Knowing when or not to buy vinyl

[Greg Reierson]

Why does it matter?

[audioaddict]

I've found that "digital LPs" can sound good if mastered from source tapes, not the CD that was released.

Some DDDs like The Nightfly, Brothers In Arms sound very, very good on LP. Not quite what my favorite analog recordings sound like, but very worthwhile nonetheless.

Digital can sound great bounced to vinyl or tape....just has to be done right.

There was a re-release of Dr. Dre's "The Chronic" on LP some years back. I picked up a copy and found it underwhelming....not much difference from CD.

Originally was recorded to analog tape.....looking for a first pressing, and not surprisingly there's a nice premium for it!

[huejahfink]

Go to store, listen to record, decide.

But seriously, if you're only interested in records that have not come from a digital source - you're not going to be buying very many (modern) records at all.

[audioaddict]

Originally Posted by huejahfink

Go to store, listen to record, decide.

But seriously, if you're only interested in records that have not come from a digital source - you're not going to be buying very many (modern) records at all.

This is true.

Check out that latest Foo Fighters LP.....110% analog.

[wado1942]

Originally Posted by audioaddict

This is true.

Check out that latest Foo Fighters LP.....110% analog.

And probably STILL crushed to death.


The thing is, most vinyl since the 1980s has been through SOME kind of digital whatever. Even if it was tracked to analogue and mixed to analogue, a lot of engineers would send the direct signal off of the repro machine to the controller and used digital delays to feed the actual head.

[807Recordings]

Originally Posted by audioaddict

I've found that "digital LPs" can sound good if mastered from source tapes, not the CD that was released.

Some DDDs like The Nightfly, Brothers In Arms sound very, very good on LP. Not quite what my favorite analog recordings sound like, but very worthwhile nonetheless.

Digital can sound great bounced to vinyl or tape....just has to be done right.

There was a re-release of Dr. Dre's "The Chronic" on LP some years back. I picked up a copy and found it underwhelming....not much difference from CD.

Originally was recorded to analog tape.....looking for a first pressing, and not surprisingly there's a nice premium for it!

Interesting as SOS had an article on how Dre produced these albums and he always used to bounce down to a tascam DAT. Hardly what I would call analog.

[audioaddict]

Originally Posted by wado1942

And probably STILL crushed to death.


The thing is, most vinyl since the 1980s has been through SOME kind of digital whatever. Even if it was tracked to analogue and mixed to analogue, a lot of engineers would send the direct signal off of the repro machine to the controller and used digital delays to feed the actual head.

Not sure if it is crushed.....I gave a listen on youtube and it didn't appear crushed.

They want all out to record and edit to tape.....would be a colossal waste of time to ruin it in mastering.

As for the mastering itself, don't the top mastering studios claim they can do the vinyl mastering without A/D & D/A conversion?

[audioaddict]

Originally Posted by 807Recordings

Interesting as SOS had an article on how Dre produced these albums and he always used to bounce down to a tascam DAT. Hardly what I would call analog.

I believe that's for vocals...

But for drum & bass, there's a lot of low end....more than typical rap album.

Listen to "Doggy Dogg World" off of Snoop's Doggystyle.....that is some deliciously warm and punchy bass.

[dietrich10]

A complete analog chain to lacquer or 192sampling rate audio files to lacquer or lets say DMM...
does that guarentee a great sounding record?did cutting engineer transfer well? too loud? pushed?
I have bought some Mofi vinyl in the past and was excited to get it on the turntable after the spec hype... disappointed

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by ds11

Hello,

I've recently been listening to more vinyl but am worried that a lot of releases may be digital prints.

For example, even something like Sublime's self-titled from 1996 has me worried. Yes, I always have an interest to read about where it was recorded and who produced and released it, but how can one possibly know if it was recorded at 44.1k or to tape?

Modern releases could be recorded at 96k even though they're publishing on iTunes, meaning their vinyl release is still preferable to a 24/44.1 CD. But even then, how can you know when every studio could have their own sample rate practices.

Example: Black Keys. Luckily I can read on here that Tchad Blake records at 48k. You think I'm going to buy that on vinyl? Even vinyl from 96k is still not exactly as advertised..

So how do you deal with it? Do you just not buy any records released from the point that digital recorders become common unless you know for a fact that the chain has been completely analog?

It seems to me that you are making some questionable assumptions about sample rates, but that is a whole can of worms.

And I'm not aware that modern LPs are typically "advertised" as being all analog from start to finish.

As has been pointed out, most vinyl goes through AD/DA in the pressing process, and it has been done that way for quite some time. That's no reason not to buy vinyl. Don't get hung up on how it was made, just enjoy it!

[807Recordings]

Originally Posted by audioaddict

I believe that's for vocals...

But for drum & bass, there's a lot of low end....more than typical rap album.

Listen to "Doggy Dogg World" off of Snoop's Doggystyle.....that is some deliciously warm and punchy bass.

Yes and also done on Protool (Warren G)digital. At least that was my understanding and I can stand to be corrected.

However the trackings where all on 2inch tape for DRE.

Either way analog or digital can produce great bass and sadly most analog records loose their analog part soon as a digital delay line is at the cutter for vinyl. I have had cut off half inch tape with pure analog, from analog drum machines, synths, etc and it can totally kick ass. There is something there that can just add something digital misses. For me its sort of like film vs digital:
Got a Hasellblad and know how to use it on medium format it will often kill digital. However for the 80% of the time in other situations a Canon with full frame sensor will produce a better result.

Best part of the vinyl is I usually pay pennies for it used :D

[ds11]

Originally Posted by Greg Reierson

Why does it matter?

Because if it costs more, I'd like to save money by buying CD's instead and being able to get more.

Originally Posted by audioaddict

I've found that "digital LPs" can sound good if mastered from source tapes, not the CD that was released.

Yes I agree that digital to vinyl can sound just fine. It's just deceptive when artists talk in interviews about their own record collections and how in addition to 'the ritual', it simply sounds better. I know university students who read this and think 'hey, that makes sense'. Months later, the artist's own record comes out on vinyl and these young people go spend their money on turntables and stereos because they're under the impression that they're getting a sonic benefit.

Sure, this isn't terrible because it leads them towards discovering the real world of vinyl now that they're likely to start buying old records, but they're still under the impression that these modern release are somehow better than their CD counterparts because they have no knowledge of recording technology.

Originally Posted by huejahfink

Go to store, listen to record, decide.

But seriously, if you're only interested in records that have not come from a digital source - you're not going to be buying very many (modern) records at all.

Originally Posted by wado1942

The thing is, most vinyl since the 1980s has been through SOME kind of digital whatever.

This is what I thought! Most of my favourite music was recorded before the mid 70's anyways, but I think I'll stick to CD's for new releases.

Black Keys' Brothers CD is $12. Vinyl is $27. Tchad mixes completely in the box. I really don't think this difference is worth it for the visual art. If they recorded at 96khz, then I personally think it's worth the extra money because I've spent a ton of time comparing different sample rates with my own ears. But I don't think they did record at 96. The real problem is that there is no way to know for sure for every release that I want to buy.

Instead, you see bands releasing their 'high quality' 44.1kz FLAC. B.S. Yeah it beats 320kbs mp3, but you're still only at something like 900 kbps with 24/44.1. 24/96 FLAC plays on average over 2500kbps.

I've heard the difference that the extra data makes. I'll pay for it. Unfortunately, consumers are getting zero added value and are paying in excess an amount that could buy them a second CD and and a chocolate bar.

[dietrich10]

Wonder how long before we can buy 32bit 96k files of major label albums

[Paul Gold]

Originally Posted by ds11

Black Keys' Brothers CD is $12. Vinyl is $27.

Who said a $15 difference makes it better? Vinyl is more expensive to produce and sells fewer units. I think a Rolex isn't worth the money. Many do.

[tkr]

I ´ve been taking some of my vinyl through SpectraFoo for analysis, and most of the vinyl bought after, say 1985, bear traces of having been digitised at one point or another. A case in point, The Beatles ´ "Love" on vinyl.

Here are spetrograms of two tracks. The second one, "Eleanor Rigby" looks like an all- analog recording, while the first one "I want to hold your Hand" seems to have been digitised at some point:

[ds11]

It's not in this example.

If you wanted to buy A Love Supreme, or Innervisions, however, $15 extra is definitely worth it to me personally for vinyl over 16/44.1 or even 24 bit because I've heard the difference and know that I don't like the sound of the low sample rate.

[TRJanuary]

Originally Posted by tkr

I ´ve been taking some of my vinyl through SpectraFoo for analysis, and most of the vinyl bought after, say 1985, bear traces of having been digitised at one point or another. A case in point, The Beatles ´ "Love" on vinyl.

Here are spetrograms of two tracks. The second one, "Eleanor Rigby" looks like an all- analog recording, while the first one "I want to hold your Hand" seems to have been digitised at some point:

The entire LOVE project is based on digital manipulation of beatles recordings. There is nothing on that record whatsoever that is "all analog." No need to load any of it into a workstation. Seriously.

[ds11]

Well, I suppose my question's answered.

Are you mastering engineers seeing much 96k coming in that has to be downsampled for iTunes? Does it accept 48? The DAC on the iPod can do it. Anyone ever mastered Apple Lossless?

Are there any vinyl mastering engineers here who have handled 96 khz?

[Pete Lyman]

Originally Posted by ds11

Well, I suppose my question's answered.

Are you mastering engineers seeing much 96k coming in that has to be downsampled for iTunes? Does it accept 48? The DAC on the iPod can do it. Anyone ever mastered Apple Lossless?

Are there any vinyl mastering engineers here who have handled 96 khz?

Yes. I frequently cut from 88.2 and 96k files.

To this day I still do not understand why some get hung up on vinyl being "all analog." Most recordings undergo some sort of conversion during the process, even if tape was used. Cutting is an analog process, just like printing mixes to tape. When I do mix (not that frequently these days) I love mixing to tape from DAW because I love what the tape machine adds to the sound. The same could be said for vinyl cutting...even more so since playback systems can sound so different from one another.

I do prefer hi res files, but quite a few major releases are cut straight from CD masters. I would dare to say a fair share of them. Before that DAT, thru a digital delay line.

[dietrich10]

Originally Posted by ds11

Are there any vinyl mastering engineers here who have handled 96 khz?

Half of week 44.1 and other half 88.2/96.
I do have to admit often the higher resolution does not mean it was mixed better.

[mcsnare]

Originally Posted by ds11

Well, I suppose my question's answered.

Are you mastering engineers seeing much 96k coming in that has to be downsampled for iTunes? Does it accept 48? The DAC on the iPod can do it. Anyone ever mastered Apple Lossless?

Are there any vinyl mastering engineers here who have handled 96 khz?

The downsampling happens when Apple makes the AAC for iTunes. Apple is now encouraging people to submit higher resolution files for conversion.
As far as the whole vinyl thing, the vast majority are cut from a 16/44.1 source. I think having a less limited file to cut from is more significant to good sound than the bit depth/sample rate.

Dave

[acorneau]

So "ds11", do you actually listen to music or just the sound of the recordings?

[ds11]

Thanks for the answers guys. It's good to know what's going on. I'll have to do my best to audition modern releases alongside analog pressings.

acorneau, I love music. So much so, actually, that I'm preparing to purchase at least 200 records within the next year or so.

Let's say I'm interested in 30 modern releases. Should I save myself $400? I would like to. I can do this by choosing CD's over records since the vinyl offers no benefit.

[Plush]

I luv listening to LP, especially those from 50's, 60's, 70's and DMM LP'S from the 80's. We know it has a special smooth and organic sound.

Recording scientists also know how poor the technical specifications for L P are in comparison to cds. Even the best LP presents a fidelity level of around 12 bit. The best FM radio weighs in at around 10-11 bit.

Knowing this we see why LP is unable to resolve high bit rate / fast clock sources.

None of the technical background is meant to disparage the sound of a great LP pressing.



Sent from my Galaxy S III using Gearslutz App

[wado1942]

I really wish people would stop comparing S/N ratio to digital resolution. They are absolutely not the same and people can hear audio well below the noise floor, especially considering most of the noise in vinyl and FM radio is in the low frequencies, due to emphasis.

[ds11]

Has anyone compared any original pressings of classics to releases on HD Tracks that are remastered from tape at high sample rates?

[Plush]

Originally Posted by wado1942

I really wish people would stop comparing S/N ratio to digital resolution. They are absolutely not the same and people can hear audio well below the noise floor, especially considering most of the noise in vinyl and FM radio is in the low frequencies, due to emphasis.

Well I'm not new to this and that's why I stated that knowledgeable recording scientists would recognize the information. There is a whole host of information that can be used to define a music "system."

The analysis and conclusions are not strictly done on the basis of signal to noise ratio and none of this is new information.

One of the bits of important language used when determining bit rate is,
"rate of data delivery." LP delivers data at a very low rate of delivery in comparison to cd for example. (this is NOT an argument for saying that cd sounds better than LP!)

I first ran across this data in the detailed white paper by Bob Stuart from Meridian Audio. He was preparing to release the MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing-now called Dolby TrueHD) to audio manufacturers prior to the introduction of DVD-Audio in the late 90's.

The paper is called, "Coding High Quality Digital Audio." It was delivered as an AES paper in 1997 at the convention. You can find it as AES Preprint No. 4639. I heard him deliver the paper and I asked questions about it.

Here's the think: It is not only or strictly the dynamic range of the LP that knocks down its bit rate, mainly it is the audibility of LP noise in a silent groove which determines its performance.

This noise is very high in comparison to cd and it is this noise that swamps any proposed benefit of using hi-res files for LP mastering.
LP noise issues have been known for many many decades.

What I wrote is accurate and it helps to understand what sources can be offered to prepare the LP lacquer.

I also think that it can help to debunk marketing speak of the 200 gram LP pusher crowd. Can it guide the OP here in understanding what does and does not make a difference in mastering and pressing LP's?

One can only imagine.

[Paul Gold]

Originally Posted by Plush

Recording scientists also know how poor the technical specifications for L P are in comparison to cds. Even the best LP presents a fidelity level of around 12 bit.

The fidelity on an LP at the noise floor is about the same as at high levels. Not so in PCM. Just say dynamic range.

[Paul Gold]

Originally Posted by Plush

Here's the think: It is not only or strictly the dynamic range of the LP that knocks down its bit rate, mainly it is the audibility of LP noise in a silent groove which determines its performance.

I haven't read the paper but if it takes 12 bits to describe the LP signal at the noise floor you need more of those to describe the full dynamic range.