It would obviously depend upon the exact disc you are comparing. I have an original copy of Dave Grusin's "Discovered Again" on Sheffield Direct to Disc LP. It was a staple of demo discs around the time CD's entered the market. I have several copies of the same recording released by Sheffield but taken from the master tapes. I used these for most of my demo work since so many of my discs have suffered from repeated playings by those other salespeople who wished to borrow a truly exceptional recording but were too cheap to buy their own demo material. I also have copies of the CD taken from the master tapes. By far, the best sound is from the original Direct to Disc LP. There is no pertinent area of quality where I could say the digitized version is superior to this original disc. The reissued LP's and the CD are more or less equivalent in sound quality but far behind the original in overall quality.

I have several historical resissues on CD that are far and away superior to the original 78's in terms of overall noise levels, apparent frequency response and (probably)measurable dynamic range - thanks to digital manipulation techniques. But they fall far behind the old 78's discs is their sense of immediacy and relative transparency. Despite the noise from the old discs they are, as a whole, more interesting to listen to.

My SACD of "Dark Side of the Moon" is better than any of my Mobile Fidelity or European pressings of the original LP. The Redbook layer on the same disc is good but nothing special.

Many of the "vintage" recordings now available on CD have been remastered. Many have even been retouched and remixed from the original masters. Some not. Several of my SACD's have a different mix for the CD layer which is on the same disc.

I have a mono LP of Elvis' Sun Studio's recordings that was transfered to DSD for remastering by Sam Phillip's son. The LP format is on 180 gram vinyl and is one of the best sounding recordings I own.

Somewhere on the forums is a previous discussuion about this very thing. It also either included data or a link to an article with data showing some startling findings!

I'll go look, but feel free to search around in case I am inept at finding it.

Steve Hoffman's LP mastering of Stadium Arcadium by the Red Hot Chili Peppers has a lot more dynamic range than the CD version:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=186712

This is a bit of an extreme case, as that particular CD is one of the most compressed abominations to appear in recent memory. The waveform really is just a brick wall.

My friends, The Heartless Bastards, released the LP version of their sophomore album, All This Time, themselves and it is different than the CD version on Fat Possum (they reduced the bass for one thing). I think it depends on the individual record and situation, but, yes, differences do occur.

Found it!

This article is honestly, truly, sincerely worth looking at all the pages to see the data.

It's spectacular!

http://www.audioholics.com/education/aud...s-vs-cds-part-4

It's moments like this that I miss teh well thought out and constructional input from "he" who shall not be mentioned.

Quote:
Certainly differences do occur for various reasons, but is there any general average improvement that one can generally count on?

That is, assuming that a CD and an LP of the same performance are being released essentially at the same time will there generally be a difference as to what is put on the CD and the LP, or will they generally be the same?

I remember the Audioholics article. Unfortunately it is a mess and replete with many basic mistakes and bad assumptions. We discussed this as a group some time ago. It is a good faith try however.

Jeff's example of Steve Hoffman's LP mastering of Stadium Arcadium is precisely the type of thing I am asking about. Is this kind of difference common or the exception? (While Jeff's example is extreme, it is easy for anyone to see the differences in the waveforms.)

Thanks both of you for the examples and discussion.

With modern material it likely depends a lot on who is releasing it. I've heard it mentioned that the compression and clipping is considered "edgier" by some execs, so bands that they think kids will like, especially, get this kind of treatment... I would hope Atlantic (due to things mentioned in that Craig Kallman interview) would release better mastered LPs (I guess I will get to find out first hand in the near future...).

Here are some links to varous articles/threads/etc:

Steve Hoffman

Death of Dynamic Range

Loudness Wars (see also links in reference section of this article)

What Happened to Dynamic Range

related articles

Personally I've given up and caved into buying an LP player at this point. The turning point began partially when I upgraded to the Ayre MX-R amps last year, then finally when I upgraded to the Watt Puppy 8 a few months ago. Once my system became transparent enough, all the bad recordings and remasters of older material that were mishandled in remastering became too unbearable to listen to any more (I only listen to them in the car now, but even that bothers me, partially because of the David Moulton "Golden Ears" program making the bad mastering so apparent to me). Some of the worst are the Flaming Lips albums though it is nothing compared to other albums like the Black Eyed Peas. I initially got in an argument with someone on AVSForum about "The Soft Bulletin" and sought out ways to prove what I was saying was true (the programs listed below), because I had only been using my ears.

Here is one last link to a program that I had fun playing around with on Mac OS X (though it took some interaction with the programmer to get it running correctly). It is entertaining to listen to CDs, pick out the bad ones and then run them through this program, as well as a WAV editor to see what the waveform looks like (I've been using WaveEditor on Mac OS X):

The Hall of Shame

As a few others have pointed out, it all depends on when and who releases the final product. Many albums get mastered and released onto CD by X company, but then Y Audiophile company picks it up, gets the original tapes and masters it on better equipment and to higher standards. Pop and rock recordings are by far the worst offenders for the compressed range issue. I have some recent CDs that play a kind of compressed LOUD way down on the volume dial and needles to say, they sound pretty bad. On the other hand most of the LPs I pick up from Acoustic Sounds for instance have very wide and subtle range of dynamics and detail (and this includes rock recordings) and in every case they are remastered products of standard issues. But as they say- it all "depends..."

Quote:
There is no question that there are many recordings which are overly compressed and that excessive compression can harm the sound (and that without some compression an electric bass and a trap set don't sound right). There are also remasters that sound dreadful and others that are great. But this isn't my question.

Rather, I am curious whether LP's are mastered in general any better than their CD counterparts. This could be a result of the constriants of the medium, a desire for a different/better sound, etc.

My experience has been that a CD and LP released essentially at the same time have the same basic sound and dynamic range. That is, neither format has the advantage of having better sounding music being placed upon it - although we can argue forever as to which sounds better in the end.

I'm with you on the Flaming Lips recordings - frustrating as I get a kick out of the music. I also highly support the idea of ear training for audiophiles. One learns a great deal and the added ability to appreciate what is in a recording is wonderful. I also have Dave Moulton's set of CD's and materials - well worth the time spent with them. The cheesy brown vinyl packaging aside.

P.S. Monty: Go to your room and go lie down by your bowl!

I did answer the question, though in a nondescript manner, in the first sentence. It depends entirely on who is releasing it. A lot of the boutique companies remaster the analog and then send it out for artist approval (companies like Mobile Fidelity, etc, etc, etc...). As far as big companies go, I think it is a mixed bag. I've heard it mentioned that many of them see it as an opportunity to take advantage of the lack of new vinyl to release sub par records knowing they will likely sell them anyway.

It also depends a lot on what music genres you are looking at. With Jazz and Classical, you are less likely to have copious amounts of compression or clipping, it just doesn't sell CDs in that market, so the master is already good quality to begin with in most cases, making the LP likely the same master.

With pop music, where they want the group to appear "edgy" it is more common. The limitations of LP stamping and playback don't really allow for the more extreme abuses that you find on the worst CD recordings though. So that is a plus.

IMO, it behooves the record collector to support the boutique companies, because they are only beholden to the distinguishing collector, and no one else to stay in business. This tends to motivate them to produce higher quality masters, and likely the bigger companies as well in order to compete (at least I can hope this going to be the case...). The exceptions being some of the well known names that are being hired by big companies to specifically produce LPs that are of higher quality. I have also noticed that CDs, SACDs, LPs being released by this boutique companies are usually complete remasters that fix a lot of the glaring engineering obscenities in the major label versions, if there were any, even when they make a CD verison and not necessarily an LP version. The nice thing about these boutique companies is they are very open to people like us calling them and asking them these kind of questions! I got the information on their mastering process and artist input by calling and inquiring about what stages they go through in order to remaster an album.

A thing to keep in mind, if you didn't already know it, when you notice differences in a WAV file made of an LP, if you used a phonostage, you may be viewing an error in the RIAA equalization curve, due to a manufacturer intentionally coloring the sound (I say "intentionally" because I hate to think they are just that unskilled), when you see things like differences in the bass or certain frequencies in every recording, this can be an issue. This is one of the reasons I really want to see some JA measurements of the Manley Steelhead, since it might be an eventual upgrade path for me later on down the road.

Quote:
It's moments like this that I miss teh well thought out and constructional input from "he" who shall not be mentioned.

Ah, we all miss "DUP"

Quote:
It appears unanimous!

There is no general rule, and some LP's are better and some CD/SACD's are better. That is, LP's are not generally better (nor worse) than their CD counterparts.

It is true, and exactly why I had said in an AVSForum thread that when you move to vinyl you lose even when you win, since whatever you gain on some recordings, you don't gain on others, and for whatever you gain in dynamic contrast you lose to other issues of vinyl playback. "Can't win for trying..." (Robert Hunter, "Stella Blue")

Quote:
On the separate (but interesting) issue, there may be some phone preamps with inaccurate RIAA equalization, but I sure hope not! The curve was implemented and designed with discreet analog components and is pretty simple. I hate to think that current manufacturers screw it up.

Check out some of the measurements in the analog phonostage section of the website. There are a few that are outlandish.

At the present time, LP's are a cottage industry with quality about what you'd expect from such a community. CD's on the other hand are mass market, if you don't count iPods and downloads.

Quote:
At the present time, LP's are a cottage industry with quality about what you'd expect from such a community. CD's on the other hand are mass market, if you don't count iPods and downloads.

Perfectly put.

Quote:
there may be some phone preamps with inaccurate RIAA equalization, but I sure hope not! The curve was implemented and designed with discreet analog components and is pretty simple. I hate to think that current manufacturers screw it up.

In general they don't. But the curve is not fixed; http://stereophile.com/solidpreamps/607dart/index5.html

"Note also the rise in RIAA error above 20kHz, which reaches almost +8dB at 100kHz. This is due to the phono preamplifier conforming to the "enhanced" RIAA curve, which uses an additional filter time constant of 3.18

Quote:
On the separate (but interesting) issue, there may be some phone preamps with inaccurate RIAA equalization, but I sure hope not! The curve was implemented and designed with discreet analog components and is pretty simple. I hate to think that current manufacturers screw it up.

Quote:
Check out some of the measurements in the analog phonostage section of the website. There are a few that are outlandish.

As Mr.Kalman states, check out the phono stage RIAA error of the darTZeel NHB-18NS in the June '07 issue. While perhaps not outlandish, it is still "... a very audible +1.3 and 2.5 db with respect to 1 kHz." (quoting JA) (the outlandish-ness sourced from the components pedigree and price tag?)

A quick survey of phono preamps in the Stereophile Equipment Reviews section provided on their wonderful website shows that many if not all RIAA error curves are not drawn with the proverbial ruler of flatness. One of my pet peeves is JA complaining about CD player and DAC frequency response errors with "pre-emphasized CDs" although such disks are the exception. RIAA errors affect every LP.

The RIAA error curve is a perfect example that component measurements do matter, they do give us very significant information. How can purely subjective reviews provide valid comparisons and conclusions when we do not know if a components frequency response is accurate or not, and vary as much as these particular components do?

I believe you're misunderstanding the nature of phono pre amps. This stage is responsible for as much as +40-60dB of gain. No other component is asked to do so much with so little input while applying massive amounts of equalization to the signal. "Ruler flat" response in a phono section is all but unheard of to my knowledge. I suppose you might find "better" response measurements in an IC based phono section. But IC's are not the most common component to use in phono sections due to other factors which argue against their inclusion. If the manufacturer is employing discrete components to build with, the measurements are typically within a plus or minus 0.2dB range. This is how I read the measurements pages. As I stated, you are more likely to find as much, if not greater, variation caused by cartridge loading or poor choice in a phono interconnect.

Assuming the 0.2dB range is typical of high quality phono stages, the errors here are miniscule compared to the devitaions from flat response you will find in any cartridge. Additionally, you are ignoring the fact that the RIAA EQ is not "flat" nor agreed upon. Then there are the various curves used by different disc manufacturers. To believe Angel is similar to Mercury is ignoring the obvious.

JK is blowing the issue out of proportion in order to justify his own "pickiness" and as an excuse for investing "superior" equipment. He doesn't require an excuse. He has already indicated his system is not "ruler flat" within his room. The in room response of his system varies by several decibels above 300Hz and greater below that frequency. Now we're going to argue over 0.2dB variation elsewhere in the system? I think there needs to be a dose of reality pills handed out here. Pulling out one example of a single pre amp which has greater devitaion than the average is the equivalent of citing "the welfare queens" in order to cut benefits. Take your eye off the branch and look at the forest.

quote]I believe you're misunderstanding the nature of phono pre amps. This stage is responsible for as much as +40-60dB of gain. No other component is asked to do so much with so little input while applying massive amounts of equalization to the signal. "Ruler flat" response in a phono section is all but unheard of to my knowledge. I suppose you might find "better" response measurements in an IC based phono section. But IC's are not the most common component to use in phono sections due to other factors which argue against their inclusion. If the manufacturer is employing discrete components to build with, the measurements are typically within a plus or minus 0.2dB range. This is how I read the measurements pages. As I stated, you are more likely to find as much, if not greater, variation caused by cartridge loading or poor choice in a phono interconnect.
.
.
.

The intent of my observations on the performance of phono preamps was simply to agree with Mr. Kalman and bolster my opinion regarding purely subjective audio reviewing compared with reviewing that includes measurements. Indeed, a phono preamp has a daunting task, and given the realities of many other factors, such as you point out regarding cartridge loading, they are but one contributor to non-flat response, and likely not a major one.

I must disagree however, that IC opamps are uncommon in phono preamp sections, particularly in lower priced products. I believe that large FR variations in phono preamps are attributable to other components such as wide tolerance resistors and capacitors rather than active devices. Given the fact that most CD players and DACs use IC opamps in their line output stages, and their FR curves are usually very flat, it would seem the ICs are not the cause of non-flat response.

Regardless, I do not want to start or continue an argument, so I shall stop.

If any gain stage in a CD player were responsible for 40-60dB of gain while simultaneously applying large amounts of EQ to both frequency extremes, I might agree with your opinion. But since that doesn't happen I find it difficult to agree that IC's cannot be responsible for poor frequency response simply because they do not exhibit such behavior in a CD player. Different IC's, different task, different response. If you will read my post once more, you'll see I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to IC's as far as frequency response goes. Still, IC's generally are not the preferred way to build a high end phono pre amp.

IC's are employed in lower cost phono pre amps, and ocassionally some higher priced units also, but we tend to accept less accuracy in lower priced components so I'm not certain what your point might be. High priced IC based phono pre amps do not use low cost IC's. For $49 you can buy a working phono pre amp, but I doubt it's response will be ruler flat even though it is built with IC's. Additionally, I think you'll find most low priced components use wide tolerance components. This is not how most high end components are built. I doubt the 0.2dB variance in a McIntosh phono pre amp is due to the inclusion of a 10% tolerance capacitor somewhere in the circuit. In fact, I doubt you could find a 10% tolerance cap in a McIntosh component.

I think I've missed your point.

Quote:

.
.
.

I think I've missed your point.

(uhm, what was my point. . .) I can't blame you for that, given my post was off topic. The mention of phono preamp RIAA error inspired me, and the statement that:

Quote:

On the separate (but interesting) issue, there may be some phone preamps with inaccurate RIAA equalization, but I sure hope not! The curve was implemented and designed with discreet analog components and is pretty simple. I hate to think that current manufacturers screw it up.

There may be some? How about most if not all! The Boulder at $29k looked the flatest to me among Stereophiles reviews, but is not to sub $100 CD player standards. But after all these years and with the component part available today, we still see far from flat response. I can only conclude the RIAA EQ is very difficult to accomplish, or that this is done on purpose.

Regardless, RIAA error in phono preamps is common, affects all disks, varies considerably between preamps, should be a major evaluation criteria, and is completely ignored in subjective reviews. Which finally brings me to my point: measurements are an important part of a review, they can provide useful information, and the deviation from flat response seen in the RIAA error curves is an example of that. How can purely subjective comparisons between components be valid when something as basic as large FR differences are ignored?

The opamp factor is one that I feel does not matter and became a distraction from my point. While IC opamps may not produce the finest sound available, what component part is perfect? The discussion on tubes in the Audio Research amp September review thread is an example of this. More than enough said. . .

Quote:
Regardless, RIAA error in phono preamps is common, affects all disks, varies considerably between preamps, should be a major evaluation criteria, and is completely ignored in subjective reviews.

What reviews are you reading? If a pre amp has a phono section included, I don't remember a review that ignores it. Maybe in Electronic Home, but not Stereophile.

Quote:
How can purely subjective comparisons between components be valid when something as basic as large FR differences are ignored?

You and I must have a very different opinion of how just large 0.2dB actually is and what constitutes "ignored".

Quote:

Quote:
Regardless, RIAA error in phono preamps is common, affects all disks, varies considerably between preamps, should be a major evaluation criteria, and is completely ignored in subjective reviews.

What reviews are you reading? If a pre amp has a phono section included, I don't remember a review that ignores it. Maybe in Electronic Home, but not Stereophile.

I am referring to the FR variations being ignored, not the phono preamp itself. I am also referring to the subjectivist audio magazines, reviewers, and audiophiles that say measurements are meaningless. Stereophile is basically not a subjectivist publication in contrast to The Absolute Sound although Mr. Fremer's analog reviews do not contain measurements. I do not know what Mr. Fremer' opinion regarding measurements are, but his column does not include them.

Quote:
How can purely subjective comparisons between components be valid when something as basic as large FR differences are ignored?

You and I must have a very different opinion of how just large 0.2dB actually is and what constitutes "ignored".

How can you say that the FR deviations of all phono preamps is 0.2db? Yes, that difference would be inaudible. The example I included from the darTZeel review was much greater than that and characterized by JA as audible. When the sound of two phono preamps is compared in a review that does not have measurements, their actual FR is ignored. If one phono preamp had exagerated bass of several db and the other not, and the former was found to have "better bass" than the later in a subjective review, I consider that to be information that is ignored and a flawed conclusion.

Quote:
How can you say that the FR deviations of all phono preamps is 0.2db?

I never made that statement. Here's what I did say, "If you'll look at the measurements, you'll typically find an error of 0.2-0.5dB. Enough to give a pre amp it's own unique flavor but not the glaring example of manufacturing carelessness JK suggests." I would never be so foolish as to imply that all phono pre amps have no more than 0.2dB of error. On the other hand, you are taking the larger error of a single pre amp, the darTZeel, and seemingly using it to condemn all subjective reviews. I'm sorry, but my logic legs are older than yours and can no longer make those huge leaps you seem able to accomplish with ease.

Quote:
If one phono preamp had exagerated bass of several db and the other not, and the former was found to have "better bass" than the later in a subjective review, I consider that to be information that is ignored and a flawed conclusion.

So, you equate "better bass" with nothing other than frequency response? Might I ask how long you've been reading Stereophile and other subjective review magazines? In your reading of objective measurements, have you seen a phono section with exagerated bass of several dB? Because I have not. Why discuss something that can't occur? This is another leap of logic I simply cannot make with you. If you would care to rephrase the sentence to take reality into account, we might have something to discuss. As is? Nope. The comment is just plain silly.

Quote:
I am also referring to the subjectivist audio magazines, reviewers, and audiophiles that say measurements are meaningless

Can you name a resonably well known magazine, reviewer or audiophile who has said just such a thing? I know of none. You might wish to go back to J.Gordon Holt's thesis for beginning Stereophile and the subjective review style. You seem to be either intentionally ignoring quite a bit yourself or you are ignorant of what is actually said and what actually happens.

If you disdain subjective reviews, the most obvious question would be; which measurement, or group of measurements, tell you what a component will sound like? And, how many of the various measurements available to us should we take before we know how a component will sound? When is enough enough?

It is not that any subjective review discounts measurements. But no subjective review should be influenced by measurements. There's a large difference in those two positions.

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/485/

And, if you are a fan of flat frequency response, http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/138/

Finally, http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/484/