How About Remastered CDs vs LPs??

[progfan]

Seems like most artists are revamping their back catalogs and enhancing the CDs with better packaging/artwork, bonus tracks and hopefully better sound quality. Now I know the CDs vs. records argument has been going on for years, but how do recent remasters (or is that re re remasters) compare with LPs?? Certainly, remastered CDs sound better than the first generation discs of the 1980's, but have they caught up with the "warmth" of vinyl?

I ask because I've recently gotten back to vinyl after purchasing the Music Hall 5. It's been great listening to some LPs I'd forgotten about, but it's been quite a transition after being used to CD for a while. While I don't want to go out on a limb and say my records sound "better" than CD, they sure sound different. One thing I will say and that is I somehow feel closer to the music with a turntable than a CD player. Thoughts?

[DMK]

Seems like most artists are revamping their back catalogs and enhancing the CDs with better packaging/artwork, bonus tracks and hopefully better sound quality. Now I know the CDs vs. records argument has been going on for years, but how do recent remasters (or is that re re remasters) compare with LPs?? Certainly, remastered CDs sound better than the first generation discs of the 1980's, but have they caught up with the "warmth" of vinyl?

I ask because I've recently gotten back to vinyl after purchasing the Music Hall 5. It's been great listening to some LPs I'd forgotten about, but it's been quite a transition after being used to CD for a while. While I don't want to go out on a limb and say my records sound "better" than CD, they sure sound different. One thing I will say and that is I somehow feel closer to the music with a turntable than a CD player. Thoughts?

The CD remasters that I've purchased sound better than the first edition ones, as you pointed out. Actually, in a few ways, they are better than vinyl but the overall crown stays firmly with the LP. The warmth people hear with vinyl is actually the missing harmonic integrity from the CD, IMHO. I have heard LP's that overdid it, though. It's funny you ask this question now because about 2 weeks ago I purchased Dylan's "Blood on the Tracks" CD remaster, a disc I've never owned. Yesterday I found a very clean LP of the same title. It was a very close call but overall, the vinyl won slightly. I doubt it's a very good disc for comparison, though.

I don't think it's at all necessary for you to get into the LP vs CD debate. It's really just a preference issue. For example, I know three recording engineers pretty well. Each of the three prefers a different medium - one CD, one SACD and one LP - and they each have good arguments for their preference. The CD guy hasn't really scratched the surface yet of SACD but expects it to be superior to RBCD. He likes the sound of vinyl but prefers RBCD because he records music with a very wide dynamic range. It's all in whatever you like. Overall, I rate most CD's as mid-fi but that's just me. Enjoy the music, with whatever medium you choose. And if you choose CD, I'd only change that previous statement to "enjoy as much of the music as the flawed CD medium will allow you to enjoy!"

Just kidding, of course! :D

[N. Abstentia]

I actually feel that the CD player has quite a bit to do with it. I found that the recent Yes remasters were very close to the vinyl when played on my DVD player with the optical connection. But when the CD was put in my Marantz 6400 with analong connection, those babies came to life and were even warmer than the vinyl!

Now if I had a Music Hall 5 like the first poster it might be different, but that's not a concern to me...I just don't like vinyl enough to upgrade from my Rotel turntable. In fact I'm having a hard time justifiying a new $100 cartridge. The clicks, pops, and skips ruin it for me.

[skeptic]

In theory, the cds have it over the vinyl many different ways. But the theory and the practice don't necessarily make the best use of the medium and life is never so simple as to be clearcut black and white. When those master tapes were made 20, 30, 40 years ago, they were pristine. Very little noise and excellent quality. Recording engineers went to great pains to compress, equalize and contort many of them to produce the best sound possible given the kind of equipment they knew it would be played on. And many of them worked magic turning mediocre performers into stars. Don't believe it? Listen carefully to most pop singers. If you listen closely, they have quite a bit of reverb added. They are also relatively as loud as an orchestra or band that accompanies them. Their voices have more presence and resonance than they do in real life too. How about Pavarotti? He sings loud. There's a lot of reverb in his voice. And a lot of resonance. How does he do it? Lungpower and a lifetime of perfecting his tone and filling up La Scala with his voice. Fast forward to today. Somebody takes those old tapes out, dusts off the oxide that has flaked off, puts it on a tape deck, and does a straight dub onto a cd. No compression needed. No time or money to tweak the tone or the reverb or anything. Just get 'em done an move 'em out. A fast buck for easy work for the nostalgia crowd. Doesn't sound as good as vinyl? Surprise surprise. BTW, that low output that you think is dynamic compression is actually the exact opposite. It's lack of dynamic compression. The soft parts have not been made louder. Balance between instruments different? Tone poorer? They didn't spend much time trying to put out a first rate product and the results are telling.

Doesn't anybody care about old recording enough to make fine products of reissues today on cds? Yes. Topmost on my list is Deutche Grammaphone. Their wonderful recordings of Herbert Von Karajan conducting the Vienna and Berlin Philharmonics are as good or better than the vinyl ever was. Chesky takes great pains too. Some of the CBS re-releases such as the Bernstein recordings in the blue Prince Charles series are excellent too. It can be done. If somebody actually cares and the raw material is still in reasonable shape. However, your old pop and rock favorites don't seem to get the care and attention you'd like. I wonder why.

[DMK]

. How about Pavarotti? He sings loud. There's a lot of reverb in his voice. And a lot of resonance. How does he do it? Lungpower and a lifetime of perfecting his tone and filling up La Scala with his voice.
Doesn't anybody care about old recording enough to make fine products of reissues today on cds? Yes. Topmost on my list is Deutche Grammaphone. Their wonderful recordings of Herbert Von Karajan conducting the Vienna and Berlin Philharmonics are as good or better than the vinyl ever was. Chesky takes great pains too. Some of the CBS re-releases such as the Bernstein recordings in the blue Prince Charles series are excellent too. It can be done. If somebody actually cares and the raw material is still in reasonable shape. However, your old pop and rock favorites don't seem to get the care and attention you'd like. I wonder why.

Pavarotti sings loud, no question. If I ever want to peel the paint from my walls, I'll play some of his music. Godawful! Perhaps he's more listenable on vinyl?

I have to share your high opinion of DG, however. When I scavenge the used LP bins, the DG label is high on my list to look out for. I buy whatever I find and I know two people to sell the duplicates to. I prefer the vinyl to the CD - no surprise there. I've bought some of their CD's if the music warrants it and I don't already own it on vinyl. When and if I find the vinyl, the CD goes into storage.

As for the pop/rock stuff not getting the same care and attention, I'd have to speculate as to why. A lot of very important music is being overlooked, IMHO. I mentioned Bob Dylan -an EXTREMELY important artist- and Columbia botched most of his vinyl. The remastered CD's are very close in sound quality, which is to say not good. I'd guess that rock fans as a rule put sound quality a distant second behind the performance. I'd call that having one's priorities in place! Except for the record reviews I've read in audio mags, I've yet to hear the average rock fan wax on about soundstaging or macro-detail. Mostly, I'd take my cue from your post and say that not enough of the record companies care about their product and not enough listeners care about sound quality. No shame there, unless sound quality is one's primary concern.

[DMK]

Somebody takes those old tapes out, dusts off the oxide that has flaked off, puts it on a tape deck, and does a straight dub onto a cd. No compression needed. No time or money to tweak the tone or the reverb or anything. Just get 'em done an move 'em out. A fast buck for easy work for the nostalgia crowd. Doesn't sound as good as vinyl? Surprise surprise. BTW, that low output that you think is dynamic compression is actually the exact opposite. It's lack of dynamic compression. The soft parts have not been made louder. Balance between instruments different? Tone poorer? They didn't spend much time trying to put out a first rate product and the results are telling.
.

Sorry to do this twice!

I don't disagree with what you're saying. But how do you explain a company such as Thrill Jockey, that currently produces both CD's and LP's? I didn't know much about them until I found a nice jazz duo disc on CD and bought it. Fred Anderson and Hamid Drake? I don't pass up that opportunity no matter what the medium! Anyway, I found it on vinyl - same disc, made in 2004. As usual, the vinyl was notably superior. Clearly superior. The added digital distortion was gone and I heard nothing but music.

I've heard all the excuses why vinyl sounds better than CD(I think), in spite of the test bench results. I'm just curious when the technically superior CD medium is going to live up to its specs without excuses as to why it doesn't. I've been waiting many years and I suspect I'll wait many more.

[maxg]

Funny how opinions and experiences vary with vinyl. I tend to avoid DG (except the older ones with the smaller label) as they have proved to be the noisiest records in my collection (pops, clicks etc).

If I am not buyng audiophile vinyl I tend to look for Decca (non digital recordings), RCA (especially Living Stereo but also their older mono recordings), Philips (IMHO the best recordings from the 80's onwards and the only label that does a reasonable job of making a stereo record from a mono original tape), UK EMI (70's and 80's- almost as good as Philips) and thereafter various minor labels often from ex-eastern block countries.

Note : All of this only applies to classical recordings - rock pop jazz et al are rather different in their appeal and have other labels.

[maxg]

And just to keep the double answering mode going:

"I've heard all the excuses why vinyl sounds better than CD(I think), in spite of the test bench results. I'm just curious when the technically superior CD medium is going to live up to its specs without excuses as to why it doesn't. I've been waiting many years and I suspect I'll wait many more."

Last week I would have heartily agreed with this summation. Now I am not so sure. I heard a CD player under construction by a local guy who I regard as a genius. I can't tell you anything about it as I am sworn to secrecy (this sounds like BS even to me - but it happens to be true and I would love to tell you what he has done - believe me!!!).

Anyway a friend and I got to listen to it for about 3 hours playing various disks. He explained his theory about what is wrong with the way CD players operate and how he has changed it - including the donor equipment he has used to assemble his unit. You would not believe what that was - trust me!!

The result - to my ears and to my friends was nothing short of staggering. Didnt match the sound of vinyl - it destroyed it - and I am a vinyl lover 100%. Too real - too good (to believe).

Anyway it should be ready to ship sometime in September - and I have ordered one (his 4th sale - 3 others got to hear it before me). My friend is ordering one too - when he finds the money.

When it is all up and running I will post about it again - hopefully he will arrange some reviews in international mags so you will get some idea of what we heard.

God knows how he will keep up with demand - there is nothing like this is the marketplace today. It bested the Accuphase DP85 SACD player playing CD AND SACD.

(Oh my god - I just realized something - Mtry and Skeptic were right about CD - how awful is that!!)

[progfan]

"Anyway it should be ready to ship sometime in September - and I have ordered one (his 4th sale - 3 others got to hear it before me). My friend is ordering one too - when he finds the money."

I know you are sworn to secrecy on all this but can you give a list price?

[DMK]

And just to keep the double answering mode going:

"I've heard all the excuses why vinyl sounds better than CD(I think), in spite of the test bench results. I'm just curious when the technically superior CD medium is going to live up to its specs without excuses as to why it doesn't. I've been waiting many years and I suspect I'll wait many more."

Last week I would have heartily agreed with this summation. Now I am not so sure. I heard a CD player under construction by a local guy who I regard as a genius. I can't tell you anything about it as I am sworn to secrecy (this sounds like BS even to me - but it happens to be true and I would love to tell you what he has done - believe me!!!).

Anyway a friend and I got to listen to it for about 3 hours playing various disks. He explained his theory about what is wrong with the way CD players operate and how he has changed it - including the donor equipment he has used to assemble his unit. You would not believe what that was - trust me!!

The result - to my ears and to my friends was nothing short of staggering. Didnt match the sound of vinyl - it destroyed it - and I am a vinyl lover 100%. Too real - too good (to believe).

Anyway it should be ready to ship sometime in September - and I have ordered one (his 4th sale - 3 others got to hear it before me). My friend is ordering one too - when he finds the money.

When it is all up and running I will post about it again - hopefully he will arrange some reviews in international mags so you will get some idea of what we heard.

God knows how he will keep up with demand - there is nothing like this is the marketplace today. It bested the Accuphase DP85 SACD player playing CD AND SACD.

(Oh my god - I just realized something - Mtry and Skeptic were right about CD - how awful is that!!)

Being one who feels that the problems are with CD's and not CD players, I have a healthy dose of skepticism here, particularly after all the tweaks and players and add-ons and things failed to make CD's sound like actual music. But through your posts, I've come to respect your opinions as well as your ears so I'll await this new miracle product with bated breath! If it's as good as you say it is, tell your friend to chalk up another sale.

[markw]

To compare a remastrered anything to the original is a total waste of time. When Sony was touting their new SACD a few years ago, they dug into the archives (50 year old demo material?) and were playing , I think, Miles Davis and t he like. Everyone ooohed and ahhed how great the differenced between redbook and SACD were.

Later, it became common knowledge that when the SACD's were made, the engineers took it upon themselves to tweak the original sound a little. So, the question remains... is the improvment in the media or the mix.

Personally, I've heard some pretty durn good redbook CD's that simply do not and probably will never exist on vinyl. Reference recordings used to offer both but I think (I could be wrong) they stopped pressing a lot of vinyl lately. Likewise MoFi and DCC but who knows what's up with them anymore.

I believe part of the charm of vinyl is t he ability to "tune" a system to ones preference bu choice of a cartridge. Being a tranducer, it offers the designers tremendous leeway in interperting the overall "character" of their product so it becomes a personal preferance, much like speakers.

Likewise, comparing vinyl, with all the euphonics and resonances that a cartridge applies, to a CD, SACD or whatever is grasping at straws.


Snipe hunt, anyone?

[maxg]

Progfan,

There are to be 2 versions - one with a very special power supply and one with a standard power supply. We dont have the prices yet - but expect them to cost around 1000 euros for the standard version and 3000 for the special power supply version. Yes - I know that is a ludicrous increase for the power supply - and I do not know what difference it adds - I have only heard that version. Again I will report back when I can.

Actually those prices may fall slightly. The version I heard had both RCA's and balanced outputs. Whilst the Balanced outputs were louder - I felt they were too harsh and he agreed with my assessment. If they are excluded the price will fall accordingly.

DMK,

Thanks for that. I also thought the problems were with the media until this point. Now I am under the impression that he either picked some brilliant CD's and fooled me - or we were both wrong. All I can tell you is that after searching on the net extensively no-one seems to have tried this approach - it appears unique.

Oh and just in case you were wondering - the CD's we used, whilst they were all his, were a mix of titles - some free with magazines - so I doubt they were all as excellent as they would have had to have been to explain this. In fact - during the listening sessions it was amazing how varied the quality of the music was. Some were simply sublime, others were not as good - but still beter than any other CD I have heard - including XRCD's. God knows how good an XRCD would sound on this unit - we did not have any to hand.

Oh and one more thing. The comparison units include to date:

1. A "V.Y.G.E.R" fully modified TT (air suspension - with air suspended arm), Shelter 901 cartridge on dedicated stand (1000 lbs) with a floating support unit (200 lbs).

2. A Theta Casablanca CD player

along with the aforementioned Accuphase.

To be fair that TT did hold its own - and was preferable in some ways still. But we are talking about what is regarded by many as the best TT ever made (him included)! I dont think my upgraded Project RPM4 would have faired as well!

Once I get my hands on one I will be able to test it in my system - just to check what I heard. There may be some issues of synergy that I am not aware of (his system is rather high end - he uses Avantegard Solo speakers - modified, a passive pre, and a phono stage to die for (nothing else).

Basically as time passes I am beginning to doubt what I heard myself - if was that good!!!

[rb122]

To compare a remastrered anything to the original is a total waste of time. When Sony was touting their new SACD a few years ago, they dug into the archives (50 year old demo material?) and were playing , I think, Miles Davis and t he like. Everyone ooohed and ahhed how great the differenced between redbook and SACD were.

Later, it became common knowledge that when the SACD's were made, the engineers took it upon themselves to tweak the original sound a little. So, the question remains... is the improvment in the media or the mix.

Personally, I've heard some pretty durn good redbook CD's that simply do not and probably will never exist on vinyl. Reference recordings used to offer both but I think (I could be wrong) they stopped pressing a lot of vinyl lately. Likewise MoFi and DCC but who knows what's up with them anymore.

I believe part of the charm of vinyl is t he ability to "tune" a system to ones preference bu choice of a cartridge. Being a tranducer, it offers the designers tremendous leeway in interperting the overall "character" of their product so it becomes a personal preferance, much like speakers.

Likewise, comparing vinyl, with all the euphonics and resonances that a cartridge applies, to a CD, SACD or whatever is grasping at straws.


Snipe hunt, anyone?

Perhaps the "charm" of vinyl for some might be to add euphony but its charm for me is its ability to transcend me to the live venue. I don't prefer vinyl because it's "smooth" or "warm" or "euphonic" although I would suggest that the opposite of euphonic is discordant which is how I would describe most CD's. I prefer vinyl because it sounds more accurate, more "live". That sound is indeed my preference. If it's euphonic sound, I'm comfortable preferring that to discordant sound. Easy choice.

[DMK]

Perhaps the "charm" of vinyl for some might be to add euphony but its charm for me is its ability to transcend me to the live venue. I don't prefer vinyl because it's "smooth" or "warm" or "euphonic" although I would suggest that the opposite of euphonic is discordant which is how I would describe most CD's. I prefer vinyl because it sounds more accurate, more "live". That sound is indeed my preference. If it's euphonic sound, I'm comfortable preferring that to discordant sound. Easy choice.

I find live music very euphonious! If cartridges add more of this live, euphonic sound, that's probably the reason it sounds better and more like the original event. Perhaps the distortions of CD aren't additive at all - perhaps they're subtractive.

[skeptic]

"Pavarotti sings loud, no question. If I ever want to peel the paint from my walls, I'll play some of his music. Godawful! Perhaps he's more listenable on vinyl?"

I'm surprised at your reaction. Not only do I think he had one of the greatest voices of all time in his heyday, I never appreciated it until I heard digital recordings of it. Vinyl was too compressed, to restricted to exhibit its huge power. The most amazing thing I noticed about Pavarotti, other great singers, and other great performers, is that they can combine power and purity of tone in one to a degree lesser performers never even come close to. Not only that, but Pavarotti (and other greats) have exactly the same tone at very low levels and very high levels and all levels in between.

I prefer the DG cds to the vinyl. I've also had some experience with background noise and I think that the cds are better balanced. Both are excellent. I also like the RCA Living Stereo recordings but the ones from the 60s in stereo, not the ones made in the 50s.

"I don't disagree with what you're saying. But how do you explain a company such as Thrill Jockey, that currently produces both CD's and LP's?"

I don't know anything about them. But after getting burned on Coltrane last year, I don't take any advice on Jazz recordings on verbal recommendations. I have to hear it before I buy it now. BTW, I listened to Coltrane again after several months away from it just to see how I would react to it. Sorry to say I like it even less than I remember upon the first few dozen hearings last fall.

[hifitommy]

is an acquired taste, just as is cage, varese, or any other music thats different from your tastes that developed over the years. and he has varying stages in his career that may attract you more than others.

i will say that coltrane on his own does not have the attraction that coltrane/miles has. the miles/coltrane series on mosaic or true blue (CD) is to die for. the solo work is for someone else.

too bad you were burned by the love supreme thing. for others it is sublime, for you and me, NOT.

[hifitommy]

'remastered' hasnt been a big draw word for me but then i am a vinyl addict for various reasons. in the old days, they remastered vinyl and maybe some them were "better" but very likely, only different.

the original premise of mofi remastering was to perhaps undo some of the compression, use quieter and better sounding boards for the remixing, better cutting techniques, and the like. to that end, they were largely, if not always successful.

i can see where cd remixes might be of benefit as early mixes were often flawed ones, and maybe the early reissues on cd from original analog recordings came out bright for whatever reasons. people tend to blame the early players and some of those were better or worse than others. some were pretty good like my magnavox from target.

some of the newly reissued for sacd works by dylan and the stones have been widely praised
for their redbook layers as well as their sacd layers.

rbcd sounds better on my sony ns500v sacdp than on any other i have had and it was actually cheeeeeeeper than my target magnavox, taking inflation into account.

my other draw to vinyl is the sheer price per piece. you can take MANY more chances on used vinyl than used rbcd. i am used to spending a buck for each disc of used vinyl, more of course for some things

[skeptic]

A Love Supreme wasn't just highly recommended. It was "the one disc I would own If I could have just one on a deserted island." That was the opinion not just of many on this board but of a jazz fan at Borders as I was looking over the discs buying it. This is not to say that I don' t love jazz. Quite the opposite, and my favorite is Dixieland. For me The Dukes of Dixieland was one of the greatest jazz bands of all. Frankly, I'm hoping for a reissue of a lot of the Audio Fidelity vinyls on CD. I've got a couple that may have been pirated or just produced by small companies but they were poorly recorded. The original Audio Fidelity pressings were state of the art in the sixties. The few I own have been played so many times they are well worn out. What a shame I didn't buy more of them when they were available. I've even contacted Frank Asunto's estate and they tell me "we're working on it." That could mean anything.

As for Coltrane's A Love Supreme, I did possibly the most detailed analysis of any musical recording ever done on this site in my review. This was after about a dozen hearings on 3 sound systems and headphones. I took it apart and I don't see myself ever liking it. As I said at the time, it seemed to me like the love of his life and the love he dedicated this music to was heroin.

[DMK]

"Pavarotti sings loud, no question. If I ever want to peel the paint from my walls, I'll play some of his music. Godawful! Perhaps he's more listenable on vinyl?"

I'm surprised at your reaction. Not only do I think he had one of the greatest voices of all time in his heyday, I never appreciated it until I heard digital recordings of it. Vinyl was too compressed, to restricted to exhibit its huge power. The most amazing thing I noticed about Pavarotti, other great singers, and other great performers, is that they can combine power and purity of tone in one to a degree lesser performers never even come close to. Not only that, but Pavarotti (and other greats) have exactly the same tone at very low levels and very high levels and all levels in between.

I prefer the DG cds to the vinyl. I've also had some experience with background noise and I think that the cds are better balanced. Both are excellent. I also like the RCA Living Stereo recordings but the ones from the 60s in stereo, not the ones made in the 50s.

"I don't disagree with what you're saying. But how do you explain a company such as Thrill Jockey, that currently produces both CD's and LP's?"

I don't know anything about them. But after getting burned on Coltrane last year, I don't take any advice on Jazz recordings on verbal recommendations. I have to hear it before I buy it now. BTW, I listened to Coltrane again after several months away from it just to see how I would react to it. Sorry to say I like it even less than I remember upon the first few dozen hearings last fall.

Ok, I will come clean on Pavarotti with you right now, out of respect. I respect your views even though I agree with you probably only a third of the time. Here it is: I simply do not care for opera singers. I'm not even all that crazy about jazz singers and jazz is my absolute favorite form of music. I love blues singers and some rock singers and I cannot explain why opera/classical singing leaves me not only cold but frantically searching for the volume control. I respect their technique but would rather listen to a buzzsaw. I make no apologies for my lack of love for them anymore than I make apologies for hating the taste of liver. My likes and dislikes are what they are.

I'm also not sorry about recommending the Coltrane to you. I do so to literally dozens of people every year because I feel it's one of the most important pieces of music/art of the 20th century. Not all of the dozens love it as I do, particularly people such as yourself that are attracted to technique and purity of tone. But it's something everyone should hear, much as everyone should hear Beethoven's Ninth or numerous other pieces of music. It's up to the individual's taste as to how it affects them. And btw, heroin was a thing of the past for Trane by 1964; the disc was for his love of God who he felt got him past his love of the powder. Consider the disc as pure emotion rather than technique - perhaps even pure emotion more than music. It's rawness as well as its complexity is what initially attracted me. Then again, you and I have different musical upbringings. Quite frankly, for what you're looking for in music, I would have recommended any one of several different Coltrane discs - but I'll spare you! :). Also, I heartily do NOT recommend to you the Thrill Jockey disc I mentioned. My question had to do with the superiority of their vinyl releases, particularly because they are new recordings. Finally, take the Trane disc to your local used CD shop. I guarantee they'll buy it, just as I guarantee it will sit in their bins just long enough for someone to see it - someone that doesn't already own it, that is. But I'm happy to read that you make no apologies for disliking Supreme, just as I make no apologies for not appreciating Pavarotti. To each his own.

[DMK]

is an acquired taste, just as is cage, varese, or any other music thats different from your tastes that developed over the years. and he has varying stages in his career that may attract you more than others.

i will say that coltrane on his own does not have the attraction that coltrane/miles has. the miles/coltrane series on mosaic or true blue (CD) is to die for. the solo work is for someone else.

too bad you were burned by the love supreme thing. for others it is sublime, for you and me, NOT.

Particularly his later period when he virtually dissected the horn and turned it into a close facsimile of a human being. Humans don't always sing - sometimes they shout, cry, scream, growl, etc etc. I'm just more of an avant garde aficionado and I do NOT expect everyone to have the same weird tastes I do. I try to refrain from saying that music is either good or bad - instead I focus on how if affects me personally and I proclaim it personally enjoyable or enriching or not. Since you mention Cage, I just listened to a disc by composer Alvin Curran and among his abstractionist pieces is one scored for a recording of John Cage's laugh (among other things) - oh, and one scored for ship horns. It's quite bizarre, but enjoyable. Music, to me, doesn't have to be a nice pleasant correct batching of musical tones. I view it as art and sometimes I enjoy a Jackson Pollock piece as much as a Monet, depending on my mood. Art is a reflection of life and as much as I wish life was nothing more than a nice Errol Garner piano piece, sometimes it's Coltrane or Albert Ayler screaming their frustrations or joy through their horns. Hell, just take a look at positive emotions - happiness, peace, joy, elation, excitement - they are all very different, yet similar. Why should a composer or artist portray them the same way? Give me music and art that covers the spectrum and I'll pick out what I like.

Currently, I'm listening to the Clash! :)

[hifitommy]

emotion expressed with an instrument can be lyrical euphoria and the pain and anguish of a complete race of people.

examples of the last two can be found in the work of james carter, his rendition of 'strange fruit' on the 'gardenias for lady day' (available on sacd), and 'simi valley blues' by branford marsalis from 'i heard you twice the first time'.

you seem to have a passion for supreme just as i do for tomitas pictures at an exhibition. its not something we can force down anothers throat. either you like it or you dont.

currently, i am listening to the JAZZIZ magazine cd that arrived yesterday in the mail.

[eleiko]

Pavarotti sings loud, no question. If I ever want to peel the paint from my walls, I'll play some of his music. Godawful! Perhaps he's more listenable on vinyl?

I have to share your high opinion of DG, however. When I scavenge the used LP bins, the DG label is high on my list to look out for. I buy whatever I find and I know two people to sell the duplicates to. I prefer the vinyl to the CD - no surprise there. I've bought some of their CD's if the music warrants it and I don't already own it on vinyl. When and if I find the vinyl, the CD goes into storage.

As for the pop/rock stuff not getting the same care and attention, I'd have to speculate as to why. A lot of very important music is being overlooked, IMHO. I mentioned Bob Dylan -an EXTREMELY important artist- and Columbia botched most of his vinyl. The remastered CD's are very close in sound quality, which is to say not good. I'd guess that rock fans as a rule put sound quality a distant second behind the performance. I'd call that having one's priorities in place! Except for the record reviews I've read in audio mags, I've yet to hear the average rock fan wax on about soundstaging or macro-detail. Mostly, I'd take my cue from your post and say that not enough of the record companies care about their product and not enough listeners care about sound quality. No shame there, unless sound quality is one's primary concern.

DMK: How did Columbia botch Bob Dylan's material on CD? Have you heard any of the bootleg series? I own the 1966 and 1964 concerts and the sound, in my view, is fabulous. Admittedly, I've never heard the vinyl versions (which omit some of the cuts included in the CDs), but I can't imagine them sounding better than what Columbia transferred to CD. They sound so good coming through my ADS 1230 speakers that I almost feel like I'm in a time warp, a visitor to a live performance of 40 years ago. Good god, man, what more could one ask for from a machine playing recorded music?

[DMK]

DMK: How did Columbia botch Bob Dylan's material on CD? Have you heard any of the bootleg series? I own the 1966 and 1964 concerts and the sound, in my view, is fabulous. Admittedly, I've never heard the vinyl versions (which omit some of the cuts included in the CDs), but I can't imagine them sounding better than what Columbia transferred to CD. They sound so good coming through my ADS 1230 speakers that I almost feel like I'm in a time warp, a visitor to a live performance of 40 years ago. Good god, man, what more could one ask for from a machine playing recorded music?

I was referring to their standard issues, not the bootleg stuff. Actually, I wasn't even aware that the boots were available on vinyl so have no basis for comparison. The 1964 isn't bad but you have to be joking when you say the 1966 sound is "fabulous". The sound is TERRIBLE! But I don't think it's the CD; I think it's the original master. Whatever, the sound is extremely bad. But who gives a crap - the music is phenomenal!

[eleiko]

I was referring to their standard issues, not the bootleg stuff. Actually, I wasn't even aware that the boots were available on vinyl so have no basis for comparison. The 1964 isn't bad but you have to be joking when you say the 1966 sound is "fabulous". The sound is TERRIBLE! But I don't think it's the CD; I think it's the original master. Whatever, the sound is extremely bad. But who gives a crap - the music is phenomenal!

Not joking at all. Again, in my view, there's a great sense of live presence in the 1966 (and the '64) recording that's remarkable. I've heard others comment the same. What do you find about the sound that's "extremely bad?" To me, it's as clear as a bell, a window onto a legendary peformance from a legendary artist at the peak of his powers. What's not to like? I never the heard the vinyl versions but a sales guy at a now defunct record emporium had heard both and thought the CD was a vast improvement.