The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Vinyl sounds good, but do we have to listen to it? Dynamics Plugins
Old 22nd March 2014
  #31
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteaxxxe View Post
vinyl is not going extremely popular. its a niche. vinyl at its best is extremly inferior to proper digiatl audio. in the old times nothing was better than today. its the old mans myth about retro = better because the old man didnt get what has happened in the last 30 years.

come on guys ... vinyl is nothing more than old retro-bs.

Can't believe this comment is actually getting up-votes..


Vinyl will find demand as long as multi-format releases continue to squash the CD version and let the vinyl version breathe. Some consumers can hear the difference and are getting sick of it already.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #32
I'll admit I didn't read every response to this thread - but Arcade Fire's excellent (both critically and commercially successful) and grammy winning The Suburbs was mastered out to vinyl - one 12 inch side for each song.

It's a record that sounds warm, lots of depth, incredible fidelity and musicality. Vinyl on a decent system just sounds better for some types of music in many people's opinions - and these people are not "morons". Not "cleaner" or more perfect obviously, but it is more pleasant and rich.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuene View Post
I'll admit I didn't read every response to this thread - but Arcade Fire's excellent (both critically and commercially successful) and grammy winning The Suburbs was mastered out to vinyl - one 12 inch side for each song.

It's a record that sounds warm, lots of depth, incredible fidelity and musicality. Vinyl on a decent system just sounds better for some types of music in many people's opinions - and these people are not "morons". Not "cleaner" or more perfect obviously, but it is more pleasant and rich.

And if you put on CD EXACTLY what was put on vinyl(pre-riaa curve of course) with no additional compression and no final brick wall, it will sound just as "warm", "pleasant", and "rich" as it did on the analog. And those are the facts.

S.I.S.O.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #34
I'm not arguing either way on that. But it would not sound the same if they skipped the step of mastering to vinyl.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #35
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuene View Post
I'm not arguing either way on that. But it would not sound the same if they skipped the step of mastering to vinyl.
And what step is that?
Old 22nd March 2014
  #36
They mastered each song, individually to the full side of a 12 in lacquer. Then brought those back in AD. That's a step that lives in the sound of the final product, no matter how it's distributed and listened to (vinyl, cd, mp3)


Near the end of this very detailed SOS article/interview on the recording and mixing of Suburbs there is a section on the mastering process.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov1...es/it-1110.htm
Old 22nd March 2014
  #37
That step.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
Similar to old-timer cars or planes: Everybody loves them, everybody hypes them. There's wide consensus about their beauty. But nobody really buys or uses them, nobody wins races with them. They are not practical and incredibly inefficient by today's standards.
Intrinsic value vs. sentimental value. Preference and perception are always king no matter what reality has to do with it.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #39
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuene View Post
They mastered each song, individually to the full side of a 12 in lacquer. Then brought those back in AD. That's a step that lives in the sound of the final product, no matter how it's distributed and listened to (vinyl, cd, mp3)


Near the end of this very detailed SOS article/interview on the recording and mixing of Suburbs there is a section on the mastering process.

Craig Silvey: Mixing Arcade Fire 'The Suburbs'
This paragraph?:

"The screenshots for 'We Used To Wait' are also markedly different, much more complex and less transparent than those for 'The Suburbs'. The colour?coding is much less clear, for instance, while many tracks are greyed out, and with 30?plus tracks of drums in blue and purple, it's difficult to see what's happening. "By the time we got to this track we were two?thirds into mixing the album,” explains Silvey, "and we were probably just trying to survive, and I didn't have time to add all the nomenclature and colouring. The greyed?out stuff was muted, of course, in many cases because we didn't have enough channels on the desks to play everything back. There are also quite a lot more plug?ins on this track. For instance, there are a lot of [Waves] L2 limiters. The drums in the choruses had these gated rooms, and the room they had recorded in wasn't the most explosive?sounding, so the L2 helped to make things super?loud. It was followed by a gate that was triggered by the snare drum.”"


Are you referring to the lawnmo- uhh- L2 Limiters?
Old 23rd March 2014
  #40
No. I'm referring to this paragraph. They MASTERED IT TO VINYL. not FOR vinyl. Here is an excerpt. I don't know what you are smoking but give me some

"In fact, each song had its own 12?inch, 45rpm acetate, so we could get all the frequency information on them, while the acetate was played back only once, straight back into the computer, so the CD is based on the highest possible quality vinyl recording in mastering. Obviously, it was not cheap — we burned through a lot of acetate! But we had mastered 'The Suburbs' digitally as well, just like you would do for a CD, and when we compared the file that had gone via the acetate with the Pro Tools?only file, the difference was enormous. "
Old 23rd March 2014
  #41
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuene View Post
No. I'm referring to this paragraph. They MASTERED IT TO VINYL. not FOR vinyl. Here is an excerpt. I don't know what you are smoking but give me some

"In fact, each song had its own 12?inch, 45rpm acetate, so we could get all the frequency information on them, while the acetate was played back only once, straight back into the computer, so the CD is based on the highest possible quality vinyl recording in mastering. Obviously, it was not cheap — we burned through a lot of acetate! But we had mastered 'The Suburbs' digitally as well, just like you would do for a CD, and when we compared the file that had gone via the acetate with the Pro Tools?only file, the difference was enormous. "
OK, the last paragraph before the 'gray' section at the bottom. Yeah, saw that. So they mastered it "digitally".

So in plain English, what "final step" are you guys referring to?
Old 23rd March 2014
  #42
I can't tell if you are messing with me.

They mastered each track down to a 45 rpm lacquer. Then recorded it on the first virgin pass back into digital. THIS is the copy that then every format is copied from. So you are hearing, no matter what, the mastered vinyl track when you listen to the suburbs.

Master TO vinyl. Instead of tape or digital. Vinyl is part of the final product, period.
Old 23rd March 2014
  #43
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuene View Post
I can't tell if you are messing with me.

They mastered each track down to a 45 rpm lacquer. Then recorded it on the first virgin pass back into digital. THIS is the copy that then every format is copied from. So you are hearing, no matter what, the mastered vinyl track when you listen to the suburbs.

Master TO vinyl. Instead of tape or digital. Vinyl is part of the final product, period.

Reread post #33 and see if I'm messing with you. I'm not Donald Rumsfeld, so I don't have any reason to play mind games with you.


I'm just having a difficult time comprehending what you have been saying in subsequent responses. Please bear with me and clarify. Are you saying that they already are mastering from vinyl via the lacquer you mentioned?
Old 23rd March 2014
  #44
I'm saying that the physical qualities of vinyl play a part in this album as we all hear it, and if they hadn't mastered it down to vinyl (and the mixing/mastering engineers tried it both ways) it would sound different. In this case the people making the record decided it sounded better than the straight digital alternative. And it was a successful record, both commercially and critically. Whether or not you choose to listen to it on vinyl or CD, a vinyl translation is embedded in the record's DNA and has made an imprint on the sound. It's employed an aesthetic artistic choice, like choosing a mic or a preamp. It's not identical to all other available options.
Old 23rd March 2014
  #45
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuene View Post
I'm saying that the physical qualities of vinyl play a part in this album as we all hear it, and if they hadn't mastered it down to vinyl (and the mixing/mastering engineers tried it both ways) it would sound different. In this case the people making the record decided it sounded better than the straight digital alternative. And it was a successful record, both commercially and critically. Whether or not you choose to listen to it on vinyl or CD, a vinyl translation is embedded in the record's DNA and has made an imprint on the sound. It's employed an aesthetic artistic choice, like choosing a mic or a preamp. It's not identical to all other available options.

And in this specific case, before it went to CD, was it L2'd or not?
Old 23rd March 2014
  #46
Gear Maniac
 

I've debated the merits of analog sound many times on here before.

A few things I must get out of the way before getting into my take:

1) I know no matter what I say, I will not be able to convince anybody of their hard earned impressions.

2) I have an inherent bias towards vintage technologies (tubes, tape, vinyl, carburetors, etc). I'm that kind of guy, and still rather young (34).

3) I'm a licensed electrical engineer, but prefer what my ears tell me than the science.

I have many counter arguments for every analog bash. Back in college, it was taught very simply the difference between analog and digital -- a pure analog wave versus the quantized/sampled version of it. So to me, that was the ultimate difference. Conversations about jitter, wow/flutter where minor technicalities.

I believe the digital proponent's argument is that while they acknowledge that analog is a purer recording/playback methodology, the equipment that is executing it is not as good. That's somewhat valid as even the biggest vinyl/tape diehard will admit that a s*** turntable and phono amp will not hold up against a good DAC.

There are many variables that ultimately affect playback. I'd love for there to be some fun scientific ways to compare recordings for the sake of comparing. You use the best technology for digital and analog and have a wide array of people listen and offer opinions.

My subjective take on analog vs. digital is that the best LPs and tape I've heard do four things consistently better than digital:

a) A fuller sound in the midrange/midbass region
b) A more filled out/three dimensional soundstage
c) Vocals that are more "open" sounding
d) Smoother top end

I listen to a lot of music both audiophile and non audiophile. Not every LP will set the world on fire, but the nice ones are special.

I'm also privy to be around some really super high end DACs. They can make some recordings sound damn good and pretty "analog" sounding, but I don't know if they've ever crossed over fully. And I'm talking about some pretty expensive DACs that most people won't have access to.

A lot of guys like to debate for the sake of debating I think. Even if you can prove that analog is not as "pure" a recording medium as digital, I'll just offer that I don't care. I like the sound better in most instances, and that's all that I (and quite a few others) care about.

I have a few ideas why analog is better sounding than digital that are rarely ever discussed:

1) there is a difference between analog from analog source versus analog from digital source -- basically, the D/A conversion will "lose" stuff in the process, particularly dynamic range and what not.

There's talk that CD has a 96 dB dynamic range (or something like that), and DVD-A is up in the 110-120 range. Vinyl and tape a lowly 70 something. Yet I've never heard the difference ever be that staggering, and I'd argue that the analog stuff is more dynamic.

Even if you're not inclined to agree, how the hell do you explain a theoretical difference that big not being sensed in the real world?

I'm chalking it up to comparing two different domains altogether. We can't listen to music in "digital" so the fact that it's being converted has to mean something.

Turntables and tape have no need for a conversion process.

2) There is more potential to improve the sound of analog playback than digital playback. In a DAC you can improve the chip and then the analog stage to a good extent.

But on vinyl and tape, you have more working parts that can be improved.

3) Not having any frequency limitations for analog probably means smoother harmonics. The need to record past 17-20 khz is largely unnecessary IMHO (playback even less important), but the fact that there's this limitation placed on digital in the need of a Nyquist sampling principle probably means something.

Great sounding digital is very nice. I have no problem with it, don't bash it, etc. I like it, but it always seems to be more of a "clinical" sound that's very "neat" and "precise" but not as much "soul" when compared to a top LP or tape. Emphasis on "top", because not every LP or tape sounds outstanding.

One could argue that digital is still better but the mastering is never as good as the analog stuff for whatever reason. It's possible, but when the overwhelming experience suggests otherwise, it becomes hard to believe.

Have you ever heard a good direct to disc cut? Amazing stuff. Why aren't the all digital recordings getting such acclaim?

And to keep it simple, that Sheffield Lab drum record -- I want to hear an all digital recording come close to that.

Myself and my good friend who sells this stuff are really into analog. We evaluate everything on a case by case basis and don't bash digital for the sake of bashing it. But for the most part we really like this stuff, and modify vintage tables and collect reel to reel decks in the pursuit of maximum enjoyment to accompany the nice DACs and digital listening.

If anything in this post shall resonate, let it be known that we are not buying LPs for the "artwork" and vintageness. We're not into that indie rock scene. We like good jazz, classical, r&B, classic rock, '80s pop, etc.

It's all about the sound, and there's big business in the gear. A lot of turntables that cost good money. R2R tape decks on the resurgence. This stuff costs money and is a pain to operate.

Sure it looks cool but it it's not technically more enjoyable, it's a waste. Cassette tapes recorded well played back with a nice Nakamichi deck are nice but not quite as good as digital, so having a nice deck is relegated to just a hobby to preserve the ability to play old tapes. But nothing more.

Even if you don't "agree", all of these people's tastes (and hearing) can't be wrong, can it?

The main reason why digital will remain forever is because of the convenience factor. Analog only exists as it is for sound quality. If it can't provide that, then why should it exist?
Old 23rd March 2014
  #47
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioaddict View Post
Even if you don't "agree", all of these people's tastes (and hearing) can't be wrong, can it?
Where are all these people? Do you mean the 30.000 geeks loudly protecting their own personal idea of "good old times" and ridiculously outdated idea of "audiophile materialism"? These guys in contrast the 1-3 billion casual listeners who are perfectly happy with what they have today? (mp3/cd)
Old 23rd March 2014
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuene View Post
No. I'm referring to this paragraph. They MASTERED IT TO VINYL. not FOR vinyl. Here is an excerpt. I don't know what you are smoking but give me some

SNIP
I've done this a couple times. The whole lacquer channel becomes an effect. DAC, cutting amp, cutting head, lacquer, repro cartridge and preamp, ADC. Multiple electronic and mechanical stages. When cuts are done at the out outer edge of a 14" master lacquer disc the frequency response is excellent, saturation, sibilance and tracing distortion are minimized and you can cut a deep and wide groove so noise is also minimized. It's the same idea as running through an analog tape deck in mastering but the effect is more pronounced.
Old 23rd March 2014
  #49
ECM
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_K_Man View Post
And if you put on CD EXACTLY what was put on vinyl(pre-riaa curve of course) with no additional compression and no final brick wall, it will sound just as "warm", "pleasant", and "rich" as it did on the analog. And those are the facts.

S.I.S.O.
Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly.

But are you saying, that the exact same source from the vinyl, and then burned on to CD without anything changed, the CD playback will sound just as "warm", "pleasant", and "rich" ?

If you are saying that, you could not be more wrong.
Old 23rd March 2014
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioaddict View Post
I've debated the merits of analog sound many times on here before.
I love them both. It's hard to argue against the euphonic beauty of a great analog chain or the neutrality of a great digital chain. Some like to put the excitement in the recording. Others like it in the playback system. At work I like the former and at home I like the latter. Different tools for different reasons. All completely valid aesthetic choices.

Quote:
I have an inherent bias towards vintage technologies (tubes, tape, vinyl, carburetors, etc).
Speaking as a former farm kid, I do NOT miss carburetors...
Old 23rd March 2014
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECM View Post
Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly.

But are you saying, that the exact same source from the vinyl, and then burned on to CD without anything changed, the CD playback will sound just as "warm", "pleasant", and "rich" ?

If you are saying that, you could not be more wrong.

Prove it.
Old 23rd March 2014
  #52
ECM
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_K_Man View Post
Prove it.
Actually it's you who needs to prove otherwise. Its standard knowledge that vinyl has a different warmer richer sound, compared to play back on a CD.

Saying they both sound the same obviously puts out the assumption that you have never actually heard vinyl in the flesh.
Old 23rd March 2014
  #53
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECM View Post
Actually it's you who needs to prove otherwise. Its standard knowledge that vinyl has a different warmer richer sound, compared to play back on a CD.

Saying they both sound the same obviously puts out the assumption that you have never actually heard vinyl in the flesh.
You have a point there, in your first paragraph. Analog/vinyl freq response is not as flat as digital, so one is more sensitive to the mids that lend perceived warmth. Phase is not always linear.

But I'm focusing mainly on dynamics. Transfer the master tape for vinyl directly to CD and you will see equivalent performance in that respect.
Old 23rd March 2014
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Jay-'s Avatar
id rather listen to pink Floyd over a crappy telephone where I was pumping quarters into it then have
any current top 40 act sing to me in person.
Old 23rd March 2014
  #55
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay- View Post
id rather listen to pink Floyd over a crappy telephone where I was pumping quarters into it then have
any current top 40 act sing to me in person.
How about track #6 off Dark Side? LOL love it!!
Old 23rd March 2014
  #56
Lives for gear
 
47radAR's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe View Post
I just love the sound of vinyl. In many cases I have the CD and the record of the same album. I like them both but for different reasons.

There is nothing wrong with listening to vinyl or a CD. It is music and if you enjoy it so much the better. I wish more people took time to really listen to music today. Most people have it on as a noise source when the are driving or walking or running. To actually sit down and really listen to a record for 40+ minutes (with a turn over int he middle) is really satisfying.

I have a number of interns working here. They all have some vinyl and they all have a turntable, speakers and an amplifier to listen to the vinyl on. They also have their IPODS or their phones or their laptops or tablets so they can take their music with them. They come into the mastering room and we listen to vinyl together and they go out and buy more vinyl. They have learned what it means to really listen to music for 40+ minutes and not be doing 83 other things at the same time. They also are learning how to listen and what are the difference between the vinyl and CD copies of the same thing. Educated ears may mean that people will get upset with the quality of MP3s and start wanting to listen to CDs and Vinyl again. I am all for the vinyl rebirth.

Long live vinyl!
Awesome post.
Old 24th March 2014
  #57
mfx
Lives for gear
 
mfx's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trell Blaze View Post
Awesome post.
+1

Love my music.

All formats have their pros and cons personally it's mp3 (for convenience) or buy vinyl. Don't get the point of CD's nowadays. TBH CDs are dated. Stack up a load of wav files for the quality and don't have to bother ejecting a disk.

Nice to think I am supporting the industry in some way I guess...said before, I'll say it again. Dig the vinyl.
Old 24th March 2014
  #58
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfx View Post
+1

Love my music.

All formats have their pros and cons personally it's mp3 (for convenience) or buy vinyl. Don't get the point of CD's nowadays. TBH CDs are dated. Stack up a load of wav files for the quality and don't have to bother ejecting a disk.

Nice to think I am supporting the industry in some way I guess...said before, I'll say it again. Dig the vinyl.
Hope that hard-drive fulla wavs or mp3s never crashes on ya! CDs(of what you really like) make excellent backups in the case of the unthinkable.
Old 24th March 2014
  #59
mfx
Lives for gear
 
mfx's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_K_Man View Post
Hope that hard-drive fulla wavs or mp3s never crashes on ya! CDs(of what you really like) make excellent backups in the case of the unthinkable.
Thats the beauty no worries. 1 music hard drive and a backup portable. all good.

lets face it no format is indestructible.
Old 24th March 2014
  #60
would be interesting to check some of those:

Stockfisch DMM-CD/SACD

anyone?
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump