Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: What does it mean when the vinyl pressing is labeled 'audiophile'? posted by PAR on April 18, 2017 at 15:57:31
If you get to hear the 2012 CD equivalent then you will find it sounds pretty much as you describe the LP that you have. In brief the 2012 remastering was a tragic error if compared to a UK original LP pressing or even the 1980s George Martin CD transfer (I have compared all).
I've tried to compare the 2012 180 gram vinyl remaster to the 2009 24-bit FLAC remaster (from the Apple USB stick). The digital format is much louder, because they applied limiting to it which they didn't apply to the vinyl remaster. Other than being louder, I haven't noticed much difference in the overall sound between the digital and the 180 g vinyl remaster (shouldn't be surprising, since the vinyl is cut from the digital source).
I haven't compared George Martin's 1987 CD transfer to the 2009 remaster, but to me the 1987 transfers to CD always sounded lacking when compared to LPs.
Edits: 04/18/17Follow Ups:
" but to me the 1987 transfers to CD always sounded lacking when compared to LP".
They are, but nevertheless the earlier CD transfers still sound better than the later ones (given a good replay system). As the 2012 stereo LPs are made from the same masters as the CDs they can only sound at best a little better. The mastering trumps all. I know that you cannot do this with Abbey Road but if you compare one of the other 2012 LPs with its mono equivalent from, was it 2015?, and then to either mono or stereo UK pressings, including 1970s black and silver label analogue mastered ones, you will immediately hear why the 2012 remasterings are inferior and what an opportunity was lost. NB: my comparisons had to be made with borrowed copies of the 2012s as I cannot bring myself to spend money on them.
if you compare one of the other 2012 LPs with its mono equivalent from, was it 2015?, and then to either mono or stereo UK pressings, including 1970s black and silver label analogue mastered ones, you will immediately hear why the 2012 remasterings are inferior and what an opportunity was lost.
I have a 2012 Sgt Pepper's mono 180 g remastered LP. Compared to my lowly Canadian pressing (all scratched and abused), this much ballyhooed 'audiophile' 180 gram remaster sucks donkey balls. The scratched old Sgt Pepper's beats the new one by a country mile.
Same conclusions regarding Revolver mono (although I have an original Capitol pressing from the '60s which omits "I'm Only Sleeping" and "And Your Birds Can Sing"). The original Revolver sounds like thermonuclear power plant exploding compared to the tame and prim and proper new Revolver mono pressed on 180 gram vinyl.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: