<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Feb 12, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Aaron L. wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Monty Montgomery <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:xiphmont@gmail.com">xiphmont@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im">> I've noticed that I do indeed have some aversion to the cd-version of<br> > records I otherwise liked on another format (i.e. vinyl or cassette.)<br> ><br> > So why are there cds that I think actually do sound good?<br> ><br> > How has this process changed?<br> <br> </div>The most common reason is that because vinyl records don't have a flat<br> response, vinyl has a preempahsis applied to the HF. Sometimes the<br> preemphasis was applied during cutting, sometimes it was applied to<br> the tape master before cutting. When early CDs were pressed, they<br> were often pressed from the vinyl masters and if the preemphasis was<br> on the master, boom, harsh gritty super-over-bright CD.<br> <font color="#888888"><br> Monty<br></font></blockquote><div> </div><div>Your description is right on.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div>'Piece of Mind' on CD still sounds good to me -- sweet guitars, crisp drums, very simple and uncluttered mix. It's not like the over-distorted, over-processed, and over-compressed crap that too often makes it to CD these days. (n.b. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war</a>)</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I want my dynamic range back!</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>-Sean</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></body></html>