[FlatNine]

I should have read these before posting further questions. This info answered everything I had questions about. Thanks.

 
Quote:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Advantages_of_Vinyl
 
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Disadvantages_of_Vinyl
 
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Myths
 
The results of countless debating for more than 5 years on some forum! 

 

 

[bigshot]

Just curious - are the digital masters that different technology wise from the mainstream CD's sold today?

The digital master is usually at a high bitrate, which is an advantage for mixing and mastering, but makes no difference for playback at normal listening volumes. Once the mix is finalized and it's bounced down to redbook for CD release it sounds exactly the same.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Here is the simple answer to the simple question... The problem with early CDs was improper equalization, not missing data.

Exactly!  LP's sounded much better than early CD's, but it was the mastering...which ironically is still an issue in some cases (with a different problem, of compression)
 

 

[Uncle Erik]

Thanks for the link to HydrogenAudio. Here's their list of vinyl advantages:

Used vinyl is often extremely inexpensive - 50 cents to two dollars a disc is common for some releases. Vinyl is a very cheap way to expand your collection in older artists that you cannot justify spending $15/CD on listening to.
Some albums have simply never been released on CD.
Some album art is better suited to the larger scale of LP covers and sleeves.
The ritual of playing a record - of pulling it out of its sleeve, placing it on the turntable and playing it - may often compel the listener to focus on the music in a more dedicated way than when listening to a CD or to computer-based music. Completely independently of any sound quality differences, this ritual, like the rituals involved in live music listening, might substantially improve the enjoyment of the music.
The mastering of an original LP release is often considered superior to a CD remaster of the same release. This can be for any number of reasons, including:
Increased use of compression and limiting on the CD release, reducing dynamics
The master tapes have often degraded in the time between the LP and CD releases
The equalization and even mixing of some CD releases is radically different than on the LP releases. For instance, many Zappa LPs have had entire drum tracks replaced for the CD release.
Properly maintained vinyl is of a surprisingly good quality and is often not objectionable.
It can be safely purchased as a long term investment.
The standards of record playback are relatively simple and nonproprietary. Record players can always be constructed from scratch, including the cartridge assembly, with a minimum of technical experience. Playback has been standardized for roughly 50 years
Properly maintained disc records (including both vinyl and shellac) have survived to the present day with little degredation. The long term chemical processes involved with vinyl are believed to keep it stable for 100 years or more.
While large swings in value have plagued vinyl as collector's items, there are no long term risks to future devaluation for vinyl as a whole.
Well built turntables should last 40 years or more and are refurbishable.

Exactly the reasons why I invested in a good turntable and support the format.

Mostly, though, I like inexpensive records you can't get on digital, while making them sound pretty good.

Interestingly, I didn't know that cartridges were a DIY proposition. Hmmm, I'm going to have to look into that.

 

[Leporello]

I would say no. Vinyl is a *copy* of the master tape with all the technical shortcomings of the format (which of course does not mean the it cannot sound subjectively pleasing).
 
 
Regards,
 
L.
 
Quote:

 

So does that mean, at least for these 80's recordings, that a vinyl record contains *more* information (all of it actually) than the same recording released in CD format?
 
 

 

 

[HiFi1972]

Exactly!  LP's sounded much better than early CD's, but it was the mastering...which ironically is still an issue in some cases (with a different problem, of compression)
 

From what I've read and heard other engineers saying over the last 15 years regarding this subject, the problem specifically was the 1st gen ADCs' design (higher degree of aliasing distortion and quantization noise) than what we have available today in what are considered mastering-grade ADCs. Prior to doing it digitally, cutting vinyl from analog sources sounded more pleasing to the ear because the noise and distortion from both formats (analog tape masters and the inherent noise of vinyl) sounds more pleasing to the ear than listening to recordings done on poorly-designed (by today's standards) ADCs over a format that is less forgiving in the sense that it won't "mask" one type of distortion with another, which worked well for tape-to-vinyl mastering.

Analog tape is still being used (don't forget there are many other factors that contribute to that sound, from mic pres to consoles and other effects processors that are both solid state and tube-driven). There's a new tool out there now called "CLASP" which basically uses an analog tape machine and sends the tape-processed signal to DAWs such as Pro Tools to impart the saturation effects of tape to multitrack recordings, which gives a studio the unprecedented ability to edit "tape" tracks digitally without having to splice tape. It's not hype, it's real and a few serious studios are using this with great success.

Some people are maintaining all-analog paths right up to vinyl mastering (Daptone's albums and affiliates have been doing this successfully for about a decade now). A good example of "digital abuse" is Amy Winehouse's "Back to Black" album, which was mastered with loudness in mind, it seems (Dap Kings were the backing band for this album but it was then handed to her producer and record label for mastering). Daptone's digital releases of their albums aren't nearly as distorted and are great to listen to even on CD. I'm a big fan of their sound; I buy their releases on vinyl, most of them include digital download cards which I download to listen to on my phone. Even though the digital versions sound slightly more maximized, they still maintain a lot of that analog feel and don't suffer from what we call "digititis" in the audio mastering world.

 

[bigshot]

The problem was that there was a equalization preemphasis applied to the tape masters used for cutting LPs that was cancelled out in the disc cutting process. When they went to make the first CDs, they pulled the masters with the pre-emphasis for LPs and forgot to filter to correct for it. It was an equalization problem, it wasn't a technical one related to the CD format itself. There are early CDs that sound great. They're all the ones that were mastered from digital masters. The problem was with the AAD recordings.

 

[leeperry]

I really don't agree about Daptone...Lee Field's "My World" sounds grossly clipped, and I'm not the only one complaining: http://www.amazon.com/review/R21W5XN2OVBUMR/ref=cm_cr_dp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0026PMN70&nodeID=5174&tag=&linkCode=

I whined about it to his manager who told me to buy the vinyl is I wasn't happy...what kind of bs answer is that? vinyl surface noises Vs loudness maximizing, huh. The CD sounds as dull as can get, I hope they're proud to have ruined such a killer album. If you buy the vinyl, you get a voucher for mp3's, fantastic...hopefully ripped from the CD and make it 128kbit please.

This CD from Sugarman is so clipped that it hurts my ears: http://daptonerecords.11spot.com/index.php?fuseaction=item_cat.ecom_superitem_detail&item_cat_id=4059

OTOH, Joe Bataan "Call My name" was recorded at the Daptone studios as well, but Vampisoul did an amazing job at mastering as usual: http://www.amazon.com/Call-My-Name-Joe-Bataan/dp/B0007UPTJK

I'm willing to believe that it was recorded on tape, coz it was recorded in 2005 but it sounds more like 1975, such an amazing old school sound

 

[HiFi1972]

The problem was that there was a equalization preemphasis applied to the tape masters used for cutting LPs that was cancelled out in the disc cutting process. When they went to make the first CDs, they pulled the masters with the pre-emphasis for LPs and forgot to filter to correct for it. It was an equalization problem, it wasn't a technical one related to the CD format itself.

Sorry to disagree, but this contradicts what I know about this process. Equalization is involved in vinyl mastering, but that is done by the mastering engineer who is cutting the vinyl and is there at the lathe making test pressings; it's not something that is applied to the master tapes by the mixing engineers at the mixing studio/stage. The mastering engineer would run the master tape through his console and processors (EQs and Compressors) and commit to something that would cut well (and each album was different based on how long the program was, that usually dictated how much "curve" the cutter had to apply). I can see what you said happening in a situation where the mastering engineer was also involved in the mixing stage of the project and he somehow committed to using an EQ that would work when cutting vinyl as he was printing the final mixdowns, but that would be a rare thing (to commit to printing the final mixes with an EQ curve that would bypass the need to make test pressings by the vinyl cutter). Do you have any sources for what you're saying? It's the first time I hear that the whole first generation of CDs was mastered this way.

leeperry, I don't have that Lee Fields album yet, it's one that I have been meaning to order. I followed your link but it's from someone not happy with the CD release. I don't have the Sugarman album either, but I have a lot of those cuts on 7" and they don't sound "clipped" at all. They have a ton of analog saturation but that's the sound they go for and you either hate it or love it (I don't consider any of the audio clips online to be a fair representation, as they're compressed beyond belief).

 

[bigshot]

Back in the late 70s / early 80s, some record labels would prepare submasters for different formats... A submaster for cassette duplication that had compression to suit that medium, and a separate submaster for LPs with the RIAA curve and compression applied to suit vinyl. In the early days of CD, instead of remastering specifically for CD, they just pulled these masters off the shelf and used them to author the CDs. Some of these early CDs using LP submasters had the RIAA pre-emphasis applied. When played back flat on a CD player, it sounded really harsh and thin. This was likely the origin of the myth that digital sounds harsh. Even though CD mastering is done properly now, people keep parroting the complaints from the early days.

 

[gregorio]

Sorry to disagree, but this contradicts what I know about this process. Equalization is involved in vinyl mastering, but that is done by the mastering engineer who is cutting the vinyl and is there at the lathe making test pressings; it's not something that is applied to the master tapes by the mixing engineers at the mixing studio/stage.

Back in the late 70s / early 80s, some record labels would prepare submasters for different formats... A submaster for cassette duplication that had compression to suit that medium, and a separate submaster for LPs with the RIAA curve and compression applied to suit vinyl. In the early days of CD, instead of remastering specifically for CD, they just pulled these masters off the shelf and used them to author the CDs. Some of these early CDs using LP submasters had the RIAA pre-emphasis applied. When played back flat on a CD player, it sounded really harsh and thin. This was likely the origin of the myth that digital sounds harsh. Even though CD mastering is done properly now, people keep parroting the complaints from the early days.

You are both a bit right and a bit wrong!

The mastering engineer does not cut any vinyl, that's the job of the fabrication plant. When a track has been mixed it is then passed to the mastering engineer, who creates a master or technically a pre-master (containing the pre-emphasis, etc.). This pre-master is sent to the manufacturing plant and mother and father masters are cut from this pre-master. It gets a little confusing as what comes out of the mix studio is often called a master, so is what the mastering engineer creates and so is the master used for manufacture. So we have 3 very different parts of the product chain all of them often called a master and all different. However, Bigshot is right when he says that many early CDs were mastered using with same pre-emphasis and other analogue mastering techniques. In fact, early professional CD and DAT players actually had a pre-emphasis setting.

I would say that certainly a large component of the harshness attributed to early CDs was due to the mastering but the poorer quality of converters contributed as well.

G

 

[HiFi1972]

The mastering engineer does not cut any vinyl, that's the job of the fabrication plant. When a track has been mixed it is then passed to the mastering engineer, who creates a master or technically a pre-master (containing the pre-emphasis, etc.)

I master about 10 projects a year that end up being released on vinyl as well as digital (hardly any limiting on the vinyl versions). When I hear someone say "I'm looking for a good vinyl cutter" what comes to mind is a mastering engineer that does vinyl mastering. A fabrication plant doesn't "cut" a test pressing (unless they also do mastering in-house), they "press" records, so when someone tells me "I'm looking for a good vinyl press" I then think they're looking for a plant and already have their acetates ready. The "acetate" is the source that is sent to the pressing plant, which is "cut" by the mastering engineer operating the lathe (the carving that is done on the acetate is what people like myself refer to as "cutting").

 

[leeperry]

yay, impressive result: http://thereifixedit.failblog.org/2011/09/16/white-trash-repairs-update-cleaning-a-record-with-glue/

I wish my CD's that were sourced from a LP source had gone through this, or at least the non-ghetto version: http://www.nuloop.com/en/dj-equipment/item/28343/vinyl_and_cd_care/nuloop_lgl.html

 

[leeperry]

Having more thoughts about it, I now giggle at all those crappy declickers/denoisers....when you could just stick a bunch of wood glue on your wax records and get *lossless* majorly drastic improvements! the two audio samples on the last link I posted are really impressive

The same way everyone pushes half-baked SSD drives when you can just make a ramdisk for way cheaper, and much faster too.

It will still sound terrible even compared to a 1/4" tape, but at least it's not a clicking feast anymore.

 

[BlueAlien]

I just like owning a physical piece of music and the art that comes along with it. When I buy a cd, it doesn't feel like I actually own the music, I could go and get a digital version for the same price and have the exact same sound. Cds, and digital files are just copies of copies.