[safulop]

The article has some technical misunderstandings.  But the parts about compression/limiting on vinyl vs. CD are worth reading and are peppered with interview anecdotes from industry engineers.  The important points are that CDs and digital sound files are much more likely to be clipped.

 

[Sal1950]

This post was just meant to stir the pot once again. From a SQ standpoint there is no rational reason for vinyl. But like a expensive painting it will allow you to show off you wealth.

 

[safulop]

 From a SQ standpoint there is no rational reason for vinyl. 

Your assertion is duly noted, but is unfortunately just that -- an assertion.  The thread contains data points and references, which will no doubt prove much more edifying.

 

[dazzerfong]

  Your assertion is duly noted, but is unfortunately just that -- an assertion.  The thread contains data points and references, which will no doubt prove much more edifying.

Perhaps from a technical point of view instead? Technically, it is inferior: however, CD is often made inferior because of bias from mastering engineers.

 

[safulop]

 
 Technically,[vinyl] is inferior: however, CD is often made inferior because of bias from mastering engineers.

Well that's exactly the point of this whole thread.  As stated in the cited article in IEEE Spectrum, it's ridiculous that audiophiles have to resort to an analog technology that should have died out long ago -- but it survives as the ironic home of the best masters. So we're faced with an interesting choice: would you rather stare at a lousy copy of the Mona Lisa, or the real one behind a somewhat murky screen?

 

[BeatsWork]

 
Perhaps from a technical point of view instead? Technically, it is inferior: however, CD is often made inferior because of bias from mastering engineers.

 
Well - I would agree with the caveat that much of the music currently produced (at least what I listen to) is poorly mastered.  Pretty damn rare on new vinyl that they are doing a separate mastering for vinyl so you're just getting the same crappy mastering pressed in wax so even if vinyl had some advantage it's moot on most new pressings anyway ....

 

[analogsurviver]

   
Well - I would agree with the caveat that much of the music currently produced (at least what I listen to) is poorly mastered.  Pretty damn rare on new vinyl that they are doing a separate mastering for vinyl so you're just getting the same crappy mastering pressed in wax so even if vinyl had some advantage it's moot on most new pressings anyway ....

That's why there are books dedicated solely to the SQ of various pressings of the same recording on the LP - without ever mentioning the music in the slightest. Catalog number - end of story in musical sense.
 
Of course, one has to be familiar with music itself - then comes the hunt for the best SQ version. Even if it is - hardly ever likely - on CD ...
 
I agree that most of the current releases do not merit being issued on vinyl. With the advent (or better said, wider adoption of ) the ultrasonic cleaning machines for vinyl, vintage - when they were the only game in town - pressings can outperform any re-release, no matter how special and super duper these new pressings are supposed to be. Which is not to say that everything issued now is crap.

 

[safulop]

While I agree that "new pressings" are not all they are cracked up to be, and are often inferior to the regular records of yore, I think it is actually very common for records of new albums to be pressed from a different master than the sound files.  The Taylor Swift example that was shown at the start of the thread is a case in point.  It is also explained in the linked article in IEEE Spectrum that a highly limited master such as are used for CD is not suitable for cutting a record.  But sometimes it is probably done anyway, I suppose.

 

[dprimary]

   
Well - I would agree with the caveat that much of the music currently produced (at least what I listen to) is poorly mastered.  Pretty damn rare on new vinyl that they are doing a separate mastering for vinyl so you're just getting the same crappy mastering pressed in wax so even if vinyl had some advantage it's moot on most new pressings anyway ....

That is not even possible, you have to cut a master to press a record. All vinyl has separate master. Mastered well is a different topic.

 

[analogsurviver]

 
That is not even possible, you have to cut a master to press a record. All vinyl has separate master. Mastered well is a different topic.

English language has quite sometimes expressions that do not positively identify what is meant. 
 
Take word "design" for example. It can be design in technical sense ( it is a design based on satisfying this and this...) - but also can be design as form or fashion ( beautiful Italian designed shoes/fashion/car/whatever ) - and although not mutually exclusive, they DO NOT NECESSARY MEAN THE SAME THING.
 
Same with word "master". You have misunderstood what master for LP release is. In this case, it is NOT meant the vinyl "mold" - as explained here : 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PRxEoWNQls
 
What was meant was master from which the actual disc is then cut. This master not only can be different from the one intended for the CD (or cassette) - IT HAS TO BE DIFFERENT. Vinyl mastering has quite a few limitations - which, if not observed to the letter, can lead to useless cut as the most benign thing - to the destruction of the cutting equipment, most notably the cutter head. There are VERY precise prescriptions how the master from which a physical master disc will be cut has to be prepared. In short, bass below certain frequencies has to be monoed - or the excursion of the cutterhead in vertical direction will exceed the thickness of the lacquer of the master disc, rendering the master disc unusable - and likely destroying the cutting stylus ( expen$$ive) . Further limiting of the bass has to be done because of playing time compromise. That is why, usually limited edition, 45 RPM releases of certain hits as singles on 12" LP sized disc will sonically clobber its regular same size disc containing the whole album - the limits and limitations have been reduced to an absolute minimum, sacryfing playing time instead. There are also limitations for the treble - which can be circumvented by the use of half speed mastering ( which is again an art all of its own and is, unfortunately, NOT a deux ex machina ).
 
Furthermore, "master" can differ from another "master" in whether or not any compression has been used, the degree of that compression, equalization, NOT even going into "mastering", which is to say mixing the song from the master tapes or files in a different manner ( say singer put a bit to the fore and slightly to the left, bass somewhat moderated, sax a bit darker and more to the right than in previous "mastering" - etc, etc, etc ).
 
"Master" simply has too many meanings in English for everybody to EXACTLY understand what is actually meant.

 

[dprimary]

For vinyl the disk the mastering engineer cuts on the lathe is the master. There can be intermediate masters between the 2 track mix and cutting the disk but in the analog domain I always tried to do the least amount of generations as possible. The generational losses build up fast and are extremely noticeable. From that lacquer master the stampers are made which in turn is used to press the vinyl records. Back in the eighties I would end up with a EQ'ed. (maybe compressed) sequenced timed master from my final mix master, (lets call it the gold master) it could be digital or could be 1/2" analog, from that a straight transfer was made to a digital 1630 tape that went off to have the glass master made and CD's replicated, a cassette master would transferred to an analog tape with it processed to maximize cassette quality. Then the 7" 12" and LP lacquers would be cut checked and sent to the pressing plants, which would send back test pressings. All those production masters where derived from the gold master. These days there is a few hundred formats, luckily most of them are fairly automated encodings and transfers. There is many levels of masters in the production chain.

 

[judgmentday]

Vinyl sound is way far superior than any digital recording ever made. Even the HDtracks 24bit/96kHz are a joke compared to vinyl.
If you have trouble telling the difference between vinyl and digital then your vinyl setup has to have something very wrong.
Must people here don't even own or have not seen a real Turntable in their life.

 

[icebear]

Beware judgement day will come: 
   vinyl upstairs , digital downstairs

 

[cjl]

  If you have trouble telling the difference between vinyl and digital then your vinyl setup has to have something very wrong.

This part at least is true(ish). I've never heard vinyl that can approach the low background noise and lack of pops of digital, so if you can't tell vinyl from digital, something is indeed very wrong.

 

[judgmentday]

  Beware judgement day will come:
   vinyl upstairs , digital downstairs

Vinyl is a fine art.  Just special, talented and fine engineers/musicians could make it.  Digital is the worse thing that happened to music.  It's only representations of that music may be, never the real thing.  Buying a coke for a real thing is way better, ha, ha, ha.