In article , RJH
wrote:
On 14/02/2015 09:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:

FWIW In my case I also have CD versions of many examples. But from
comparison there are differences. e.g. Old EMI LPs tend to have a
different frequency balance to the CD 're-issues'. And may have less
level compression or other 'improvements' sic that afflict some CDs.
Annoyingly, EMI apparently also started out using ADCs with *less*
than 16bit resolution. Which may explain why some of their CDs don't
sound as good as they should. But then they had to be dragged kicking
and screaming into CD production because it was "not invented here".


. . . and maybe they sound better?

Matter of the specific case and the listener's preferences I assume.

For EMI LP/CD issues of older (i.e. LP era) classical items the main
factors in my experience a

LP: Clicks and pops and other noises that are due to production problems.
Poor quality control, dirt, careless handling, pressing too quickly, poor
vinyl, and so on. i.e. The new LP had them before it was ever played. Also
warps and being absurdly offcenter. Sometimes careless flaws like cutter
'chatter' that generates a flutter effect, or similar problems.

CD: Levels too high or compressed. Poor analogue-to-digital conversions.
e.g. using a poor ADC, or a failure to dither correctly, or similar.

Differences in frequency balance also crop up. Partly I assume for the
reason Dave pointed out. But sometimes perhaps because the cutter setup
wasn't optimum or those in charge decided on a given balance.

In both case a lot of this is the difference between what *can* be done,
and what *was* done. So you're not comparing they *systems* but the foibles
of thise making the example LP or CD.

So I do often find a old EMI LP makes a more pleasing sound than a 1980s CD
resissue if I can get rid of the added rifle-shots and the rumble, wow,
etc, aren't bad.

OTOH I have many CDs I like very much. Although in terms of sound quality
they're more likely to be Decca or DGG or Philips than EMI.

FWIW in the last year or so I have started buying 2nd hand LPs. These tend
to confirm differences I recall from the past. e.g.s...

Many jazz LPs have fewer faults than pop/rock ones. How much that's down to
manufacture, how much the behaviour of previous owners, I'm not sure.

Classical LPs show up clicks much more than jazz / rock / pop because the
average levels of cutting tend to be lower, exposing clicks that would be
drowned by louder pop music.

One of the nicest LPs I've obtained 2nd hand is an early teldec Play Bach
No 1. This is form circa 1960. Stereo. Very good sound and peaks up near
+18dB RIAA. I prefer it to the CD reissue. It only had a few clicks which I
fixed easily.

Another good result is an EMI LP of Barbirolli conducting tone poems by
Sibelius. This had *hundreds* of ticks and clicks. But it was worth
removing them as the result sounds better than the EMI CD reissues I have.
The frequency balance is warmer encourages me to wind up the volume.

But other examples don't seem worth spending time on, so I don't bother
with any/much declicking and move on.

If all CDs were made with sufficient care I suspect I'd be quite happy with
them. Alas in the real world, many don't seem to have been made that way.
Alas, the same can be said for LPs.


1) The LP has lots of clicks but otherwise sounds very nice. So I then
have to spend ages with Audacity 'repairing' clicks to get a result
that sounds better than the LP. Takes time and attention.


Agreed, but for some reason, on the whole, it doesn't bother me.

Matter of how you listen and what you listen to.



2) Scanning LP sleeves, and any notes (libretto, etc). This is a real
PITA because A4 flatbed scanners can't cover a 12" LP in one go. So
required more than one scan per item, and then realignment, cropping
and stitching mutliple scans with GIMP (other programs are available
:-) )


I'm sure I'm going to regret writing this because I think I know the
answer, but use the camera on your phone.

I can give the answer you expected. I don't have a phone with a camera. :-)

However I *do* have some reasonable digital cameras. I have tried using
them for this. The results weren't good. Partly lighting problems. Partly
geometric problems with perspective. Partly not having the detail of a
300dpi scan on a flatbed.


That said, both processes also give you more time to listen to the
item as well.


Well quite. The only slight faff for me was splitting and naming tracks
so the tags played with servers.

In general I don't split the tracks unless there is a specific reason. And
I don't add metadata tags to the flac files. I use scans of the cover,
back, and any notes, etc. Quite happy in most cases to play the results as
'LP sides'. One file per side.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html