The Beatles: "1" LP (1 Viewer)

[Philip Hamm]

Has anyone heard this LP? Does it sound good?

 

[KeithH]

Philip, I have 1 on vinyl, and I am very happy with the sound quality. However, I am probably not the best judge. For one thing, I don't have a high-end turntable ($200 Sony PS-LX350H manual). Secondly, 1 is the only Beatles album I have on vinyl. Perhaps others can give you an opinion 1 relative to other Beatles vinyl as well as an opinion of the sound on more resolving gear.

 

[mike_decock]

I've heard it mentioned on Audio Asylum that 1 isn't the best sounding although it ain't bad. Best bet is getting the original vinyl pressings, but that can get pretty spendy.

-Mike...

 

[KeithH]

Mike, I have read plenty of criticism directed towards the sound quality of the 1 CD. Is the LP considered lackluster as well?

 

[NickSo]

This is connected with my question i had earlier. Do new releases on Vinyl still sound superior to its CD counterpart as much as it does for the classic LP's?

 

[Jagan Seshadri]

Clearly, wax cylinders are superior to vinyl discs. Edison himself preferred cylinders. Also equal fidelity could be maintained throughout playback, unlike discs whose fidelity decreased as the record played from outside-to-inside.

Vinyl is nice for nostalgia. Better album cover artwork and lyric sheets, along with the babying of the LP itself, add to the 'experience'.

Audio went digital for a reason. The CD was a compromise in terms of sampling rate and word size, but that is being changed now. As for vinyl sounding superior to its CD counterparts, I'd say that it may sound different owing to its dependence on electromechanical components, but I'd hesitate to say it's better.

It's definitely not better after heavy playback.

-JNS

 

[mike_decock]

As for vinyl sounding superior to its CD counterparts, I'd say that it may sound different owing to its dependence on electromechanical components, but I'd hesitate to say it's better.

Better is in the eye of the beholder (or in the ear of the listener). I've done some A/B comparisons on albums I have on both formats and they were very close. The CDs had a lower noise floor and a little more impact but the LPs seemed to have a little more body and notes decayed more realistically. I put more value on body, decay and air than I do noise floor and impact.

I've heard good and bad on both formats. "Better" really needs to be taken on a case by case basis since 99% of the time, mastering will be the deciding factor.

Personally, if it's close, I will pick the LP. The act of cleaning the vinyl and dropping the needle into the groove is part of a ritual that connects me closer to what I'm listening to. I like the extra anticipation as I go through the ritual and it puts me in a better mood. It's a more organic process than dropping a little silver disc into a "magic box".

Maybe I spent a little too much time hugging my guitar when I was growing up...


-Mike...

 

[Jagan Seshadri]

I put more value on body, decay and air than I do noise floor and impact.

This is precisely why the new digital formats are catching on among some music lovers. The word length is longer, so it catches the body (harmonics/signal shape integrity), decay and air (low-level signals) better than CD can allow.

On the other hand, Beatles '1' was mastered (for CD, at least) to have a low noise floor (by using No-Noise processing) and impact (by using dynamic compression) so that it sounds more like today's pop CDs. It makes the music seem louder and more energetic, but you lose acoustic spaciousness as a result.

-JNS

 

[mike_decock]

It makes the music seem louder and more energetic, but you lose acoustic spaciousness as a result.

Here's a great article on how the "louder is better" compression mentality really sucks the life and realism out of the music.
-mike...

 

[Jagan Seshadri]

Excellent article link, Mike.

-JNS