"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
In article qmcpd.325023$%k.291216@pd7tw2no, Spiderant wrote:

A very interesting example. I assume this is Gould's 1981 "digital"
recording [1]. A stunning performance [2].

However, you have to be careful about just what's on the CDs and the
vinyl. There was a digital recording and an analogue recording made at
the same time as a backup in case the very early digital recording was
not good enough.

The first CDs (and *I assume* the vinyl release - can you verify this)
were made from the digital master. I have a fully digital CD.

Recently Sony have released CDs ("A State of Wonder") where the 1981
performance is re-mastered from the analogue back-up recording. I have
one of these as well.

The sound of Gould's humming is very different between the two CDs.

On my "digital" CD I find Gould's humming very disturbing. To me it
sounds so real but so disconnected from the music that I keep thinking
there's someone else in the house - precisely like your experience of
the vinyl.

On my "analogue" CD the humming is just as obvious but it "integrates"
much better with the music and is clearly coming from the performance
soundstage. It doesn't disturb me like the "digital" CD.

Which is better? The hi-fi enthusiasts at "Stereophile" (on the web)
seem to like the "analogue" CD and claim it has better resolution.
I don't hear this in the same way.

However, from my experience with the two CDs, maybe the CD you have is
the "analogue" version and the vinyl is the "digital" version - you may
possibly be comparing apples with oranges in this case.

[1] The 1981 is the recording where Gould's humming is most pronounced.

[2] The Gramophone's reviewers agree but the Penguin Guide's reviewers
unaccountably mark it down for Gould's inconsistent observance of
the repeats. They perfer recordings like Hewitt's which is burnished
perfection as a performance but not musically as satisfying (to me,
anyway).

--
John Phillips

Thank you for your excellent and lucid posting. It prompted me into some
serious comparisons between some of my records and their CD counterparts. I
must say that what I discovered has distressed me immensly. It turns out
that both the CD of Gould's Goldburg Variaions and the vinyl recording are
the 1982 digital recordings. Both list the same engineers (Stan Tonkel,
etc.) and the statement "Mastered from the original digital recording in the
CBS Recording Studios, New York on the CBS DisComputer system."

What disturbs me is that, after playing around (non-scientifically)
switching between my old Technics turntable and my various CD players
(Cambridge Audio D500, Yamaha CD-586 and a Panasonic DVD-RV32--which, to
tell you the truth, I would not be able to distinguish in an A/B test
situation), I still preferred the vinyl version, even with all of it's
obvious noises and other flaws. No matter how I played with the volume
controls (I had to adjust because the CD is recorded at a higher volume than
the record), the record just seemed more open and spacious. And, contrary
to what I would have expected, it was the CD that sounded darker and
murkier. The piano sound on the record sounded more natural, with the notes
more distinct. How is this possible? Digital is digital, right? Maybe my
hearing is shot. It certainly can't be my ancient budget Technics SL-Qd3
turntable with a 20 year old needle.

Please understand that I am not a digitalphobe. As I said before, I have
about 1200 CDs versus about 50 records (I gave away most of my vinyl years
ago). I woudn't even ponder buying a Robert Simpson symphony on vinyl over
CD. Even if I had a prediliction against digital, this would not account
for my sense that the digital record sounded clearer than the digital CD,
even though the CD was recorded at a higher volume and didn't have the noise
floor. This does not make sense to me.

I am very distraught at this point. After spending an hour or so yesterday
going between the Bach on record and Bach on CD, I a/b'd my recently
acquired remasterd copy of Neil Young's "On The Beach" with the original
vinyl (yes, I still have one). Again, the vinyl just sounded more open and
natural. Not only that, but the balance between the speakers was obviously
better, with Neil closer to the centre on Vinyl compared to blurred between
the two speakers on CD. Again, contrary to what I would have expected, it
was the CD that sounded a bit warmer but more smeared. Again, this is not
what I wanted to discover. What do I do now, spend a huge chunk of my
income looking for a better CD player?

Sad and disillusioned.

Roland Goetz