These Days 2LP
 

After many years of owning a vinyl copy of These Days I played it tonight.
The sound quality is emense. The drums, guitar and Jon's vocals are so raw.
It has much more of a live in the studio feel to it.

Well worth getting a copy if you can find one.

Has anyone else noticed the difference in the sound to the cd copy?

I own this and have a vinyl rip of it. Yes it's light years ahead of the CD version. Not that the CD sounds bad or anything but it's lacking in terms of dynamic range. On vinyl, the drums actually pound out of the speakers and the bass is nice and thick. This is my go-to version of the album.

I need to find a vinyl rip of that then, as with the government import restrictions I literally can't buy anything and I won't find it here.

Your Prime Minister needs to wind her neck in a bit and stop acting like a tool.

Actually, is our President as we don't have a Prime Minister, though we have a Chief of the Cabinet of Ministers. Still, yes, she needs to do that.

Sorry, my South American politics aint great! There must be a way for you to get them into the country though. Cant you pop across the border and smuggle them in?!

I'll send one to the Falklands for you, you can pick it up there :cool:

Yes but Argentina is one of the biggest countries in the world, so getting into a border might be a little hard. As soon as I'm back in Buenos Aires I'll try to find one, there're several vinyl stores and there might be one These Days around there.

LOL.

My Guitar Lies Bleeding In My Arms - LP vs. CD (1995) and LP vs. CD (1998 Remaster)

http://i62.tinypic.com/s1rqsp.jpg

A little help, please? You guys are lightyears beyond me when it comes to technical analysis of music and recordings. It's fascinating to read your discussions about production and styles and use of real instruments vs. synthesizers or machines and autotune,etc.

Rumen, what am I looking at here? The images look very similar to me except for color. Am I missing something? Or is that your point, maybe? That there isn't a lot of difference?

(Or is this discussion so far over my head that it would be useless to try and explain?? :))

Wow, that is a big difference!

It isn't physically possible for the sound quality of a vinyl to be better than a CD. The thing is, most people who love vinyl have much better sound systems they listen to vinyl through and they think the difference is in the medium. Any medium can be ruined by mastering everything flat, but a well mastered CD sounds a lot better than vinyl. It's just a physical fact, a needle scraping plastic cannot be better than digitally exact copy.

Ice

The arctic blue color from picture1 is the wavefrom of the LP version (528 248-1 1995) and in dark blue you can see the CD version that came out in 1995 (528-248-2). Picture 2: In green is the LP version and in grey the remastered CD version (538-036-2_EU 1998)

Subjectively, the LP does sound slightly more dynamic than the CD. Somebody (myself included) could say that the vinyl version of These Days provides a warmth and richer sound that the digital These Days formats don't. But that subjective judgment shouldn't be equated with better audio quality. I agree with Ice that a well mastered CD will sound better than any vinyl. In my opinion the LP simply couldn't compete technically with the CD.

Anyway, as I already told you "the warmth thing" is a subjective matter, but as we can see comparing just the waveforms of those 3 files (LP, 528 248-1 (1995) - CD, 528-248-2(1995) - CD, 538-036-2_EU(1998 REmaster) ), it's pretty clear that the LP version has higher relative dynamics. I can also extract a version of My guitar from the double CD version 532 644-2 (1996), but in my opinion it's pointless, because I think the waveform will be almost exact copy of 528-248-2 (1995).

Also we can see that the CD waveforms are noticeably compressed and the average volume level is boosted almost as high as possible. When I took a look at the spectral view, on the CD there was no spectral information above 20kHz . In comparison, on the LP spectral view there appears to be some frequency content up to around 25kHz. Of course a possible reason for that could be that the LP version has higher harmonic distortion which makes higher frequency.

So, in conclusion, I would say that in my opinion the sound of the digital recordings is slightly clearer. Also we know that the LPs deteriorate with every play and as like Ice said any medium can be ruined by mastering everything loud and flat. Once the dynamic range is gone, it generally can't be added back. At least to my ears the LP version of These Days sounds a little warmer compared to the CDs and the sound gives me the feeling that I'm listening to a well balanced live performance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

For some reason people want stuff that's compressed flat. It's not hard to leave dynamics in, but for some reason there seems to be a competition on who's getting the loudest CD out. Don't these people have volume knobs on their hi-fi-systems?

Ice

I get your point, but talking pure acoustics here, it is a matter of a fact that vinyl IS better than a CD when you're talking sound quality. CD's came around with the intent of compression because its a massive space saver. Thats a given. mp3's later with even more compression etc. But for the purists i can totally understand why vinyl is the preferred choice. Vinyl has twice the frequency range of a CD so obviously there is a lot more scope in the mix. Its just a pure cost saving and space saving measure for the record companies to mass churn albums out to the people for no cost at all. Look at the evolution - VINYL, CASSETTE, MINI DISK, MP3.

Look at the movie world - BETAMAX, VHS, DVD and now streaming online is the way people are turning to.

I dont necessarily agree with the evolution - as the record companies have sold their souls to the devil. But from a pure business and money making point of view it is pure economics. But a matter of pure sound quality, sorry Iceman. Vinyl is FAR superior sound quality to any other medium out there. No compression means nothing is lost.

Urgh, I hate it when people get facts wrong... Sound compression has nothing to do with the space on the CD. You're confusing sound compression with file compression, two totally different things. And again MP3 has NOTHING to do with dynamics on sound compression. I suggest you learn about what you're talking about before trying to teach anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_compression

And read about the loudness wars, the link i posted previously.

And no, vinyl doesn't have more frequency range than a CD, it has less. And again, compression in the mixing or mastering stage has an effect on whatever medium you master to. It's a decision of the guy doing the mastering and the artist to decide how much dynamics they leave in and how much they want to compress the soundwave. On vinyl you have much less dynamics to play with, so you do it differently. On CD you can make everything punchy, so many opt that. So, in short, you're wrong on all accounts.

Listen to this interview from about 55:20 onwards. It's a guy who's done mastering for albums since the 70's (including Metallica's Black Album) and is teaching mastering in NYU and Juillard. Listen to what he says about vinyl.

http://youtu.be/6mx-nouwouk

Ice

More on the subject: http://www.npr.org/2012/02/10/146697...than-cd-or-not

And: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....e=Myths_(Vinyl)

And: http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?se...doc_id=1283408

And: http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?se...doc_id=1283449

Subjectively you can think whatever you want, like whatever you think is best, but it doesn't make it a fact.

Ice

Coming in late to this discussion but I have to back up Ice here. Sound compression is vertical compression of the wav file. File compression is horizontal compression of the wav file. They accomplish 2 completely different things.

There is no way that a vinyl record will have more amplitude than a CD. Originally when CDs first came out it was their dynamic range (the vertical axis or the amplitude) that so impressed people. These days the pop people especially, compress everything vertically (called hard limiting) so that the music sounds louder. There is practically no dynamic range left - the difference between the loudest parts of a track and the softest parts. I hate it :(

Unless These Days for vinyl was mastered completely differently than These Days for CD, the CD should actually sound a bit better. They should both be listened to on the same equipment at the same sound level to make a decent comparison.

Wow! Thanks for taking the time to explain all that! You guys blow my mind with how much you know about the technical side of recordings. I just know what I like without understanding the "why" behind it all. I still can't say I grasp all of it, but at least I can see where the comparisons are! (It helps to know that I'm supposed to be looking at blue vs dark blue and green vs grey. I was trying to compare the blue to the green. Any wonder I was lost? :oops:)

Because Wikipedia is always right. Makes me laugh when muggy little know-it-alls think they are right because of what Wikipedia says. I've said all i will on this matter. Ice. You are wrong. Stop spurting Shitopedia at me because I'm not interested. And going on about compression. Compression isn't possible on vinyl - but is on wav and mp3s - and thus used extensively.

Now, move on and quit the wikipedia love-in.

Wow, you ARE thick. Are you really saying that dynamic compression is the same as file compression? If you don't like Wikipedia, you can find hundreds of other sources that confirm that it's not. It's okay to make mistakes, but being stupid on purpose is idiotic.

http://cochise.uia.net/pkelley2/DynamicCR.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10360787-47.html
http://manual.audacityteam.org/o/man/compressor.html

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/file-compression.htm


No, I most definately am right. You're wrong. There's no two ways about it, it's a fact.

LOL! You're so far off that you don't even understand it. You're confusing file compression with audio compression. Two totally different things. They have NOTHING to do with each other.

WAV-file is a data file containing audio. You can not have a compressed WAV file. MP3 is a lossy, compressive audio FILE format. It has NOTHING to do with audios (file or not) DYNAMIC RANGE COMPRESSION which is where you decrease the dynamic range of ANY audio, in file format, analog or digital, it's all the same.

And EVERY vinyl recording has dynamic range compression, it's done in the mastering process. You HAVE TO HAVE dynamic range compression on vinyl as there IS MUCH LESS room for dynamics than on a CD.

Again, it's okay to make mistakes, but you're just being an idiot. You've been presented all the evidence you need, from a professional audio technician telling you how it goes to numerical facts, but instead of reading it, and maybe learning something, you act like a 4-year-old.

I don't have anything to prove here, everything I've told you is a FACT. You can look it up anywhere. Call any professional, they will tell you the same.

I will try to put this in simple sentences, maybe you'll get it this way:

FILE compression IS NOT dynamic range compression.

File compression makes digital files smaller.
Dynamic range compression makes audio sound louder. Two TOTALLY different things.
You can compress (=dynamic range compression) ANY audio source, analog or digital.
Audio compressing (dynamic range compression) is a NORMAL PART of any mastering process.
It defines how much dynamic range the mastered recording will have.
No matter where you're going to place the finished product; CD, vinyl or cassette or anything else, there's compression on it.
On vinyl you HAVE TO compress the dynamics, because the needle will jump out of the grooves if there's too much dynamics.
Also, you CAN use more compression on vinyl, if you decrease the amount of audio you fit on it. Wider curves for grooves allow bigger dynamics.
HOWEVER a CD has MUCH BIGGER ROOM for dynamics than a vinyl album.
Maximum dynamic range on a vinyl album is about 80dB, depending on the amount of audio on one side.
Maximum dynamic range of a CD is over 120dB, even up to 150dB.

So, be wrong if you want to be, but you'd better know what you're talking about before trying to act smart.

I didn't learn this from Wikipedia, I learned it in school way before Wikipedia was ever invented. I've also taught sound design in many schools, so I do know what I'm talking about. You, however, seem to base all your infromation of hi-fi myths.

And since you think compression means file compression, how do you think compression plug-ins work? You apply them before you ever save the audio files, what are they then compressing?

http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/...ugins-588689/1

And how to guitar compression pedals work? What are they compressing? What file are they making smaller?

http://music.stackexchange.com/quest...essor-pedal-do

Again, if you make mistake, own up to it. Don't be an idiot. Read the info provided to you, free of charge. Learn. Own up to your mistake. Don't be an idiot.

Ice

Aloha !

Are you in your "Manchester Diamond Circle was the best ever mode" again? Only to then take everything you said back because you were "trolling?" Your "compression isn't possible on vinyl" thing proves you know **** all.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

Allan Tucker‬ (Audio Engineer: Elvis, Johnny Cash, Boston, John Lee Hooker, Judas Priest, Metallica): "The vinyl mastering engineers job was to just translate, not to make changes unless the vinyl couldn't handle it. So you don't change the low end or the high end. If the vinyl is blowing up you have to do something but otherwise it wasn't supposed to be particularly creative, but modern mastering is widely creative. We are suppose to jump in and taking a part, putting it back together again to come up with something that's new."

Icemoron - I feel sorry for your "students" if you've been teaching them fundamental basics this badly. Your original argument about CD sounding better than vinyl is WRONG. You are a proper retard, mate. You claim to be such a fundamental expert in sound engineering (whereas I dont - as I clearly have gotten compression mixed up - granted). Lets steer it back to your original idiotic arguments. How the hell can you claim that CD is better than vinyl in sound quality.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

This is put into VERY BASIC form so fraud teachers like yourself can understand. Then you can give the kids their money back.

Always good to hear from you, Seb. ;-)

EDIT: And to note - I tell you what - because I'm nice like that I will let you have the final say. Dont hold back

I do not mind the sound quality of CD vs Vinyl, the most important is the production, mixing and mastering from master, if this is done improperly, be heard poor both cd as vinyl. "WAN" or "Aftermath" have this problem, and not even a vinyl would do justice.

The remasters of These Days are not as dramatic, lose some elements and clarity due to the decibels for have more punch, it became fashionable in the nineties for radio, and now with iPods have gained over the account.

At some point, the industry needs to realize that they have to set a maximum volume limit, because that is the real problem, trying to push all the elements up, to have a more intense sound, finally create a sonic wall that sounding like absolute shit.

Wow, resorting to name calling. You must really be out of arguments. And no, I'm not wrong, you are. There's this thing called "physics", maybe you've heard of it. It says I'm right and you're wrong. There is not even a slightest chance you could be right, it's so cut and dried.

And again? No, I'm not, but you seem to be.

No, I don't. I'm not an expert, but I did quote you many. Too bad you didn't read them. Could've saved you the embarressement.

So, you WERE WRONG! This whole discussion is about which has more dynamic range, which is more capable of producing the sound recorded. And that is the CD. Like I said WAAAAAYYY back when you started this idiocy, it's up to the individual to like something better than the other. Some people prefer vinyl, because it has less high end and less low end. But it doesn't make it better. You kept on insisting (and YOU WERE WRONG!!!) that "vinyl has no compression" and that "vinyl is better" and how I was wrong, but in fact, all that time you were COMPLETELY and UTTERLY WRONG ON ALL ACCOUNTS! :) So, there, who's retarded moron now?

Because it is. There is no way vinyl can reproduce the sounds CD is capable of. No way. It isn't possible.

That's bullshit. Which you would know if you'd read the links I've posted, as one of them directly addressed that page as being wrong on at least six accounts.

I suggest you read up on Nyquist-Shannon theorem, keeping in mind that the human ear can only hear up to about 20hHz, and the CD sample rate is 44.1kHz. Also, remember that vinyl's dynamic range = 80dB, CD's 150dB.

Also, CD has more low end than vinyl. Vinyl has a physical limit (meaning the groove can not be any deeper) at about 35Hz, but the CD goes down to 10Hz, even a little lower. Vinyl could, in theory, reproduce higher sounds than a CD, but rarely can it be used because of harmonic distortion, and why bother, as no one would hear it anyway. A CD can reproduce frequencies up to 22kHz, which is above human hearing anyway.

Very basic, and very wrong. The first problem is that it states that vinyl has "unlimited" resolution. It doesn't. It's actually very limited. Like I've told you before, when it comes to dynamics, vinyl has bout 80dB of room. CD has a good 90dB MORE room. And not to mention the frequency range, in which the CD is much better. Believing that page is like saying that the early cartoons with 12 frames per second are better than the HDR 60 fps. You can like the older one, but it doesn't make it technically better.

And I didn't teach kids, they were adults. :)

Don't know if this was aimed at Seb or not, but I don't have to. You already made an ass out of yourself by arguing about "facts" you got wrong. "WAV file is compressed", "vinyl has no compression", "CD's came around with the intent of compression because its a massive space saver", etc. etc. etc.

I know, I, too, would be embarrassed if I'd spewn that sort of bullshit, but luckily, it was you.

Let's see what you REALLY know. Name one, just ONE, measurable, technically proven way in which vinyl is better than a CD. Just one.

Oh, and do remember, that practically ALL the music put on vinyl since the late 80's has been digitized before pressing it on the vinyl. So, even if vinyl reproduced the sound perfectly (which it clearly doesn't, like I've shown many, many time above), it would still only be as good as a CD (which it isn't, like I've blah blah blah).

Ice

Yeah, the loudness wars (see the link I provided earlier) are ruining music for a generation. I get that radio stations like their music to be even in volume, but they could just compress it (like they do anyway). I don't get why every album needs to be compressed flat as well. Don't people know how to use the volume controller on their stereo system?

And it's not the people mastering, it's the producers and artists who demand this. For some reason it seems to be a competition now, who has the loudest album out...

Ice

'fraid I'd take what Ice says about stuff like this over most of the world. I can still remember watching his kiss tribute band video, epic. :D

Well said Ice. Dynamic range is one of the main reasons why I still look for unremastered versions instead of remastered versions. Usually means I can find them for cheap. :D

I'm expecting to listen to this baby when it arrives in Neil Young's HD audio Pono service.

I wish they'd release all the videos in ultraviolet so I could watch it on my new TV.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Ice