 1 or 2 db. Sometimes have to run through the equalizer again to get rid of low end groove noise. The man is right. They cut the crap out of the bass, compressed the crap out of everything else. And vinyl is better than Disc? Impossible dream.

JJK

And I'm sure after all that, in my opinion it must sound like a great digital recording.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I ocassionally rip an LP to disc with Sound Forge I have to

usually normallize the sound to balance the channels, employ click

& scratch filter twice, clipped peak filter once, on the fly low

end equalizer boost, a touch high end boost, edit out needle thump at

beginning and end, employ noise reduction filter once, some huge

glitches have to be cut out because they cannot be processed. After all

this they sound pretty good. I have found that I can cut out very loud

pops and still can't tell if anything was cut. The low end boost ends

up usually +12 db from original and the high end maybe 1 or 2 db.

Sometimes have to run through the equalizer again to get rid of low end

groove noise. The man is right. They cut the crap out of the bass,

compressed the crap out of everything else. And vinyl is better than

Disc? Impossible dream.

JJK

And I'm sure after all that, in my opinion it must sound like a great digital recording.

Tom

lol!

sorry I can't resist.....

I previously ran a tape production studio where we have thousands of

audio cassette masters of all kinds of recordings. When I became the

guy in charge we promptly moved to a digital studio (dvd and cd

production) for a few reasons:

-supply and demand: the mass market wants CDs, not tapes

-time: it takes way less time to produce and rip all the CDs (on the order of 2 hours versus 18 hours).

-quality: CDs simply sound better than tape. Lower noise floor and cleaner sound

-longevity: the master doesn't get damaged everytime you play a CD and

it has a longer shelf-life. Also, because it won't get damaged you can

forever burn a new master and not lose any quality

I know tapes are a bit different from LPs, but they are also very similar in regards to the artifacts present on the medium.

We're now in the process of converting the old analog cassette tapes

into a digital format for archiving purposes. The oldest of the tapes

are beyond their shelf life and are at times unretrievable! It is on

these damaged recordings that we are implementing some hardcore noise

reduction and processing to at the very least make them intelligible.

In other words, all quality is thrown out the window and we're just

trying to make the source material heard.

Achieving such good results I of course wanted to apply this process to

the not so damaged cassettes - "of course it must sound better". Well

the reason for this long story is that after years of experimentation I

have found that there is no noise reduction, pop filter, or any "flaw

reduction" process that is going to improve upon the quality of the

original flawed recording. There is of course a huge wow factor as you

notice all this noise and stuff getting sucked out of the recording,

but at the same time you are sucking the life out of the MUSIC as well.

A few years down the road I think you're going to realize that you wish

you had the straight original rip from the LP into the digital format.

I can understand the use of a little EQ, but don't try to "fix the

flaws" - as you simply end up ruining it for yourself in the future. I

call this the "wow factor".

Now I know I'm not listening to your actual final product and it

wouldn't be fair for me to have a preconcieved notion on how it sounds,

so I simply challenge you to make a few recordings. One original

straight to digital copy. One where you use as little EQ as possible

(say at most a bass-shelf filter and maybe some HF attenuation only if

needed - don't try to fix flaws, just make it sound good). One where

you EQ to your hearts content (lets those dials rip and try to fix the

flaws if you want) and then one where you use all the processing you

have available (what you're doing now). Put all 4 recordings on a

single CD and just listen to the same song on the different tracks, but

listen in a random order. I bet you'll find the second method to be the

most enjoyable - if you enjoy the 4th method more then I want to know

your exact settings to try it out for myself [;)] Perhaps make it an

interactive experience and share all the files with the forum and

demonstrate the differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I ocassionally rip an LP to disc with Sound Forge I have to usually normallize the sound to balance the channels, employ click & scratch filter twice, clipped peak filter once, on the fly low end equalizer boost, a touch high end boost, edit out needle thump at beginning and end, employ noise reduction filter once, some huge glitches have to be cut out because they cannot be processed. After all this they sound pretty good. I have found that I can cut out very loud pops and still can't tell if anything was cut. The low end boost ends up usually +12 db from original and the high end maybe 1 or 2 db. Sometimes have to run through the equalizer again to get rid of low end groove noise. The man is right. They cut the crap out of the bass, compressed the crap out of everything else. And vinyl is better than Disc? Impossible dream.

JJK

And I'm sure after all that, in my opinion it must sound like a great digital recording.

Tom

lol!

sorry I can't resist.....

I previously ran a tape production studio where we have thousands of audio cassette masters of all kinds of recordings. When I became the guy in charge we promptly moved to a digital studio (dvd and cd production) for a few reasons:

-supply and demand: the mass market wants CDs, not tapes

-time: it takes way less time to produce and rip all the CDs (on the order of 2 hours versus 18 hours).

-quality: CDs simply sound better than tape. Lower noise floor and cleaner sound

-longevity: the master doesn't get damaged everytime you play a CD and it has a longer shelf-life. Also, because it won't get damaged you can forever burn a new master and not lose any quality

I know tapes are a bit different from LPs, but they are also very similar in regards to the artifacts present on the medium.

We're now in the process of converting the old analog cassette tapes into a digital format for archiving purposes. The oldest of the tapes are beyond their shelf life and are at times unretrievable! It is on these damaged recordings that we are implementing some hardcore noise reduction and processing to at the very least make them intelligible. In other words, all quality is thrown out the window and we're just trying to make the source material heard.

Achieving such good results I of course wanted to apply this process to the not so damaged cassettes - "of course it must sound better". Well the reason for this long story is that after years of experimentation I have found that there is no noise reduction, pop filter, or any "flaw reduction" process that is going to improve upon the quality of the original flawed recording. There is of course a huge wow factor as you notice all this noise and stuff getting sucked out of the recording, but at the same time you are sucking the life out of the MUSIC as well. A few years down the road I think you're going to realize that you wish you had the straight original rip from the LP into the digital format. I can understand the use of a little EQ, but don't try to "fix the flaws" - as you simply end up ruining it for yourself in the future. I call this the "wow factor".

Now I know I'm not listening to your actual final product and it wouldn't be fair for me to have a preconcieved notion on how it sounds, so I simply challenge you to make a few recordings. One original straight to digital copy. One where you use as little EQ as possible (say at most a bass-shelf filter and maybe some HF attenuation only if needed - don't try to fix flaws, just make it sound good). One where you EQ to your hearts content (lets those dials rip and try to fix the flaws if you want) and then one where you use all the processing you have available (what you're doing now). Put all 4 recordings on a single CD and just listen to the same song on the different tracks, but listen in a random order. I bet you'll find the second method to be the most enjoyable - if you enjoy the 4th method more then I want to know your exact settings to try it out for myself [;)] Perhaps make it an interactive experience and share all the files with the forum and demonstrate the differences.

I was being fesisious (sic?), should have put a wink smiley after my post. I too believe a straight burn on a needle drop is the way to go.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, for one, ditched vinyl for CD in 1988.....

simply because i was tired of returning 3-4 copies of Every album ...

Duke, the sad fact is that what you describe is literally true!!!!

In a few shops I regularly patronized, not only did they order higher quality imports for me (especially H.Carlock at Music City Record Distributors - parents of Cat's Records!!), but with the domestic pressings I would literally open them for inspection on site in order to minimize the repeated trips back and forth to exchange the lousy pressings! And that was JUST visually checking for dimples! And the carnage was terrible!

And then during the early '80s companies like (for example) Blue Angel in Charlottesville, VA began doing nothing but sourcing the Decca, German (Polydor/EG), RSO limited edition boxed sets and Japanese (EMI) pressings (many of which are still sealed!) and other limited edition pressings because there was such a pent up demand by collectors for better quality!

And now I am glad that some find records amusing and rewarding - especially those who are just discovering them as they run out to buy $1500+ turntables to listen to their new found garage sale gold!

But I can only imagine what most folks are finding in these garage sales! Heck, I have searched them for 30+ years! After all, It was difficult enough to find quality collectibles during the 1970's and 80's at the Goldmine/Collector's shows held in the Hotel ballrooms in various cities then!!!!

And no one need tell me of their exceptional finds - I am still silly enough to look (it's a compulsion! - Note: NOT because i expect to find acceptable quality!! But simply for a few rare titles that are lost to obscurity and have never been re-released!) - and 99.99999% of what you find is the average stuff after average folks had treated them in absolutely scary ways, where if someone had dared do that to a single record of mine they would have been tossed out of the house! (Of course they thought I was a nut for caring so meticulously for mine!) And the average turntable and cartridge (cartridge???) they had been played on featured some denomination of coin taped to it to prevent skipping! Boy Howdy! What a find! If ONLY a simple cleaning would repair the damage! Folks, do you realize how rare it was to find anyone who knew what they were, let alone had a Dual or Garrard or Thorens turntable in the 70's (and we won't even talk about the 60's)!? Back when Dual and Garrard went head to head! Let along an SME or vertical tracking arm!! And we aren't even talking about the high end stuff! For the most part, it WAS the esoteric stuff for most folks! (In fact, Thorens was perhaps the most commonly paired turntable with the McIntosh electronics in many 'elite' showrooms in the 70's.)

And now we get to listen to folks who have just gotten their first turntable tell us how marvelous that stuff sounds and how it elicits orgasms and fits of mystical ecstasy!!

Oh well...just what I need, someone lecturing me about the joys of record collecting!

And no folks, the first generation or two of CDs were not consistently better either! But that does not make bad vinyl better then bad digital! ...Just noisier and more hassle![:P][6]

But, by all means, please enjoy whatever you like for whatever quality you like!

Just realize that you are going to be fighting an absurd uphill battle to convince those of us who already have been through the war and cared about quality, what a panacea it was! And that was regarding brand new media! (As my entire collection was meticulously built (can we say "anal"[:P]) prior to their demise on the market ~1989! Not from garage sales!)[:P][:P][:P]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was being fesisious (sic?), should have put

a wink smiley after my post. I too believe a straight burn on a needle

drop is the way to go.

Oops, I was originally directing that to JJKIZAK and it wasn't meant to

be discouraging either. It certainly is a lot of fun to try to make

them sound better than the original, but something is always sacrificed

in the process.

And since I'm posting....

One thing that kills me about LP's is that the physical process of

playing them results in damage to the medium storing the music. (I kind

of elluded to it with my tape studio post). I think it fair to claim

that the quality of the LP goes down with every playing, so after how

many times does the super fancy rare awesome sounding LP get before it

starts sounding bad? I see all these TT owners swapping cartridges and

needles left and right and can't help but think they have to change the

way their system tracks because of the increasingly damaged record

collection. I know it may a bit obtuse of me to make the claim, but if

you were listening to music all day long every day of the week, how

long would these collections last before they needed to be updated

again?

For this poor college kid this is totally unacceptable - I like it to sound the same way everytime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Properly cared for records played on really good equipment will continue to sound good for HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of plays . . .

So, Doc, considering where most of the garage sale records have been, and the care they received on the old Sears 'all in one' changer, their quality and life is pretty well infinite![:P][6]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, LPs are virtually worthless and they age very quickly overtime. [:D].

I have some 50-year old vinyls that still play and will continue to play long after I am dead.

My needle can virtually play any vinyl without a trace of hiss, pop and crackle!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...