Final word from Mikey Fremer: USB Stick better than Vinyl.

[Andre Marc]

The new release.



I think most folks who care about sound quality would have preferred a package not unlike the recent Doors 45rpm reissues, myself included. That would have been truly great. Yes, the industry doesn't cater to us, as a whole, but I am grateful for the LP box, nonetheless. For a person who wants to hear the music, what options are there? Old used albums at a premium, poor reissues, a USB stick that necessitates the purchase of a DAC ...what else? Nothing.



Humanity's reach knows little bounds. You have folks on SHF complaining about poor pressings, while playing the albums on Numark turntables with bent "needles." Why do you care about their opinion of your preference?



... it was a joke.



Felix

You mention the Doors Vinyl box set.

Well, that was done from the original analog tapes except for the first album. I spoke to Chad Kassem at Newport. That project cost him
1.5 million dollars. That is why the LPs are FIFTY BUCKS a pop. There is no other way for him to make a profit.

If the Abbey Road had done the Beatles vinyl box with the same care it would have cost $700. That is 50 bucks x 14 discs.

They knew this was way out of the sweetspot but for the most well heeled. They did not want to sell 2000 of these, they want to
sell 50,000.

Cold hard reality.

 

[microstrip]

The depressing thing about this statement is that the 1987 Beatles' CD's sounded better in most ways than the typical USA LP at that time.

It is known that by the late 80's average pressing quality was very poor, although some labels were able to keep high quality. In Europe we had many small labels issuing high quality recordings in LP format at that time. I have no doubts that for the majority of the population the CD represented an improvement, but we are debating formats in WBF not in whatstypicalforum.

 

[microstrip]

You mention the Doors Vinyl box set.

Well, that was done from the original analog tapes except for the first album. I spoke to Chad Kassem at Newport. That project cost him
1.5 million dollars. That is why the LPs are FIFTY BUCKS a pop. There is no other way for him to make a profit.

If the Abbey Road had done the Beatles vinyl box with the same care it would have cost $700. That is 50 bucks x 14 discs.

They knew this was way out of the sweetspot but for the most well heeled. They did not want to sell 2000 of these, they want to
sell 50,000.

Cold hard reality.

A real bargain. It would cost usd 7000 if issued in 15 ips tapes.

 

[Atmasphere]

Sure that's not mixed up?? Why would you limit dynamics on a digital source?? The vinyl I can understand.

Rob

Actually it is the other way 'round. You limit dynamics on digital stuff to take advantage of greater resolution when all the bits are in play. For example if you are 45 db down on Redbook, there are only 8 bits left to express the sound, IOW there is poor resolution with lower volume levels. So by applying limiting, you get a better sounding digital file.

OTOH LP does not need limiting for the most part. The only reason it is used is to make it a lot easier to do the transcription in the mastering room. But the simple fact is the the cutterhead has no problem following any signal you can throw at it. Its the playback where you run into issues- a cutterhead can easily cut a groove no cartridge or arm could follow. But current cartridges and arms have enough capability that there are no digital sources that can outperform their dynamic range and bandwidth with the same fidelity, see my first paragraph.

Note: I am not talking about tape, just LP.

 

[A.wayne]

Agree +10 ....!!!

 

[Soundminded]

Mikey Fremer says the Beatles USB Stick beats the new Vinyl. It should. The vinyl is just the stick through a Benchmark DAC
into a cutting machine.


"If you have the Apple USB stick and a really great DAC, you're buying this box for the book and for "the thing."

If this (and worse) was all there was to recordings, a boom box would be overkill for me. I can't imagine anyone paying money for this (including the vinyls) let alone on expensive equipment to play it on. I guess to each his own. But it seems to me knowing that Fremer knows what real music is and likes it, here he is pandering to an audience he probably holds in contempt. He was right, he's about entertainment. That's what his readers pay for. (I never spent one cent on the magazine he writes for and I don't have any intention of starting any new bad habits either )

 

[rbbert]

Of course you can read a lot of it free on-line, not that $10 (or less) for 12 issues is spending much...