Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: is it RIAA-EQ vs CD's-DAC ??

  1. #1
    RIP 2021 SEAWOLF97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    in "managed decline"
    Posts
    10,054

    is it RIAA-EQ vs CD's-DAC ??

    Recently picked up an all-time fave on LP ... I have it on multi
    formats including CD ....and know this album very well.

    So I got a German LP pressing (CCR - Willy & the Poor Boys) and
    got around to running it yesterday .... all I could say was "Oh WOW"

    We all know the pluses and minuses of LP vs CD .. CD should be much better.

    BUT , in this case the LP far surpassed the CD (yes, I know about early CD issues)
    the LP was "fuller" , had more "weight/substance/timbre"

    the equipment ? nice Pioneer TT w/V-15T3 vs Sony ES CD player. fair mid level stuff.

    my tentative conclusion ? it might have something to do with the SP that the RIAA curve
    processes on the LP signal vs just the straight D to A conversion of the DAC.

    am I on the right track ?? (no pun)
    Some kind of happiness is measured out in miles

  2. #2
    Senior Member MikeBrewster77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    Posts
    746
    I always understood it that the RIAA curve was added during the cutting process rather than in the actual recording process (at least in the LP era.) That should preclude the curve from having any impact, since presumably the CD would have been generated from the original, unequalized master tapes.

    That said, there are reports that not everyone fully adopted the RIAA curve, some studios were still using elements of older house curves, certain engineers would have their own preferences, etc., so I suppose it's entirely possible.
    PT800/PS1400 | ML No 532H | AR Reference 3 | Thorens TD-126, Sumiko FT-3, Talisman S | Musical Surroundings Nova II | NAD M51

  3. #3
    RIP 2021 SEAWOLF97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    in "managed decline"
    Posts
    10,054
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeBrewster77 View Post
    I always understood it that the RIAA curve was added during the cutting process rather than in the actual recording process (at least in the LP era.) That should preclude the curve from having any impact, since presumably the CD would have been generated from the original, unequalized master tapes.

    That said, there are reports that not everyone fully adopted the RIAA curve, some studios were still using elements of older house curves, certain engineers would have their own preferences, etc., so I suppose it's entirely possible.
    My understanding is : the curve is added during the cutting (reducing lows that eat up disk space) AND the o/p curve reconstitutes the correct sound (via the phono section) on playback ... somewhat like Dolby. if you run PHONO through an AUX jack it sounds terrible in addition to being too low of a signal.

    yes, the older receivers (1950's) has multiple phono settings for 4-5 different EQ's , depending on what company cut the record.
    Some kind of happiness is measured out in miles

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,863
    There was a thread about this not long ago, CD issues of albums that sounded worse than the original vinyl. I just think it's poor engineering on the re-mix, compression, all the bugaboos that plague poorly executed CDs anyway. My example in the other thread was a ZZ Top album Tres Hombres. I had the album back in the day, but it got lost/borrowed/stolen, whatever. Bought the CD some years later and it sounds like it's recorded in a barrel - strange echo/reverb/phase or something. I'ts very hard to listen to, even if you like old ZZ Top.

    In your example, it sounds like straight up compression issues.

  5. #5
    RIP 2021 SEAWOLF97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    in "managed decline"
    Posts
    10,054
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffW View Post
    In your example, it sounds like straight up compression issues.
    the thing is ... I didn't really think the CD sounds bad ..it's acceptable, BUT the LP is just that much better ...don't know if the German pressing is influencing that ?

    Oh yeah, even the 2008 remaster is not as good as the LP
    Some kind of happiness is measured out in miles

  6. #6
    Senior Member Hoerninger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,892
    Over the years I have made some efforts to get the Correct RIAA curve ( Today I know what I'm doing ).
    Small deviations from the RIAA curve do not make the often noticable difference between LP and CD version.

    To my assessment the differences between LP and CD are most often due to the manufaturing process which is influenced by commercial interests and perhaps carelessness.

    A comparison between my Rolling Stones LPs with the SACD versions show me that the latter are superior.
    ____________
    Peter

  7. #7
    RIP 2021 SEAWOLF97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    in "managed decline"
    Posts
    10,054

    Oops ...I did it again ...

    .
    so one of my fave ST's is "Goldfinger" ....I have it on CD of course , and every vinyl copy I've ever seen has been played to death or used for a frisbee ..never in good shape.

    Today I find a reissue (has UPC) .....looks like NEW, can't find any defect ..bought that pup and peddled home.....Gawd, that V-15 is a nice cartridge. Anyway, the new LP just plain puts the CD to shame ....this SHOULD NOT happen.

    Sure, not every record is going to produce spectacular results, but WOW , when the stars
    (or mebbe should be = stylus) lines up right ...it is instantly worth all the effort

    http://www.discogs.com/John-Barry-Go...elease/3263801
    Some kind of happiness is measured out in miles

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by SEAWOLF97 View Post
    .
    so one of my fave ST's is "Goldfinger" ....I have it on CD of course , and every vinyl copy I've ever seen has been played to death or used for a frisbee ..never in good shape.

    Today I find a reissue (has UPC) .....looks like NEW, can't find any defect ..bought that pup and peddled home.....Gawd, that V-15 is a nice cartridge. Anyway, the new LP just plain puts the CD to shame ....this SHOULD NOT happen.

    Sure, not every record is going to produce spectacular results, but WOW , when the stars
    (or mebbe should be = stylus) lines up right ...it is instantly worth all the effort

    http://www.discogs.com/John-Barry-Go...elease/3263801
    Nothing sounds quite like analog. After all, the original signal is analog. There always was a lot more variation in quality with the analog/vinyl gear- flutter, wow, rumble, noise, tracking problems, dirt/wear. But, if you hire the right engineer, go direct to disc, use Ortofon MC cartridge, SME arm, etc., etc. it can be amazing.

  9. #9
    Senior Member MikeBrewster77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    Posts
    746
    It does seem like every once in a while there's this perfect confluence that makes vinyl an absolutely amazing, immersive experience. For me, it's more elusive than not, but I've not invested nearly as much in my analogue front end as I have in my digital. That said, there are a few albums of which I've never found a digital copy that comes close to the analogue - even on a less than optimal setup: Al Stewart's Past, Present, and Future comes to mind (as does Year of the Cat) and every Tammy Wynette album ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by SEAWOLF97 View Post

    Anyway, the new LP just plain puts the CD to shame ....this SHOULD NOT happen.

    Sure, not every record is going to produce spectacular results, but WOW , when the stars
    (or mebbe should be = stylus) lines up right ...it is instantly worth all the effort
    PT800/PS1400 | ML No 532H | AR Reference 3 | Thorens TD-126, Sumiko FT-3, Talisman S | Musical Surroundings Nova II | NAD M51

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    225
    This is a really interesting topic to me. I've bought many CD's ("reissues") through the years that didn't sound as good as my original vinyl copies of the same album. Like many of you, I've later bought remastered or "audiophile" versions of the same album on CD that sometimes sounds as good or better than the vinyl. I think one reason for this would be that when many albums were first recorded and released on vinyl, the album's producer and sometimes even the musician(s) were often involved to some extent in the mastering process. Even if they weren't there for the mastering process itself and just had to give the OK to the mastering job after hearing it, there was at least some (varying) degree of producer and/or artist participation in mastering (or OK'ing/vetoing) the proposed final mastered "product". Not to mention that vinyl has been around for a long time and by especially by the 60's, 70's, and 80's, record companies/mastering facilities had a good knowledge base and lots of experience regarding how to properly master vinyl.

    Fast forward to many years later when the record company re-releases the album on CD. When CD technology was in it's first several years, many labels just "dumped" the analog signal to digital without much concern of locating the original master tapes, or even paying much attention to basics like overall signal level, EQ, etc. Remember that for example vinyl was usually mastered a little light on the low end due to physical limitations of the medium. CD's/digital can benefit from a different approach to mastering in many ways compared to vinyl, and a lot of record labels were pretty oblivious to many of these basics for years when CD's were still a (relatively) newer technology. Not to mention that by the time the original vinyl release got reissued on CD, the original producer and artist often times were not consulted/had no say as far as how does the mastering job sound to them. So, blame lack of original artist/producer involvement in the mastering process, ignorance, low budgets, and/or rush jobs--any or all of the above for many of the awful sounding CD's that are out there.

    These days, many record companies have a pretty good handle on how to master a CD IMHO, so many new releases that I buy sound great on CD. Of course, being a new release, the producer and sometimes the artist are involved in the CD mastering process even if it's just listening to the final mastered CD and saying OK or "redo it". That involvement helps quite a bit as does the fact that there are a lot more people these days that are "good" at mastering CD's/have up to date knowledge and mastering techniques and equipment.

    As far as re-mastered CD's of stuff originally released on vinyl, those are still hit and miss IMHO. This may be partly because the original producer and artist often times are not involved with the remastering job to any extent, and partly because whoever did the mastering of the "remastered CD" may just plain not be very talented at his job. You can also blame the fact that in some cases the original master tapes have deteriorated over the years and no amount of technology may be able to "restore" what signal quality has been lost on those original tapes.

    Of course the debate rages on as far as are CD's or LP's being the "better" sounding medium. I would agree that if you've got the right turntable, cartridge, preamp, and piece of mint vinyl that LP's can sound amazing. I have a nice vinyl collection that I'll never sell in addition to my CD collection. I would say that there is some degree of trade off / apples and oranges involved when comparing vinyl sound quality to CD sound quality. Yes, when you convert the original analog music to digital, you do lose some definition/resolution. Analog is more direct than analog converted to digital. However, IMHO, CD technology has a lot going for it and if recorded, converted, and mastered "properly", CD's can sound "better" than much of the vinyl that's out there IMHO. Remember that there is the potential for greater dynamic range on a CD then vinyl, lower distortion, better signal to noise ratio, better/extended bandwidth, etc. As far as I'm concerned, when CD's are done "right", they can surpass the sound of many pieces of vinyl. However, it is apples and oranges. I have vinyl LP's that have such a warm/clear intimate sound that if kept mint and relatively noise free, they are hard to beat. Even if they're not as dynamic or have a little more distortion etc. than CD's, the overall sound is so great that some would argue that digital couldn't touch it. I think both mediums have their strengths and weaknesses, and I have some CD's that are so dynamic and clean sounding and have such an amazing extended bandwidth etc. that they would be hard to "best" with vinyl, and some vinyl that sounds so warm and crystal clear and "in your face" that it would be hard to "best" with CD's..... There are many uniquely amazing sounding CD's and vinyl recordings out there and anyone who turns their nose up at either medium (vinyl or CD's) is missing out on some amazing recordings IMHO. Both mediums have different strengths and weaknesses and some releases that really shine in that particular medium. It really is an apples and oranges thing with me--I like both for different reasons!

  11. #11
    RIP 2021 SEAWOLF97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    in "managed decline"
    Posts
    10,054
    Quote Originally Posted by voice of theatr View Post
    This is a really interesting topic to me....
    we share many of the same ideas on this topic , tho in one of Mr.Widgets older posts (cant seem to find it right now) , he notes that LP playback is capable of HIGHER dynamic range. (LATER EDIT: possibly should read "Higher frequency response")

    I think genre/era affects this discussion as well. Listening to 60s/70s/80/s mostly , a lot of that was not recorded well and no matter what format ..is not going to be great ..ie: if you copy a turd, well, you still have a turd.

    Remastering can be wonderful if done right. I have a CD called "Ray sings, Basie swings" , where they located a 1974 Ray Charles concert , pulled the vocal only and then recorded new accompaniment ..whole thing sounds like it was recorded yesterday.

    Vinyl's big drawback is of course that it deteriorates if not handled with care. So I clean it up to its zenith , record it to MiniDisc and retire the vinyl. This preserves abt 99% of the sound benefit and is now convenient like a CD.

    the CD vs. LP argument will go on forever .. there is no right answer, LP takes a lot more work/luck to get that optimal sound, but then makes the effort seem worthwhile.

    My son's record reselling biz is doing great ...there has to be a better reason for that than just nostalgia.
    Some kind of happiness is measured out in miles

  12. #12
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,720
    Quote Originally Posted by SEAWOLF97 View Post
    we share many of the same ideas on this topic , tho in one of Mr.Widgets older posts (cant seem to find it right now) , he notes that LP playback is capable of HIGHER dynamic range.
    I'd like to see that post too... dynamic range is one of LP playback's biggest limitations... beyond the basic wear and tear issues.


    Widget

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    391
    Bravo! On the money. Yes, and those direct-to-disc projects were the ultimate example of cooperative effort between musicians and technicians. Consider that once everything was set up, balanced, 100% functional, when the downbeat was given you could not make a mistake! From a Harry James big band project at Sheffield Labs, 1976:"The session started off poorly. Nothing sounded quite right. Two whole 3 hour sessions were gone, and not one note had been recorded. Harry was unhappy, and when Harry is unhappy, you WILL know about it. Our technical staff plugged on and pretty soon smiles were seen on what had been glum faces. Our recording engineer, Ron Hitchcock, was positively beaming, but the clock was running out. All present knew that the time to accomplish this meshing of art and science had arrived." Doug Sax excerpt from The King James Version.


    Quote Originally Posted by voice of theatr View Post
    This is a really interesting topic to me. I've bought many CD's ("reissues") through the years that didn't sound as good as my original vinyl copies of the same album. Like many of you, I've later bought remastered or "audiophile" versions of the same album on CD that sometimes sounds as good or better than the vinyl. I think one reason for this would be that when many albums were first recorded and released on vinyl, the album's producer and sometimes even the musician(s) were often involved to some extent in the mastering process. Even if they weren't there for the mastering process itself and just had to give the OK to the mastering job after hearing it, there was at least some (varying) degree of producer and/or artist participation in mastering (or OK'ing/vetoing) the proposed final mastered "product". Not to mention that vinyl has been around for a long time and by especially by the 60's, 70's, and 80's, record companies/mastering facilities had a good knowledge base and lots of experience regarding how to properly master vinyl.

    Fast forward to many years later when the record company re-releases the album on CD. When CD technology was in it's first several years, many labels just "dumped" the analog signal to digital without much concern of locating the original master tapes, or even paying much attention to basics like overall signal level, EQ, etc. Remember that for example vinyl was usually mastered a little light on the low end due to physical limitations of the medium. CD's/digital can benefit from a different approach to mastering in many ways compared to vinyl, and a lot of record labels were pretty oblivious to many of these basics for years when CD's were still a (relatively) newer technology. Not to mention that by the time the original vinyl release got reissued on CD, the original producer and artist often times were not consulted/had no say as far as how does the mastering job sound to them. So, blame lack of original artist/producer involvement in the mastering process, ignorance, low budgets, and/or rush jobs--any or all of the above for many of the awful sounding CD's that are out there.

    These days, many record companies have a pretty good handle on how to master a CD IMHO, so many new releases that I buy sound great on CD. Of course, being a new release, the producer and sometimes the artist are involved in the CD mastering process even if it's just listening to the final mastered CD and saying OK or "redo it". That involvement helps quite a bit as does the fact that there are a lot more people these days that are "good" at mastering CD's/have up to date knowledge and mastering techniques and equipment.

    As far as re-mastered CD's of stuff originally released on vinyl, those are still hit and miss IMHO. This may be partly because the original producer and artist often times are not involved with the remastering job to any extent, and partly because whoever did the mastering of the "remastered CD" may just plain not be very talented at his job. You can also blame the fact that in some cases the original master tapes have deteriorated over the years and no amount of technology may be able to "restore" what signal quality has been lost on those original tapes.

    Of course the debate rages on as far as are CD's or LP's being the "better" sounding medium. I would agree that if you've got the right turntable, cartridge, preamp, and piece of mint vinyl that LP's can sound amazing. I have a nice vinyl collection that I'll never sell in addition to my CD collection. I would say that there is some degree of trade off / apples and oranges involved when comparing vinyl sound quality to CD sound quality. Yes, when you convert the original analog music to digital, you do lose some definition/resolution. Analog is more direct than analog converted to digital. However, IMHO, CD technology has a lot going for it and if recorded, converted, and mastered "properly", CD's can sound "better" than much of the vinyl that's out there IMHO. Remember that there is the potential for greater dynamic range on a CD then vinyl, lower distortion, better signal to noise ratio, better/extended bandwidth, etc. As far as I'm concerned, when CD's are done "right", they can surpass the sound of many pieces of vinyl. However, it is apples and oranges. I have vinyl LP's that have such a warm/clear intimate sound that if kept mint and relatively noise free, they are hard to beat. Even if they're not as dynamic or have a little more distortion etc. than CD's, the overall sound is so great that some would argue that digital couldn't touch it. I think both mediums have their strengths and weaknesses, and I have some CD's that are so dynamic and clean sounding and have such an amazing extended bandwidth etc. that they would be hard to "best" with vinyl, and some vinyl that sounds so warm and crystal clear and "in your face" that it would be hard to "best" with CD's..... There are many uniquely amazing sounding CD's and vinyl recordings out there and anyone who turns their nose up at either medium (vinyl or CD's) is missing out on some amazing recordings IMHO. Both mediums have different strengths and weaknesses and some releases that really shine in that particular medium. It really is an apples and oranges thing with me--I like both for different reasons!

  14. #14
    Senior Member grumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    5,742
    @seawolf & widget... perhaps the reference was to upper frequency range...

    input filters for 1x CD recordings are necessarily "brick wall" types. Vinyl
    playback can contain "content" up twice as high in frequency.

  15. #15
    RIP 2021 SEAWOLF97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    in "managed decline"
    Posts
    10,054
    Quote Originally Posted by grumpy View Post
    @seawolf & widget... perhaps the reference was to upper frequency range...

    input filters for 1x CD recordings are necessarily "brick wall" types. Vinyl
    playback can contain "content" up twice as high in frequency.
    you may be correct,G ....I couldn't find the exact post , but did find this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post

    While high rez digital is pretty darned capable, redbook CDs simply don't reproduce anything remotely resembling the original signal much above 12-15KHz... in this region the stylus vibrating in a record groove actually excels. At the other end of the spectrum, I'd agree with you that digital, even redbook beats the pants off vinyl... even master tapes. Analog Master tapes and Vinyl records have a hard time below 35Hz or so.


    Widget
    Some kind of happiness is measured out in miles

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Comparo thoughts on a couple CD's
    By wrager in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-29-2012, 03:30 PM
  2. running CDs through an RIAA curve?
    By louped garouv in forum Miscellaneous Gear
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-14-2007, 12:01 AM
  3. Turntable RIAA tweaking
    By Hoerninger in forum General Audio Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-09-2007, 05:37 PM
  4. Soliciting recommendations for good/great horn CD's
    By mikebake in forum General Audio Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-31-2005, 03:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •