Classic reissues good idea?

[skeptik]

They sound better (EQ can solve that "warmth" vinyl nuts talk about)

I agree with your whole remastering thesis, but I take issue with this claim. It's not simply a matter that tweaking some settings can fix, there's a fundamental difference between the mediums.

 

[poundingmetal74]

I agree with your whole remastering thesis, but I take issue with this claim. It's not simply a matter that tweaking some settings can fix, there's a fundamental difference between the mediums.

It's not so much a thesis as it is what happens when you compress music.

Obviously there's a difference between the mediums - one's 1's and 0's, the other isn't. That still doesn't refute my argument that vinyl - overall - is an inferior and outdated medium.

 

[skeptik]

I was only responding to the part that I quoted. Vinyl sounds better than CD. I don't care about portability and such issues when I'm sitting down to listen to an album.

 

[Wyvern]

Vinyl sounds better than CD.

So they say. In my case I prefer CDs (that's why I trade my vinyl collection with a few exceptions to CDs), no need to rise up and change the side, no hisss, no needle jumping, no scratches...well to each its own, it's good for the industry so each media has its target buyers.

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

Xing's Audio Catalyst has had that capacity for 10 years. The CD deck in my car also has a built in normalization feature (although I refuse to use it because it compresses the hell out of EVERYTHING making it sound like shit).


Use a program like Sound Forge to remaster your own CDs then burn them. A much cheaper solution than repurchasing something louder. Do it yourself for 1/20 the cost.

Thanks for the info, Brandon. My buddy said his mastering program can do the same thing, but he didn't sound excited to spend a bunch of time remastering my suitcase full of 80s cds!

 

[poundingmetal74]

Thanks for the info, Brandon. My buddy said his mastering program can do the same thing, but he didn't sound excited to spend a bunch of time remastering my suitcase full of 80s cds!

If it's simple volume raising, you can do that yourself very easily. See if you can find a copy of Sound Forge, Waveasaur or Cool Edit.

Vinyl sounds better than CD. I don't care about portability and such issues when I'm sitting down to listen to an album.

Vinyl sounds "better" simply because of the limitations of old CDs - Vinyl has a range of something like 100 000 Khz, while CDs are only 44 100. However, if CDs could be played with modern technology (192 000 and 96-bit) CDs and digital technology would destroy vinyl. Not to mention the human ear can only hear about 20 000 Khz anyways so with Vinyl you're impressing your dog with the extra frequencies.

Also, CDs have no hiss or clicks and pops, and can be clipped without sounding terrible (actually, hitting the zero line on a vinyl would ruin the vinyl). I'd much rather have no clicks and hiss (Which I've always found annoying) and lose the slightest bit of high end frequency.

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

If it's simple volume raising, you can do that yourself very easily. See if you can find a copy of Sound Forge, Waveasaur or Cool Edit.

Hmmm...me wonders what Brandon means when he says "find a copy" of Sound Forge...

 

[poundingmetal74]

Hmmm...me wonders what Brandon means when he says "find a copy" of Sound Forge...

He means go to Guitar Center and pay $300, obviously.

 

[skeptik]

Vinyl sounds "better" simply because of the limitations of old CDs - Vinyl has a range of something like 100 000 Khz, while CDs are only 44 100. However, if CDs could be played with modern technology (192 000 and 96-bit) CDs and digital technology would destroy vinyl. Not to mention the human ear can only hear about 20 000 Khz anyways so with Vinyl you're impressing your dog with the extra frequencies.

Also, CDs have no hiss or clicks and pops, and can be clipped without sounding terrible (actually, hitting the zero line on a vinyl would ruin the vinyl). I'd much rather have no clicks and hiss (Which I've always found annoying) and lose the slightest bit of high end frequency.

You claimed that EQ settings can duplicate the "warmth", the organic sound of spinning a record. I'd like you to explain where this magical button is on my stereo, because I'm convinced that it doesn't exist. You can't replicate the experience of playing a record via a digital medium.

 

[poundingmetal74]

You claimed that EQ settings can duplicate the "warmth", the organic sound of spinning a record. I'd like you to explain where this magical button is on my stereo, because I'm convinced that it doesn't exist. You can't replicate the experience of playing a record via a digital medium.

What do you mean replicate the experience? That sounds like an emotive argument. Pop the CD and hit play, it's not that different from putting the record on the turn table and moving the needle. Start the "record", sit back and get rocked for 45 minutes. In terms of EQ, buy a 10+ band equalizer. There are certain frequencies especially in the mid-low end that give the "warmth" that vinyl purists such as yourself rave about.

Look, if you like vinyl, that's fine. I'm not saying don't listen to it. I enjoy popping in cassettes even when I have it on CD, so I "get" what you're talking about in terms of the experience. But what I am saying is that vinyl just simply is not superior to CD. Maybe in a few aspects it is, but in the bigger picture it's not. If it were, people would still buy vinyl in mass droves and that just isn't happening.

Rather, vinyl lives the niche market (which is where CDs and soon to be DVDs are heading).

 

[skeptik]

First of all, I never said that I was a vinyl purist. I have ten times as many CDs as I do of records. But it's impossible to replicate analog on a digital medium. The only point I'm disputing is your claim that essentially a CD can do anything a record can do, only better. I don't care if you like CDs more, but this isn't true. Also, mass opinion is never a good argument, you should know that for the future.

 

[poundingmetal74]

First of all, I never said that I was a vinyl purist. I have ten times as many CDs as I do of records. But it's impossible to replicate analog on a digital medium. The only point I'm disputing is your claim that essentially a CD can do anything a record can do, only better. I don't care if you like CDs more, but this isn't true. Also, mass opinion is never a good argument, you should know that for the future.

Of course I know that mass opinion isn't always a good argument. That doesn't mean it NEVER is. For example, Blu Ray won over HD DVD in the popularity contest, but Blu Ray is actually a better medium. So your "popularity is never a good point" argument is flawed.

You've also barely refuted my argument - nor have you given a rebuttal to the points I made about 15 posts ago saying why CDs are generally superior to vinyl. All you've come up with is "experience" and "analog is different from digital".

Also, I HAVE NOT said that CDs "basically do the same as vinyl only better". They're two DIFFERENT mediums that produce sound in different ways. All I said was if you compare the two using the same criteria, vinyl loses in virtually every category other than "how it sounds".

 

[Wyvern]

Of course I know that mass opinion isn't always a good argument. That doesn't mean it NEVER is. For example, Blu Ray won over HD DVD

Yeah that means soon I'll have to change my DVD player (seldom usedd = almost new) since all movies are gonna come out as Blu Ray, again technology is forced upon me

All I said was if you compare the two using the same criteria, vinyl loses in virtually every category other than "how it sounds".

Maybe I'm loosing track here, but even if vinyl is superior on how it sounds, the truth is that the pops, hiss, cracks and scratches comes with the territory and except for the old CDs (mid 80's) that were attacked by a strange bacteria/fungus that eat the aluminum layer and render the tracks not-workable, the fcat is as today CD sounds real good to me, I don't need to stand and change sides, I can program the order of the songs or cut them with a remote control, they occupy less space and I can play them in my computer, my stereo, my discman (and eventually in my car since the tape deck has dissappeared). Vinyls I can only play on a turntable and for starters mine is old and I can't get new needles for it (and since I have few vinyls is useless to try and look to buy a new one).

My $0.05 (recesion) on the subject.

 

[skeptik]

Of course I know that mass opinion isn't always a good argument. That doesn't mean it NEVER is. For example, Blu Ray won over HD DVD in the popularity contest, but Blu Ray is actually a better medium. So your "popularity is never a good point" argument is flawed.

You've also barely refuted my argument - nor have you given a rebuttal to the points I made about 15 posts ago saying why CDs are generally superior to vinyl. All you've come up with is "experience" and "analog is different from digital".

Also, I HAVE NOT said that CDs "basically do the same as vinyl only better". They're two DIFFERENT mediums that produce sound in different ways. All I said was if you compare the two using the same criteria, vinyl loses in virtually every category other than "how it sounds".

Logical fallacy. Just because popular opinion agrees with the right answer doesn't mean appealing to the popular opinion is a good argument. In fact it's a stupid argument. The only time it's not stupid to use popular opinion as an argument is when you're arguing about something relevant to popular opinion.

And as I said before, the only issue I'm even addressing is "how it sounds." You said that CD can replicate the warmth, the organic sound of an analog recording played on a record player. Obviously whether you prefer how a CD sounds over a record is a matter of opinion, and I don't care about that. The only thing I'm disputing is your claim that I just mentioned, which essentially boils down to saying that "the only thing vinyl enthusiasts have over CD can be replicated", and frankly, that's not true, and leads me to believe that you don't really listen to vinyl very often. Like I said, I have far more CDs than records. Exponentially. And over I too prefer CDs as a medium. But based purely on the way that they sound, if I'm just sitting down listening to a record, I'd rather spin a vinyl than a CD because of the way that it sounds.

 

[poundingmetal74]

Yes, but I never said CDs are better because they're now more popular. They're more popular because they're better (at least meant to imply it). Regardless, let's move past that, shall we?

If you're willing to spend thousands of dollars on EQ's and numerous other gizmos (or digital editing suites) you can get a sound that's almost impossible to distinguish a CD track from it's vinyl counterpart. Of course, it's never going to be 100% the same. I've read a few sites where engineers will EQ and apply all sorts of effects to where vinyl purists can't distinguish which is a CDs version or a vinyl rip (done at high resolutions like 88200 khz).

I don't listen to vinyl regularly, but I've listened to enough of them to know why the vinyl crowd likes them. It has a certain warmth to the sound that CDs can't "achieve" per se. I've now said this a half dozen times, but they're two different animals for how they produce sound. Each has it's limitations and strenghts. CDs also don't sound worse than vinyl, they just sound different than vinyl.

 

[Greeno]

Yes, but I never said CDs are better because they're now more popular. They're more popular because they're better (at least meant to imply it).

I think cd's became more popular in the beginning because of portability. At first they sounded as good as vinyl and had the portability of cassettes (which gets my vote for worst format EVER) so people had they best of both worlds. However in the mid to late 90's something changed to my ear. I guess it's the way they master cd's now, everything is pumped up to the max, there's no "breath" in the music now. The new Metallica cd is a good example. They pushed the levels so hard on that disc that even Joe Casual Listener was complaining about the clipping. To my ear vinyl and cd's started out as equals in the 80's as far as sound quality goes, but these days because of the way they are mastered cd's can't hold a candle to vinyl.

Don't get me wrong, I collect cd's (mainly older ones) but I usualy only listen to them in the car. If I'm lsitening to music at home 95% of the time it's a record spinning. And I'm not some kind of vinyl purist, I just like the sound of vinyl better. I know that having grown up listening to vinyl has a little to do with it, but the main reason I prefer vinyl is I just like the sound better.

I think the whole "cd's sound better than vinyl" thing is subjective anyway. Beauty is in the ear of the beholder. So just listen to which ever format you like the best.

And in closing I'd just like to say... vinyl sounds better than cd's.

 

[poundingmetal74]

I guess it's the way they master cd's now, everything is pumped up to the max, there's no "breath" in the music now. The new Metallica cd is a good example. They pushed the levels so hard on that disc that even Joe Casual Listener was complaining about the clipping. To my ear vinyl and cd's started out as equals in the 80's as far as sound quality goes, but these days because of the way they are mastered cd's can't hold a candle to vinyl.

Ultimately that all comes down to mastering and not the medium itself. Vinyl cannot be clipped because of the medium (if Vinyl's mastering hit the zero line, the tracks on the vinyl itself would jump out. CDs can hit the zero line and still sound fine (it's when the whole bloody thing is constantly at the zero line that the problem comes in).

I totally agree about the no breathing space for new masters. Whenever I listen to, say, Dream Evil, which is brick walled, it gets painful to listen to after a few songs. You're constantly bombarded with the same soundwave for 4 minutes and that's not how music is "supposed" to sound.

Lastly, I want to point out that this weekend I did my own vinyl vs. CD test - I took Empire (I bought it a few weeks back on vinyl, if for no other reason than it makes a cool giant poster. ) Anyways, I compared it with the original master of the CD on the same stereo, same volume and settings. I listened to both in the dark and did my damnedest to analyze frequencies and how the instruments sounded, etc.

Conclusion: to my ears, trying to be purely objective: the CD version destroyed its vinyl counterpart - and the vinyl was in great shape with little clicks/pops.

I did enjoy the warmth (especially in the low-mid bass and mid range frequencies) but on the whole, I found the CD to be much more pleasing to my ears. Not to mention it had better sound "consistency".

 

[Krow]

I personally like when old albums are remastered... It's not that I have a problem with the originals... but my biggest beef is that compared to newly produced music, albums from like 1997 back dont have a great quality on mp3 players. Their sound is ususally much lower and just crappy in contrast to other, newer material. My mp3 player is my number 1 source to listen to music with. This is where it remastered versions shine. Their volume is "turned up" and sound is clarified.

So, I'll take any remastered versions I can get... Most of my Death, Obituary, Possessed, and a few others all fit into that category... and even with things like Hypocrisy, I keep the 10 years of chaos and confusion re-recordings instead of the originals.

 

[bandit29]

I personally like when old albums are remastered... It's not that I have a problem with the originals... but my biggest beef is that compared to newly produced music, albums from like 1997 back dont have a great quality on mp3 players. Their sound is ususally much lower and just crappy in contrast to other, newer material. My mp3 player is my number 1 source to listen to music with. This is where it remastered versions shine. Their volume is "turned up" and sound is clarified.

So, I'll take any remastered versions I can get... Most of my Death, Obituary, Possessed, and a few others all fit into that category... and even with things like Hypocrisy, I keep the 10 years of chaos and confusion re-recordings instead of the originals.

Stop ripping your music at 128kps lol. Older CDs should sound good enough at 256kps. Also just because something is louder doesn't mean it sounds better. Death Magnetic is a very loud CD...so loud that your speakers sound like they going to blow.
Most music now(not just metal) has no dynamic range whatsoever.."just crank it 10!!!"

not that I like the magazine but..

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity/print

http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm

 

[Krow]

Stop ripping your music at 128kps lol. Older CDs should sound good enough at 256kps. Also just because something is louder doesn't mean it sounds better. Death Magnetic is a very loud CD...so loud that your speakers sound like they going to blow.
Most music now(not just metal) has no dynamic range whatsoever.."just crank it 10!!!"

not that I like the magazine but..

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619
/the_death_of_high_fidelity/print

Even at 320, old Death (except Human for some reason) and Obituary (and alot more stuff I'm too lazy to list... Possessed being one of the main offenders... and their reisusses dont fix it either) dont sound right on "loudness" level with newer stuff...

And it's just a hassle to turn up your mp3 player for one song.. then when that song is over, the next song tears your head off because its so loud.

Maybe I'm just being overly picky... but... I'll still take the remasters over the originals anyday. I guess it isnt really a big deal at all... But I like a good remaster.