Re: [LAU] 1980's cds: analog to digital conversion

I was hoping someone was going to mention that: It seems that with CD's, you're cursed one way or another nomatter what era they come from. In the 80's CD's, you have the gritty metallic sound that comes from inappropriate EQ that was mentioned, or sometimes from bad AD conversion. (They used to do everything in 16-bit a lot then, end-to-end, no 24-bit for more processing headroom like now.) But now we have great AD converters, and we work in 24-bit (sometimes even 32-bit in our DAW's), and 96kHz sample rates. Now the problem is the mastering engineers are being forced by the PHB's at their labels to compress every bit of attack out of the whole album. What's even more irritating is that a lot of albums that were released on CD before are having this done and then being reissued as "remastered" versions, which leads even people who know about these problems to be tempted into buying the new versions, thinking that surely this time it's an improved release that takes advantage of our better mastering processes, right? Often the older CD's actually sound better, because at least they weren't ruined by the Loudness War. And often the only way to know is to actually buy both CD releases and listen to them yourself to see which version (if any) they didn't butcher the mastering on. This, I think, is the real reason vinyl has such an undying good reputation with people who care about music. It's not that vinyl is actually a superior format. It isn't. Actually, as a format, it's kind of sad. It has less dynamic range, poorer stereo channel separation, poorer frequency response, and to top it all off, it wears out from just using it in a phonograph player, which is supposed to be what it's meant for. But when you buy a vinyl record, and it's brand new, never played, and you put it on the turntable...it doesn't matter what decade it's from: It's not a crap shoot. It doesn't depend on XYZ political or technical BS that might have been happening in the mastering world at the time of its release. It will sound good, because the processes and traditions of mastering a vinyl record from multitrack tape are older than my grandpa, and he's dead. Studios *know* how to make a vinyl record. People not familiar with recording often credit vinyl itself with the good sound, which their ears are not lying to them about -- it sounds good! They say vinyl was better. Really, CD has never had a fair chance to prove itself. From the time it initially came out in the 80's, it's always had one kind of stupidity or another in the recording and mastering process making it seem inferior. There have even been some real albums that have come out to prove it -- everyone has some CD's that sound really good. But it's the inconsistency of it though. With a CD it's a crap shoot. With vinyl, it's a sure thing. Almost every single time, you put it on the turntable, and if the record isn't worn out, the ninety years of industry know-how and tradition show themselves -- the studios know how to make a vinyl record. With CD's, for each album you put it, it becomes a question of "which kind of BS did they ruin this one with"? Is it the bad-EQ metallic gritty kind of BS? Or did they just compress it to death? Maybe they used poor converters and let some aliasing noise through? How did they ruin my album this time? The fact that occasionally they get it right isn't enough to save CD's reputation. Vinyl has an undeserved reputation as a better format in truth because it's a more consistent format. You get good results all the time, not fantastic results once in a while as with CD.