Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[JP]

The problem is not that a person prefers something, it starts when they demand or expect (or the expectation exists, in the case of professional reviewers and some others) that because they prefer it, everyone else should/will/must.

My tastes are impeccable.

 

[levimax]

Don't assume that the recordings are the same - the initial LP release of Brothers In Arms, sounds the same as the initial release on CD... but later releases on both media were different... The intro to "money for nothing" is definitely more mid-bass-ey (real thump on the kick drum) than it is on any of the later releases.... I'm really sorry I let that LP go ! Still trying to get a digital copy of the first master.

I agree and I enjoy looking for different mastering's of my favorite recorded music regardless of format. In general I think the differences between mastering's is exaggerated and "best" is completely subjective. I think that is why the "originals" are in so much demand. I would love to have some original Blue Note LP's not just for the sound but for the whole experience .... but to me they are not worth 1,000 times more than the CD's so I am just going to have to hope I come across some at a garage or estate sale.

 

[Sal1950]

I'm really sorry I let that LP go ! Still trying to get a digital copy of the first master.

You should have little trouble finding the 1985 CD release on ebay.
Do a search there on 0 7599-25264-2 or 0 7599-25264-25
I've owed mine since way back then.
It sounds miles ahead of any squashed hockey puck.
Here's one,

Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms (CD 1985, Warner) | eBay

M or Mint: A CD in perfect condition. The jewel case is pristine. The liner notes, inclusions, and/or sleeve are in like new condition. All CD’s are at least Ex or Mint unless noted. All CD’s are used unless noted and play with no problem.

www.ebay.com

 

[restorer-john]

You should have little trouble finding the 1985 CD release on ebay.
Do a search there on 0 7599-25264-2 or 0 7599-25264-25
I've owed mine since way back then.
It sounds miles ahead of any squashed hockey puck.
Here's one,

Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms (CD 1985, Warner) | eBay

M or Mint: A CD in perfect condition. The jewel case is pristine. The liner notes, inclusions, and/or sleeve are in like new condition. All CD’s are at least Ex or Mint unless noted. All CD’s are used unless noted and play with no problem.

www.ebay.com

As far as I am aware, the WEA plant in Olyphant, Pennsylvania that pressed the CD you linked above, only came on line in September 1986. It was a tape and LP factory, upgraded with a CD pressing line. The album was released in April 1985 and pressed by Polygram in West Germany (Hannover) in 1985.


This is what the early German 1985 pressing looked like:

 

[cany89]

Don't assume that the recordings are the same - the initial LP release of Brothers In Arms, sounds the same as the initial release on CD... but later releases on both media were different... The intro to "money for nothing" is definitely more mid-bass-ey (real thump on the kick drum) than it is on any of the later releases.... I'm really sorry I let that LP go ! Still trying to get a digital copy of the first master.

For those who have good headphones/speakers, pre-loudness war era stuff are gems. 100% better dynamic range and overall SQ. I like Qobuz but any CD that I have (almost all of them are initial releases) sounds better bc of the remastering. An obvious example would be Soundgarden - Superunknown, 94' vs 20th anniversary re-release...

 

[killdozzer]

I can't remember if I said this here in ASR, hope I'm not repeating myself. A lot of early CDs sound bad because of records.

Most of you know records weren't cut from the original master but from the (heavily) manipulated version which was prepared for records. This was done in an effort to prevent many shortcomings of the record as a medium. In an era when records were highly praised and expected to last much longer as a dominant medium, such manipulated material was more valued than the original recording.

If a popular album was released in US, for example, and England wanted to import it for their own market, they would want to get the prepared version in most cases as they wouldn't have to go through the process of preparing it themselves.

This led to many studios discarding the original recording one way or the other. They would use it again or discard it or store it poorly bc of the limited space. This was a small culturecide of its own as many archivists noticed that our archives are full of these ready-for-record versions that are in all reality only good for cutting records.

When CDs came and albums begun getting their re-relases, often they were being burned from these inadequate tapes.

This is why:
- it is still possible (rarely) to have a record sounding better than the CD
- studios boast with "original master tapes" on CD releases
- many early CDs do in fact sound rather bad
- records are to blame in a way
- some can never be fixed (lost original master and deceased artist)
- it still says nothing about how good is digital

 

[killdozzer]

It was shared in an Audioholics thread by Mr. Toole:

It is a sad fact, as I was told by Phil Ramone - a renowned engineer - that it one of the great crimes of the audio industry that the music archives are full of LP cutting-master tapes not the original master tapes. So for a lot of our historical music we have lost the art that was created, and are left with manipulated, in effect predistorted, master tapes intended to be used to drive cutter heads on lathes making LPs. When CDs came along there were technical problems in the early days, but hidden, unmentioned, is the reality that a lot of the archival music that was put on CDs was inappropriate for CD playback - it could not sound as good as the original master tape because that was long gone. When one compares a master tape with what comes out of a modern CD player, or any of the wider bandwidth options, it is a struggle to hear any difference at all.

 

[cany89]

I can't remember if I said this here in ASR, hope I'm not repeating myself. A lot of early CDs sound bad because of records.

Most of you know records weren't cut from the original master but from the (heavily) manipulated version which was prepared for records. This was done in an effort to prevent many shortcomings of the record as a medium. In an era when records were highly praised and expected to last much longer as a dominant medium, such manipulated material was more valued than the original recording.

If a popular album was released in US, for example, and England wanted to import it for their own market, they would want to get the prepared version in most cases as they wouldn't have to go through the process of preparing it themselves.

This explains a lot! Like why the quality changes on releases like Japan vs US etc.

 

[Sal1950]

The album was released in April 1985 and pressed by Polygram in West Germany (Hannover) in 1985.

You got to be super careful when buying those German pressings. Most out there are cut from one of the worse of the worse 1995-1996 remasters with a squashed 12 DR like this,

Album details - Dynamic Range DB

I'm sure the one you linked is fine, as are the US pressings of the 1985 master I gave the UPC for.
The DR file I posted was measured from my personal very early Warner pressing, one of, if not THE very first CD I ever owned.

 

[Pearljam5000]

 

[carewser]

They dont

I'll bet that you'd find a pretty strong correlation between those that have defended analog and those that have tens of thousands of dollars in records so they refuse to concede that digital is better because they couldn't bear the thought of having to shell out even more money and time to get everything on CD so instead they desperately clung to the risible idea that analog is better using the most esoteric and far-fetched logic imaginable

 

[Pearljam5000]

They dont. The only people that have argued in favor of analog did so because they had invested tens of thousands of dollars in records and couldn't bear the thought of having to shell out even more money to get everything on CD so instead they desperately clung to the risible idea that analog is better

Or you could just pay $15 a month for streaming

 

[dlaloum]

They dont. The only people that have argued in favor of analog did so because they had invested tens of thousands of dollars in records and couldn't bear the thought of having to shell out even more money to get everything on CD so instead they desperately clung to the risible idea that analog is better

Whenever you have a well mastered original, and then a poorly mastered later digital version - the LP is better, often clearly so!

And that's not even considering all the material that has never been digitised....

 

[carewser]

Or you could just pay $15 a month for streaming

I don't pay anything for streaming via youtube but I was referring more to the time following the demise of the LP and rise of the CD from ~1985 to ~2005 when I encountered numerous analog apologists. Since then it's been mostly about MP3's and streaming and most recently and inexplicably, LP's again

 

[carewser]

Whenever you have a well mastered original, and then a poorly mastered later digital version - the LP is better, often clearly so!

And that's not even considering all the material that has never been digitised....

I've never heard an LP that sounded better than a CD so how much is your record collection worth?

 

[Doodski]

I've never heard an LP that sounded better than a CD so how much is your record collection worth?

I had Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland on CD and LP and the LP was significantly better, anybody could hear the difference. The same for a Black Sabbath release, that I can't remember the exact album. Those are the only ones I noticed but then I did not collect thousands of records like some.

 

[killdozzer]

Whenever you have a well mastered original, and then a poorly mastered later digital version - the LP is better, often clearly so!

And that's not even considering all the material that has never been digitised....

You can count those cases on one hand's fingers. Furthermore and more importantly, you probably couldn't find one single person who has a record collection comprising exclusively of such records. This is a lame cover story. It serves only to hide true reasons.

 

[Sal1950]

I've never heard an LP that sounded better than a CD so how much is your record collection worth?

I have. I've picked up CD's off the street that were so mangled and scratched up they just wouldn't play.
So I was forced to listen to the needle drop file I wasted my time making.
Cause only a few years latter streaming came along and I had no need for either.

 

[dlaloum]

You can count those cases on one hand's fingers. Furthermore and more importantly, you probably couldn't find one single person who has a record collection comprising exclusively of such records. This is a lame cover story. It serves only to hide true reasons.

I have quite a few records from the 1950's and 60's that have never been on digital - I have records from the 30's and 40's that belonged to my Parents and Grandparents... which require special non RIAA equalisation to play back correctly - as well as special needles...

And I am trying to replace my original first release Brothers In Arms LP, which I rashly swapped away years ago for a CD version - only find that several tracks sound noticeably better on the LP.... (they may sound just as good on some early release CD's that were mastered the same way...)

North African / Andalousian Malouf music - try to find that on digital.... (recorded from the 1920's to the late 50's)

 

[killdozzer]

I've never heard an LP that sounded better than a CD so how much is your record collection worth?

There are such cases.