In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I
think) and an original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well
as the music let's not forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles
stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and LP). I bought a few remastered
Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the quality compared to the
record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They must have got
something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind.

No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs
were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original
recorded masters...

Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not
all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd.

The compression is a variable, the equalization is pretty much a given.

Second, some eq is
meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the
medium. In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be
considered 'broken', as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve.

The problem with this wild-add theory is that the natural frequency response
of the LP medium varies tremendously from playback system to playback
system.

You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good
sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed).

Since no reliable independent standard has been cited for "good sounding",
you're talking out the back of your neck.

What an odd thing to say. The standard for "good sounding" is the
opinion of RJH. Too bad about the American Hendrix pressings or I'd have
an opinion, too.

Stephen