Tom, I think you got what I was saying.

When I wrote "masterful remastering" of CDs I meant such as the likes of
Steve Hoffmann and a very few others turn out. But there are great
remasterings of LPs too. The irony is that early-issue CDs were sloppily
made whereas early LPs still hold their own. (I've often remarked that if
those latter engineers had known how good they were making them, they
wouldn't have bothered to make them so good.)

But yes, "case by case".

clark

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I don't understand what you're saying, Clark, perhaps a word-play that
> went over my head? ALL release media is "mastered" in one form or another
> unless it's a straight transcription type recording. Such things as EQ and
> dynamics generally varied a good bit from master tape and released LP. The
> reasons could be an expert cutting engineer working in service of making an
> LP widely trackable (this would more likely be the case for acoustic music
> such as classical) or in service of getting maximum impact on the typical
> playback system (for instance super-crunch 45 singles designed for AM radio
> play and to be stacked up and played on frequency-limited portable record
> players). My beef about many CD reissues is that either there was little to
> no masters (and usually an incompetent tape playback) as was typical in the
> "build as much catalog as fast as possible" early days, or there was
> distasteful mastering (such as the wave of over-crunched "make it sound
> like the loudest stuff today" remasterings that took place around the turn
> of the century). Net-net, in some cases, I prefer the original vinyl (or
> some subsequent vinyl remastering), and in some cases I prefer some version
> of the CD reissue. It's strictly case by case, arrived at by my own ears
> and listening taste, so it's inherently one man's opinions.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clark Johnsen" <[log in to unmask]
> >
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 5:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] In case you haven't seen this
>
>
>
> But Tom, that would be comparing masterfully remastered (often) CDs with
>> unremastered (usually) LPs. Not fair! But then again, there are those who
>> say that original LP issues are better anyway.
>>
>> Although there is hardly ever an all-things-being-equal situation in audio
>> playback, my experience in comparisons is that I prefer the LP.
>>
>> clark
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Not that humorous, but it does remind me of some vinyl snobs who post
>>> often online. I still think the biggest appeals of LP records are the
>>> physical artifact as a collectable item, the focus of attention required
>>> for proper playback, which probably does lead to closer listening and
>>> concentration for some people, and the fact that many CDs are poorly
>>> mastered and almost all lossy downloads sound lousy to people who listen
>>> on
>>> half-decent playback systems (including any decent earbuds or headphones
>>> and halfway decent computer speakers). If CDs were better mastered and if
>>> lossy downloads went the way of the dinosaurs, the vinyl niche might
>>> compact and concentrate a little bit, but the compelling physical
>>> artifact
>>> is a real draw and may be a key factor in the niche-market's size.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Ramm" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 9:43 PM
>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] In case you haven't seen this
>>>
>>>
>>> _The Record Collector with Matt Ingebretson - YouTube_
>>>
>>>> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_LasOjYP_M)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Steve Ramm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>