1st press vinyl vs new vinyl something is terribly wrong here

 You related to kenjit?

Nothing new here......move on.

Depends on the source material used in the re master process,always has. Besides the strides in the digital recordings these days if done right are as good as analog recordings imo.

Digital records are like methadone (synthetic heroin) - it’s just a substitute to get you by until your heroin dealer gets out of jail.

I have digital recordings that sound better than their analog counterparts. It's how the original source was recorded. My Iggy Pop cd of Brick by Brick blows away my analog vinyl copy. I have 45,000 invested in my analog front end but my cd player which I have 3000 invested gives it a run for its money. who knew...

There are exceptions that prove the rule. 🤗

I used to be in the analog camp vs. digital but not anymore. It's how the source recording material is done now ah days.

I’ve been back and forth more than once or twice. I’d say mostly it all depends. Depends on what one values sonically and what system and software/medium. Like apples and watermelons somewhat. Musicality, resolution, tonality, air, warmth, dynamic range, etc.

Dynamic range??
Who you crappin'?

What’s the matter this time, fuzztongue?

Sam here and what I’m talking about is a very generic sound signature with 1st press vinyl not the mixing or sound quality or the performance but a distinctive stereoness. To my ears 1st press vinyl has stereo + stereo depth perception and new vinyl has stereo + mono depth perception. If I take a digital rip of 1st press vinyl and run it through isotope rx5 phase filter the phasing is 99% of the time different from (L) + (R) channels and when I check new vinyl the phasing is always the same for both channels. If I do independent phase correction for (L) + (R) channels on new vinyl it now sounds like 1st press vinyl.

Sam,
Within your previous thread of “is it possible to make digital audio sound like vintage vinyl”, you stated that stereo depth perception was a term that you just “made up”.  How can you expect anyone to provide a cogent response when you use terms that you yourself have coined?  Oh, sorry, I seem to have forgotten that is not at all your goal.

How’s that “possibly 100-year old piece of wood” stuck in the lamp socket doing nowdays?  Is it transmitting its woodness into your electrical system better than the small piece of paper did, hence making digital sound even more like vintage vinyl?  Please, don’t leave us hanging.  All (or, perhaps none) of Audiogon awaits closure.  Or have you moved on to something that is even more worthy of initiating a, dare I say it, paradigm shift?

Keep on trollin’

Its all about the MUSIC !!!!

Yes qdrone, it's how the original performance is doctored by fools who don't know what they're doing.  In the old days musicians played into a couple of microphones recording direct to hi-speed 1 inch reel to reel.  This recording was cut to LP master.  So what was sung was what you got.  Today the microphone signal goes through all sorts of electronic and digital processing before it gets to your CD.  The result may sound nicer, more exciting, more dynamic range than you started with...higher highs, lower lows, whatever.  And so you may like it.  But it ain't the original performance.  That has been lost forever.

Hi,
speaking of reissues what is the original source for mastering? Speaking of new releases what is the source in mastering? If you want the original get a good used sample. 

Sam here and to answer vinylandtubes question let me make my position clear everything resonates at a frequency including wood and paper and the human body and frequency = tone and by extracting the frequency from an object i can apply that frequency to digital audio to change the tone. placing the object into the socket of a pluged in lamp is a great way for me to extract the frequencies from an object and encode them onto digital audio just like when i extract the frequencies from 1st press vintage vinyl and apply those frequencies to digital audio to make digital sound more like analog vinyl. if your questioning the technology it’s been around since the formation of the earth. I believe tesla said it best "if you want to find the secrets of the universe think in terms of energy frequency and vibration" I would like to here what geoffkait has to say on the subject he seems very smart and scientific and still keep an open mind.

fuzztone
Myth: Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies...

The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as the ratio of a peak sinusoidal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80 dB. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120 dB. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150 dB. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback. More discussion at Hydrogenaudio.

>>>>I don’t think anyone is questioning the “theoretical superiority“ of CDs regarding Dynamic Range or Signal to Noise ratio. The problem arises when the industry overly compresses CDs. I.e., Loudness Wars, which they’ve been doing for the last 20 years. So, it’s not a level playing field. Many CDs have less Dynamic Range than the early issue of the same recording on LP. Since LPs often suffer the same aggressive compression as CDs one should probably proceed on a case by case basis. One can use the Unofficial Dynamic Range Database as a guide.

Also, as I’ve been cautioning, the CD playback system itself reduces the Dynamic Range of CDs even when the CD is not overly compressed. There are flaws in the way the CD transport reads the data that have been there since Gandhi was a Boy Scout. 

guitarsam OP
Sam here and to answer vinylandtubes question let me make my position clear everything resonates at a frequency including wood and paper and the human body and frequency = tone and by extracting the frequency from an object i can apply that frequency to digital audio to change the tone. placing the object into the socket of a pluged in lamp is a great way for me to extract the frequencies from an object and encode them onto digital audio just like when i extract the frequencies from 1st press vintage vinyl and apply those frequencies to digital audio to make digital sound more like analog vinyl. if your questioning the technology it’s been around since the formation of the earth. I believe tesla said it best "if you want to find the secrets of the universe think in terms of energy frequency and vibration" I would like to here what geoffkait has to say on the subject he seems very smart and scientific and still keep an open mind.

>>>>I agree with your premise that the “signal” in cables and power cords can be affected by external vibration. So it would not be very surprising that any device or object could affect the sound - even when applied to a non-audio circuit. In fact I designed a product that reduces vibration on UNUSED NON-AUDIO WALL OUTLETS.

The mechanism of how vibration distorts the signal in cables and power cords is still unclear. As we’ve seen on a great many threads here there isn’t much consensus what the “signal” is. So a lot of things audiophiles do to improve the sound are a little bit mysterious. Suspending components and cables, applying little dots to windows and walls, using maple 🍁 platforms under amps, damping fuses, damping transformers, cleaning electrical contacts on non-audio wall outlets, isolating electronics, isolating speakers, things of that nature.

Sam,

Concerning your third paragraph above:

You are exactly right.

Enjoy the Music!

Well a lot of it is just all digital nowadays.

06-26-2020 1:34amYes qdrone, it's how the original performance is doctored by fools who don't know what they're doing. In the old days musicians played into a couple of microphones recording direct to hi-speed 1 inch reel to reel. This recording was cut to LP master. So what was sung was what you got. Today the microphone signal goes through all sorts of electronic and digital processing before it gets to your CD. The result may sound nicer, more exciting, more dynamic range than you started with...higher highs, lower lows, whatever. And so you may like it. But it ain't the original performance. That has been lost forever.
I'm all for it if the music sounds better and so are the original artists. Ian Andersen had some nice things to say about Steven Wilson's re masters and  I'm sure an original artist has no problem with royalty checks rolling in as their catalogs are re explored.  Jimmy Page,Pink Floyd and other artists go back to the original masters to cull better Sonics from their recordings through today's advancements in recording techniques. More power to them.