Eagles Greatest Hits Volume 2:
"The music on the compact disc was originally recorded on analog equipment.
We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the
original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact
Disc can reveal limitations of the source file."

Wow. To see it like that. Plainly stated by industry professionals. No troll
intended.

Dave W.

Dave W. wrote:

Eagles Greatest Hits Volume 2:
"The music on the compact disc was originally recorded on analog
equipment. We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the
sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however,
the Compact Disc can reveal limitations of the source file."

Wow. To see it like that. Plainly stated by industry professionals. No
troll intended.

Dave W.

Where have you been? That sort of notice has been on CDs for the last 20
years or more.

Ian
--
Ian Bell

Dave W. wrote:
Eagles Greatest Hits Volume 2:
"The music on the compact disc was originally recorded on analog
equipment. We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the
sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution,
however, the Compact Disc can reveal limitations of the source file."

Wow. To see it like that. Plainly stated by industry professionals.
No troll intended.

I thought every commercial CD ever made has had that blurb. Isn't it part of
the Philips standard along with the 'Compact Disc Digital Audio' logo?

"Dave W." reported...

Eagles Greatest Hits Volume 2:
"The music on the compact disc was originally recorded on analog
equipment.
We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the
original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact
Disc can reveal limitations of the source file."

Wow. To see it like that. Plainly stated by industry professionals. No
troll
intended.



I look forward to the analogue Vs digital reviews from those who have access
to both versions . . .

Also - is it a straight transfer, or a remaster/remix?
I'm afraid I've normally found any remastring to have been disappointing,
but that might be because I'm used to the original mix by the time the new
version appears. (Prime example - Judas Priest's "Sad Wings of Desiny" was
reissued a couple of years after it first appeared - and it sounded totally
different on LP from the original LP release on the same equipment, I know
because my mate had his original copy knicked, and was so upset at the
replacement he asked me to bring mine over to compare the two . . .)

I do have to admit to finding the 'gold CD' reworking of some of the Zappa
catalogue worthwhile, though . . .

________
Geoff B

Dave W. wrote:

Eagles Greatest Hits Volume 2:
"The music on the compact disc was originally recorded on analog equipment.
We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the
original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact
Disc can reveal limitations of the source file."

Wow. To see it like that. Plainly stated by industry professionals. No troll
intended.

Dave W.



That message was very common on early CDs.

Probably before the whole obsession with vinyl took off among
audiophiles ...

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
Dave W. wrote:

Eagles Greatest Hits Volume 2:
"The music on the compact disc was originally recorded on analog
equipment.
We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the
original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact
Disc can reveal limitations of the source file."

Wow. To see it like that. Plainly stated by industry professionals. No
troll
intended.

Dave W.



That message was very common on early CDs.

Probably before the whole obsession with vinyl took off among audiophiles
...


Jeez, it was just a part of the 'digital bull****' when the MI was trying to
con a generation of idiots over to a new 'perfect sound for life' medium -
if CD was as 'perfectly accurate' as a few here claim, why should it sound
*any* different to the original master??

Keith G wrote:

Jeez, it was just a part of the 'digital bull****' when the MI was trying to
con a generation of idiots over to a new 'perfect sound for life' medium -
if CD was as 'perfectly accurate' as a few here claim, why should it sound
*any* different to the original master??

Not that I wish to support the 'industry line' as such but isnt the
obvious thing here that it *shouldnt* sound different to the master, yet
it is likely to sound quite different to tape / vinyl previously made
from the original master ?

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

Jeez, it was just a part of the 'digital bull****' when the MI was trying
to con a generation of idiots over to a new 'perfect sound for life'
medium - if CD was as 'perfectly accurate' as a few here claim, why
should it sound *any* different to the original master??

Not that I wish to support the 'industry line' as such but isnt the
obvious thing here that it *shouldnt* sound different to the master, yet
it is likely to sound quite different to tape / vinyl previously made from
the original master ?


Yes very likely/almost certainly - mostly due to the different replay
methods and equipment used.

One or two here claim 'analogue' adds something, others here (OK, me...) say
'digital' lacks something. Many (mostly not here) can play either one
without a thought - I wish I could.....

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Jeez, it was just a part of the 'digital bull****' when the MI was
trying to con a generation of idiots over to a new 'perfect sound for
life' medium - if CD was as 'perfectly accurate' as a few here claim,
why should it sound *any* different to the original master??

Not that I wish to support the 'industry line' as such but isnt the
obvious thing here that it *shouldnt* sound different to the master, yet
it is likely to sound quite different to tape / vinyl previously made
from the original master ?

It's been explained to the group idiot often enough that vinyl is *not*
commonly made from a studio master, but from a cutting one. This is
because of the limitations of vinyl. CD, however, *could* be made direct
from the studio master. But may have extra processing added anyway - for
'artistic' rather than engineering reasons.

--
*That's it! I‘m calling grandma!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Keith G wrote:

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...

Dave W. wrote:


Eagles Greatest Hits Volume 2:
"The music on the compact disc was originally recorded on analog
equipment.
We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the
original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact
Disc can reveal limitations of the source file."

Wow. To see it like that. Plainly stated by industry professionals. No
troll
intended.

Dave W.



That message was very common on early CDs.

Probably before the whole obsession with vinyl took off among audiophiles
...



Jeez, it was just a part of the 'digital bull****' when the MI was trying to
con a generation of idiots over to a new 'perfect sound for life' medium -
if CD was as 'perfectly accurate' as a few here claim, why should it sound
*any* different to the original master??



No comment on why 'it sound *any* different to the original master?? ',
but I should have elaborated a bit more in my earlier post.

Not having a dig at people who already have a large vinyl collection,
since the music is more important than the equipment, but I suspect that
one of the reasons for the new uptake of vinyl among music lovers can be
traced to the fact that owning a vinyl rig brings an sense of
*exclusivity* to the owner. I know there is a lot of hoopla over this in
the Far East, which can be traced to newly found wealth.