-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Exactly, how much does vinyl suck less than it did 30 years ago? This needs to be quantified.
- Thread starter SHB
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2023
- Messages
- 320
- Likes
- 302
Have no issue trying that mix and the LP new was $6.99. Most of mine were pre cd. It's mint, no pops and clicks yet.... Fingers crossed.You think that sounds good? You should hear the new Grammy-nominated Dolby Atmos mix from Bob Clearmountain on BluRay, with 2, 5.1 and Atmos mixes to please all tastes. https://immersiveaudioalbum.com/roxy-music-avalon-dolby-atmos/
Now of course if you'd rather pay approx $40 for the same mix in Snap, Crackle, and Pop form, be my guest.
Sure, no problem, just order it up.
Robin L
Master Contributor
I had the 5.1 SACD, the first issue CD and a vintage LP at the same time. The early CD was lifeless, the LP and SACD were closer to each other than to the early CD. The SACD was better than the LP, but that's something of an unfair fight considering that the SACD was in discreet surround. I'm all in favor of sonic upgrades from re-mastering but I'm not so sure about surround/ATMOS mixes rendered from sources originally intended to be reproduced in two-channel stereo.
It's all a matter of opinion, get the release and decide if you like it.
That's what multich streaming is best at, try before you buy.
Well, I guess you get what you pay for.
I just listened to the Apple version, whatever that is (atmos downmixed?) and it was not night and day.Well, I guess you get what you pay for.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2023
- Messages
- 320
- Likes
- 302
My system, 7.4.4 uses dipoles for the surrounds, narrow room, otherwise the rears have a headphone effect. Brought many standard surounds and the dipoles always went back into the system. I find this works great for movies but not multichannel music, I expect to give it a try but normally I end up back to 2 channels and a sub for all music.
Had I think FM Rumors, disk had a 5.1 mix, a Atmos mix and even a old quad mix. The only mix that was interesting was quad, no, it did sound near as good. It was interesting just hearing quad after so many years.
Could be my room and speakers as 5.1 music wants 5 of the same speaker.
Quad was ahead of it's time. The start of multi channel. As a funny side note way back in the day a friend had a quad 8 track in his car, we begged to hear Aerosmith Toys in the attic. If one rammed the joystick ballance to just the rear left speaker one of the band sung backup and was so out of tune it was always a laugh.
Vinyl can do much better than AM radio. If that's all it could do, I'd have given it up long ago.As always was AM radio, but I wouldn't want to use it as source for my Hi Fi.
Who is? That isn't and hasn't been any part of this discussion, don't change the subject.
Right, but the difference between the average vinyl and the average CD is easily heard.
Have I expressed anything different.? If it's rational to you fine.
Does it equal digital for sound quality, not by a mile, and that isn't even bringing multich into the picture.
You think that sounds good? You should hear the new Grammy-nominated Dolby Atmos mix from Bob Clearmountain on BluRay, with 2, 5.1 and Atmos mixes to please all tastes. https://immersiveaudioalbum.com/roxy-music-avalon-dolby-atmos/
Now of course if you'd rather pay approx $40 for the same mix in Snap, Crackle, and Pop form, be my guest.
LOL yeah, AM for music was okay back when I had my handheld transistor radio (better for sports), but the major stations I listened to in the late 60s in Chicago (WLS and WCFL) on AM were all I really knew until I moved to the west coast and got some good FM options. The better SQ on FM helped a lot....but don't think the vinyl had much to do with that part.
But I can think back to 2 of my most memorable music experiences.
The first was from the back seat of my 56 Chevy 210, necking this young blond cutie and listening to WLS AM playing Smokey Robinson or something along that line -1965.
The second was around 2:00am, all by myself, listening again to WLS in my car to the Temptations or such. Now it was 1969, I was in the Army and stationed at Fort Benning Ga, it was so cool to be able to sit in my 1966 Ford Galaxie and grab that piece of home via the long distance reception of a 50,000 watt clear channel AM radio.
Oh What A Night
Last edited:
I think that it is a rational decision to play what you already have (in my case, since 1965, when I was 8).
For me, that would be 78's from my grandmother to albums & tapes (cassette & reel to reel), some of which is a special case, family stuff.
I also have home movies from as far back as my grandparents snow skiing wedding in the alps of Austria in 1931.
Naturally , I wanted to clean that up & digitize it (from 9.5 MM film).
And the same with my 78's and other stuff. clean it up as best I can (if it is newer than 1972, It was transferred to high end cassette years ago to keep the albums
pristine). Later on, they got transferred to CD's using my SONY CDR-500. Which can allow me to make a 20 bit copy. (I don't, as I can't hear a difference)
Now, it is possible for me to digitize them and remove some of the noise (which I do not find bothersome with my gear and the condition of what I play).
While it's cool that I can do 20 bit recording, it's not a rational way to spend money and time.
And I can buy digital. But I won't do that for something that I already have (unless there is some sort of major improvement (like if my album or CD were to become scratched, then it would make sense to get the best possible one [& in some cases, that is still the record]).
For some folks, they never even got into CD's.
And for me, I do not hear a difference in things that are 'better than CD format', so I see no reason to get better than that (even if it is files).
Now, if your dealing with streaming: I don't.
A big part is that I don't live where there is a consistent/stable signal. That is kind of like having a dead snake strapped to the gate,
it's a bit of a deterrent to company. Which is a + in my book. The other big reason is that I like owning my music. And my ability to play music whether the grid can give me my 30 AMPs of service or not (am at the end of grid service). But I have USP's and a generator for backup power.
So, for me, it's not logical to upgrade (unless emotionally, I feel the desire to).
YMMV.
Last edited:
That would be something that I would like to hear. But the ability to do that is years away. As there are other priorities (kind of like that truck you mentioned recently).As always was AM radio, but I wouldn't want to use it as source for my Hi Fi.
Who is? That isn't and hasn't been any part of this discussion, don't change the subject.
Right, but the difference between the average vinyl and the average CD is easily heard.
Have I expressed anything different.? If it's rational to you fine.
Does it equal digital for sound quality, not by a mile, and that isn't even bringing multich into the picture.
You think that sounds good? You should hear the new Grammy-nominated Dolby Atmos mix from Bob Clearmountain on BluRay, with 2, 5.1 and Atmos mixes to please all tastes. https://immersiveaudioalbum.com/roxy-music-avalon-dolby-atmos/
Now of course if you'd rather pay approx $40 for the same mix in Snap, Crackle, and Pop form, be my guest.
DavidEdwinAston
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2021
- Messages
- 1,171
- Likes
- 920
In the late fifties, Radio Luxembourg was fine for about half an hour in the evening, before the AM radio weaknesses kicked in.
Long enough for me to discover, Buddy, Eddie, Elvis, even Rick around the Clock, for goodness sake!
Long enough for me to discover, Buddy, Eddie, Elvis, even Rick around the Clock, for goodness sake!
DavidEdwinAston
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2021
- Messages
- 1,171
- Likes
- 920
And, Rocky Nelson, of course. 
Can you explain what you mean when you say you are not sure about mixes rendered from sources originally intended to be reproduced in two-channel stereo, and do you have any examples of such audio productions?
Sure, if the original recording were made with the use of only two microphones, and with the intention of panning those two channels left and right in stereo, I do see your point. But when talking about a recording such as the Avalon and other similar multi-mono recordings, granted they contain enough individually recorded elements to fill out an Atmos mix, I don't see how the original intention of making it a two-channel stereo mix would have any negative effect on the outcome of an Atmos mix.
I leave it open that I may have just misunderstood what you meant by "originally intended".
It would be interesting to hear what you guys prefer the sound of between the vinyl and the digital streaming version of New Order - Blue Monday? They are supposedly both from the single released in 2020.
I have not done any deeper analysis of the sound files, but based just on my subjective listening, I find the direct recording of the vinyl version to sound a little bit more convincing, with a more "musical drive" and with some more "body" to the sound elements in the mix, while the digital version streamed from Tidal sounds somewhat flat and less engaging in comparison. Sorry for not being able to find a better way to describe the differences I hear.
As I have not done any analyses, the digital version may be dynamically limited, making it sound worse to me. But at the same time, that is the reality for any one of us when making the final decision when either buying the vinyl, or streaming it from Tidal or any other streaming platform.
So again, have a listen and tell me what you hear.
Here is the link to all the major streaming platforms: https://tidal.com/track/155212696/u
And here is the direct recording of the vinyl of the same release:
I have not done any deeper analysis of the sound files, but based just on my subjective listening, I find the direct recording of the vinyl version to sound a little bit more convincing, with a more "musical drive" and with some more "body" to the sound elements in the mix, while the digital version streamed from Tidal sounds somewhat flat and less engaging in comparison. Sorry for not being able to find a better way to describe the differences I hear.
As I have not done any analyses, the digital version may be dynamically limited, making it sound worse to me. But at the same time, that is the reality for any one of us when making the final decision when either buying the vinyl, or streaming it from Tidal or any other streaming platform.
So again, have a listen and tell me what you hear.
Here is the link to all the major streaming platforms: https://tidal.com/track/155212696/u
And here is the direct recording of the vinyl of the same release:
Robin L
Master Contributor
It's like the Giles Martin Beatles remixes. He has audio elements that were not available to the original four band members and sometimes alters the balances in ways that stick out. Here I'm talking about recordings that have multi-channel masters, the recent remixes from two-channel sources have their own issues. The end of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" has George's voice pop out of the mix, the original and previously issued CDs and LPs don't. The remix of "I am the Walrus" on the recently reissued "Blue" compilation has the back end effectively re-composed, doesn't sound anything like the original for a while. The remix of "She Said, She Said" is drastically different, the vocal is forward and clear, the guitar parts are split up and numerous inner details that were buried in the mix before are popping up to the surface in ways that John may not have intended. If Atmos remixes are made with the creative team responsible for the original production I can understand, but if not it's open to some questions. Things like balances usually are ironed out between the band/soloist and the producer. But recent multichannel remixes usually don't or can't follow that sort of protocol.Can you explain what you mean when you say you are not sure about mixes rendered from sources originally intended to be reproduced in two-channel stereo, and do you have any examples of such audio productions?
Sure, if the original recording were made with the use of only two microphones, and with the intention of panning those two channels left and right in stereo, I do see your point. But when talking about a recording such as the Avalon and other similar multi-mono recordings, granted they contain enough individually recorded elements to fill out an Atmos mix, I don't see how the original intention of making it a two-channel stereo mix would have any negative effect on the outcome of an Atmos mix.
I leave it open that I may have just misunderstood what you meant by "originally intended".
Last edited:
With any remix whether it be Atmos or just 2ch, whenever the final product ends up with a different balance, then some listeners are going to be unhappy. They know every note of the one they've been listening to for 30-50 years or more and to them that's the way it's "supposed to sound". Mostly it's never bothered me, I expect something new. Specially with multich, I'm hoping for something exciting and inventive to hear. Otherwise you could just add a little Hafler circuit to the amp plus a couple speakers and play the original source. Each to their own.
Similar threads
