Kiss 2014 Vinyl Reissues (Pt4)

How can you assume that original CD sounds identical to the LP? In my experience LPs and CDs of the same 80's records sound nothing alike. Sometimes the LP sounds only 5 times better, sometimes 10 times better. For example folks who only heard 80's Priest, Maiden or Accept (since we're talking hard rock and metal here) on original CD haven't even heard these records properly. Plus you have to compare your TT and CD player. To cut the long story short it's only fair to make LP vs LP comparisons IMHO.

 

Well, I hardly think that the master is any different, being made in 1989. The vinyl was already an "afterthought" as the main sellers were MCs and CDs.
Very good odds are that the '89 LP is sourced from the CD, digital 44.1/16 master (hi-res wasn't a reality back then). Same master, then. Any difference would only be up to your equipment - and the LP may not have been optimally made, no longer being the vinyl the "main seller".

Sorry, I don't believe in "religious" vinyl vs CD arguments. I have quite a few 80s albums on both mediums (non-remastered, original), like:

• AC/DC - Fly on the wall (1985) --this is an analog recording, though. AAD CD.
• Tina Turner - Foreign affair (1989) --DDD
• Days of thunder soundtrack (1990) --this one is cut quiet and with rolled-off treble, being a 60' record. Bad pressing.
• Def Leppard - Hysteria (1987) --is this analog sourced? I don't know.
• Whitesnake - 1987 (1987) --DDD?

The Ortofon OM40 gives the vinyl a similar "color" to the CD. The 440 is brighter, as u can expect. The cartridge and perhaps phono box used give a subtle "EQ coloration". The CD obviously does not. Digital is digital. Whether this coloration is good or not, it's up to your taste.
This can be easily seen by ripping the vinyl to digital and comparing the two spectra (ripped vinyl VS CD, both in 44.1/16 format).
Unless the CD went through horrible brickwall limiting, it's also easy to see that the dynamics are identical.

 

Your right about making LP to LP comparisons; CD is such a far superior medium it's unfair to compare crystal clear audio the way it was intended to be heard vs. snap, crack & pop with limited dynamic range and bass compression so it can fit into the grooves.

 

!!!!! .... this is obviously not true. Rock and pop recordings have much less than dynamic range than "regular" (not MFSL or Quiex or any high end) vinyl can bear.
Noise? Good vinyl has very little. Not even noticeable when the music plays - of course.
Bass? I thought many DJs think that vinyl has better bass, especially with DJ cartridges. I can confirm: Lady Gaga kicks a** played with an Ortofon DJS.

 

Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die
Hey, if you prefer the sound of vinyl that's great. However that subjective judgment shouldn't be confused with the objective facts, which show that CD/digital does a far more accurate job of reproducing the original musical signal.

If you choose not to believe the technical facts regarding CD/digital - which have long since been demonstrated in theory and practice - and instead wish to believe that digital somehow audibly and mysteriously "veils" or fails to "preserve the continuity" of the original signal, or that the end resulting signal isn't just as analog as the original, then that's certainly your prerogative.

Obviously the subjective aspects of audio in music recording and playback will continue to remain fertile ground for discussion/debate among audiophiles. However, over 25 years after the introduction of the Compact Disc, there's no reason for there still to be confusion or misunderstanding over the technical basics of digital audio - even among the non-technical public.

http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/29-vinyl-records-and-digital-audio/
One of the often overlooked facts about LP reproduction is that some people prefer it because it introduces distortion. The "warmth" that many people associate with LPs can generally be described as a bass sound that is less accurate. Reproducing bass on vinyl is a serious engineering challenge, but the upshot is that there's a lot of filtering and signal processing happening to make the bass on vinyl work. You take some of this signal processing, add additional vibrations and distortions generated by a poorly manufactured turntable, and you end up with bass that sounds "warmer" than a CD, maybe-- but also very different than what the artists were hearing in the control room.
There is a strong suspicion in the audiophile community that LP reissues are commonly mastered from a CD source. What this means is that, instead of traveling to a record label's tape vault, finding the original master tapes and a machine that can play them, and going through the painstaking and expensive process of transferring that tape to a mastering disc in order to press LPs, the starting point is actually a CD. And the LP pressing is essentially an inferior copy of that CD. In these cases, the "warmth" you associate with the vinyl record is completely up to the distortions added by the playback process.

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/890awsi/index.html
LP-loving audiophiles are people who have trained themselves, through years of concentrated mental conditioning, to focus on the musical sound presented by the LP and to selectively "tune out" the distortions of that medium. This is a specialized case of a well-known adaptive property of the ear/brain system. City-raised children are unconscious of traffic noise but are kept awake by crickets when they visit the country. Their farm-grown cousins, having become oblivious to the sounds of nature, hear every subway rumble and taxicab horn in the city. My failure as an audiophile is not that I'm tin-eared but that I hear LP distortions far too clearly and never learned to tune them out.

 

No, please. Not here, not again. This is the Kiss *VINYL* 2014 reissues thread. Not the "Internet BS digital vs analog" thing. Stop now please.

 

Blame antonkk...

 

It's the same us 82 mix with a cover made in brazil with vinnie face not ace same colors and bright eyes, it's very expensive in ebay sells for $80 to over $100.

 

That's right , i got creatures in any version available in any format.

 

Boot!

 

HITS is not a bad album at all, i like it since 1989 , i remembered kiss new album ! 15 songs , yes!

 

Being this was my first new Kiss album bought upon release date, I was really disappointed. If it was an EP it would've been good. I give it an E for Effort. The mix is atrocious which doesn't help matters. I don't know how they made the drums sound like they way they do on this. Very un-natural.

 

You're right, the mix IS NOT good. In any format or version. The new vinyl is better but it still sounds like a worn Type I cassette, unfortunately. What a pity, the music is fantastic, ha! It rocks and rolls.
Well, I own several albums I like musically a lot but are mixed badly. The last two Whitesnake albums are a good example for this. Or Ratt's first EP. Or Dokken's Breakin' the chains (first 1981 Carrere records release - not the 1983 remix).

 

I heard the songs are all demos.

 

Hide your heart
Forever
Rise to it
King of hearts
Silver spoon
Betrayed .
Good tunes!

 

I still remember the first time i heard hide your heart in the radio the first single it was a different mix that the one in the album,i love that song.

 

Really? That's interesting

 

I'm quite happy with my 2014 reissue vinyl copy of HITS.

 

The one in the radio had less guitars,the one in HITS a little more guitar work.

 

So far the Mastered For iTunes is the best I've ever heard HITS...

 

I still have my Tennessee kiss hot in shade sunglasses from 1989.

 

Pics! Pics! Pics

 

Wow...I think the last two Whitesnake albums are mixed fantastically...

 

There is one guy in ebay selling one (expensive) right now if you want one.
Go by the name :kiss hot in the shade sunglasses.

 

Ha ha I know them! I was just curious. LOL!!! That guy is asking 100 dollars for a lousy piece of plastic. Get real B&L Raybans, then!