bogdan101

Available in 24/192 and 24/96. I won't have time to get it until later tonight, but I have their release of "My Favorite Things" and it sounds really good.

Complete Boulez Columbia collection coming out in October: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pierre-Boulez-Complete-Columbia-Collection/dp/B00JAOK44O/

That was a specific case of LP vs.CD where it "wasn't close", and I strongly suspect that mastering was the issue.

Here is a comparison test done by Steve Hoffman (and no, I'm not a Hoffmaniac, I have been banned on that forum): http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/what-sounds-just-like-the-master-tape-cd-vinyl-sacd-or-an-open-reel-tape-copy.133328/

I agree that the only proof is in the listening, that's why I was asking about your analog vs. digital signal chain. For one, I would not describe as "fuzzed up warmth" what I hear on a good LP. I'd say more weight, more realistic sound, better spatial reference and better ability to resolve layered sounds. Like I said, since i upgraded my digital rig to the Oppo 105, cd playback is much better, especially in the higher frequencies. My biggest complaint right now is about cd mastering, which in general sucks. A two-eye Columbia "Kind Of Blue" from the 60's blows out of the water the Columbia cd reissue I have, and I'm sure the biggest part of that is poor mastering.

Sorry, my mistake; you said neither is superior to the other. The problem with arguing about the specifications of vinyl vs. cd is that psychoacoustics is far from having a firm grasp of how these specs translate ultimately into our listening experience. So my question is, your conclusion that vinyl and cd are not really superior to one another, is it based on your own listening or on the paper specs of vinyl vs. cd? Here's another view based on listening: http://www.stereophile.com/content/accuracy-not-answer Let's not argue about the title of that, I think it's a poor choice of words Edit: and some of the comments are interesting.

That was totally unconvincing, and not because of my expectation bias... ... Comparing a digital recording to an analog cassette recording??? On a Nakamichi deck that does not even exist??? Nakamichi made MR1 and MR2, but there is no MR3. How about using a professional reel tape recorder? Unless, of course, they set out to prove that analogue recordings are not as good as digital. If you don't mind me asking, on what analogue setup did you conclude that vinyl sounds worse than cd?

Yes, analog vinyl sounds better in my system than cd's or other higher resolution digital formats. Now having said that, it all depends very much on what exactly is in the system one is listening to, so for reference purposes I will list my analog and digital signal chain: Analog: Rega RP3 turntable, Dynavector DV 20X2L low output MC cartridge, Dynavector P75 mk II phono preamp. Digital: Oppo BDP-105. Before getting this, I was using the DAC in the receiver listed below, and the Oppo has been a big jump in sound quality, where I can actually enjoy listening to CD's on this system. Both go into Yamaha RXV-1900 receiver (analog connected of course), then to Von Schweikert VR-1 speakers and a Klipsch 12" subwoofer. Who knows, maybe a better DAC might bring up the digital up a notch perhaps all the way to analog level? I would be very happy if that would be the case, for reasonable money, because storing and cleaning lp's is not my idea of fun.

I was addressing the issue of expectation bias.

And that's a textbook example of expectation bias, which is fine. We all have it some way or another. It bears keeping that in mind. It's more than that. Here's an involuntary test I did a while ago: I have a Jordi Savall hybrid SACD set of "La Ruta de Oriente", which I played on a cheap Pioneer universal player with HDMI out, streaming DSD (via HDMI) into a Yamaha receiver which has the ability to decode DSD. So I put the disc in and started to listen, fully expecting the sacd layer was played at full resolution. The sound was no better than similar cd's playing in the same system, so I was mildly disappointed. Then for some reason I wanted to turn on the tv to see the list of tracks playing. As the TV was turned on, the sacd player display briefly flashed 1080P and, more importantly, the sound quality increased noticeably, you know, spatial separation and all that nonsense. I did a bit of research online after this, and it appears that HDMI without a video signal going through will default the audio stream to a lower resolution, not sure exactly what. In any case, initially I was not listening to the full resolution, and noticed something was not quite right. Of course, ymmv and so on.

I'm sure the sacd sounds much better than the Impulse cd. Fact of the matter is I have a lot of music on cd (mostly classical) that sounds very very good, and for which there is no vinyl release. But every single time I have compared a vinyl original or reissue with a cd version, the vinyl sounds better than the cd. Oh yes, I have an lp reissue of Lee Morgan's Cornbread that sounds like a cd, and that is because it is sourced from cd. One can argue that cd masterings are by and large crappy and a well made cd can sound as good as analogue. I am not arguing that point; just know from experience that vinyl on average will sound better than cd, for various reasons that are rather irrelevant to me, so I act accordingly. For example right now you'll excuse me while I dig out my Miles Complete Blackhawk Sessions Mosaic lp box...

I have done my little comparison between two versions of "Duke Ellington and John Coltrane", one being the all analogue 45rpm Analogue Productions vinyl, and the other the latest Impulse reissue on CD (the one in the box set). The vinyl was better sounding, and it wasn't close.

First Grade China Keemun.

If you have a good turntable system but an average digital chain, I can see digitally sourced lp's sounding better than a cd because presumably the DA converter used for making that record by a mastering studio/pressing plant is better, unless your DAC cost in the thousands.

Yeah, I miss the Usenet days...

Janowski's first Ring cycle in a nice edition complete with libretti for under $ 17 : http://www.amazon.com/Wagner-Ring-Nibelungen-Richard/dp/B009EJSV2C/

Interesting. I only have L'Intégrale des Albums Originaux (2010) and won't be able to compare CD-to-CD till September. I don't know the second Intégrale (2003), the one I guess you have. I know the first one, a 10-CD set from 1988, and the latest one should sound better (and has more music). I'm no audiophile, and especially with Brel I admit I don't pay too much attention to the sound. I hope no one is too disappointed with this, or that any problems maybe overcome with a bit of EQ-ing. F I have the older 10-cd set in a repackaging from the 90's, and for me that sounds better than the latest box, which almost sounds like a remix, with vocals pushed back and instruments brought forward and everything brightened up. Btw, this is all apparent listening though cheap computer speakers.

I was tempted as well by the new Brel box, even if I have an "Integrale" from the late 90's. Luckily this new box is on Spotify so I could compare the sound with the old one I have; the new one sounds worse than the old one, most importantly on Brel's voice, which sounds colder and thinner. Other things are different as well, there is less reverb now and a leaner overall sound. Of course there is additional material on the new box, which may alone be worth 50 euro, but in the end I'm happy with my older set.

One of the really great ones; easy to sample on Youtube, Spotify or Google Music.

That's the reason I usually don't buy these boxes (or if there's any Karajan or Gardiner included ), but here it happens I don't have much with Fricsay, even though he's one of my favourites.

Ensemble Gilles Binchois is one of those very few performers for which I would buy any cd, regardless of what's on it.

Just ordered it from amazon uk. I don't usually like monster boxes, but this was just too good to pass up. Anybody have it?

Yes, you're right - that should have thrown up several red flags. I am sure "the Cecil Taylor Foundation" was only mentioned to Cecil and the folks supplying the funds - the transfers would be to an account number, not an account name. I've done bank transfers before, and, even for much smaller amounts than what is in question here, in addition to the bank account number, the name and address of the account owner were required.

40th is here, and after quickly sampling the Pharaoh's Dance on the vinyl, I'll say it sounds at least as good as the original 2-eye copy I have, if not better. Can't wait to listen to the live stuff.

Most likely that comment was by a reader pretending to be the author. Hey, a Washington Post column mentioning Parker, Coltrane, Dolphy, Mingus, Braxton and Brotzmann is a good thing regardless of what it says.