Question for you vinyl people out there.

[lovinthehd]

Analog is still used to master and press LP's. I thought it was ALL digital till I started researching it and discovered a number of facilities that do the remastering and pressing onsite, completely in analog. Here is one in particular:

I just bought their Jimi Hendrix Are You Experienced from there. The entire interview is a bit long winded but there are some revelations to be had about the process vs consumer perception.

Other facilities take the analog data and once fully ready to press, will indeed dump it to 24 bit 192khz audio formats or even greater. Either way, the LP will have been made with a greater quality source than the CD is capable of playing back. The quality of the final vinyl album is still subject to foul play in the process though.

How is the quality exceeding that of the original master tapes themselves, tho? I got the Are You Experienced remix on bluray in 5.1....I seriously doubt the vinyl is better than that, let alone capable of being better than that....

 

[WookieGR]

They could just recode to both analog and digital at the same time. Worth it? Not unless you think most people care, which they don't.

I'd wager most of the vinyl produced today is just a pressing of the digital recording. Most artists/producers aren't going to waste the time recording specifically for vinyl.

They do actually. All vinyl masters are different than the CD masters. I explained in another thread why this is but in a nutshell, the vinyl recording can't handle the mix if it's done a certain way cause damage to the hardware and possible needle skipping. Plus, dynamic range is different as well as frequencies used. It's a whole process and that's mainly why some album never get a vinyl release, not because there's no way to schedule the pressing but because they have to remix the entire album.

 

[WookieGR]

How is the quality exceeding that of the original master tapes themselves, tho? I got the Are You Experienced remix on bluray in 5.1....I seriously doubt the vinyl is better than that, let alone capable of being better than that....

I have no explanations for anyone's claims. I haven't listened to my record yet so I don't even know how it sounds. A lot of people were giving those guys sh!t online about their content choice in remastering Are You Experienced because it's not that great of a recording to begin with. But their catalog, manufacturing process and vinyl quality is really what stands out more.

 

[panteragstk]

They do actually. All vinyl masters are different than the CD masters. I explained in another thread why this is but in a nutshell, the vinyl recording can't handle the mix if it's done a certain way cause damage to the hardware and possible needle skipping. Plus, dynamic range is different as well as frequencies used. It's a whole process and that's mainly why some album never get a vinyl release, not because there's no way to schedule the pressing but because they have to remix the entire album.

I get that the mastering is different, but at the end of the day it's still the digital recording being used for most modern releases. There are exceptions like we're discussing, but those don't seem to be the norm.

What will be really interesting is when folks decide to bring back cassettes and 8-tracks. Let the nostalgia wash over or whatever.

 

[WookieGR]

I get that the mastering is different, but at the end of the day it's still the digital recording being used for most modern releases. There are exceptions like we're discussing, but those don't seem to be the norm.

What will be really interesting is when folks decide to bring back cassettes and 8-tracks. Let the nostalgia wash over or whatever.

I hope to find out more about this process. I'm not a fan that most records are digitally sourced but at the same time, I think the majority of people getting back into vinyl don't do HD Tracks or Tidal HD or whatever so the records sound pretty good still.

 

[panteragstk]

I hope to find out more about this process. I'm not a fan that most records are digitally sourced but at the same time, I think the majority of people getting back into vinyl don't do HD Tracks or Tidal HD or whatever so the records sound pretty good still.

I'd wager you're probably right about that.

 

[lovinthehd]

I have no explanations for anyone's claims. I haven't listened to my record yet so I don't even know how it sounds. A lot of people were giving those guys sh!t online about their content choice in remastering Are You Experienced because it's not that great of a recording to begin with. But their catalog, manufacturing process and vinyl quality is really what stands out more.

The original tapes are limited for sure. The remix/remastered job on the 5.1 bluray is very good and the disc format has capabilities beyond the tape to begin with. Contemporary's catalog is more extensive than I'd have thought. I believe Bernie and Chad also believe in magic cables IIRC, so there's that, too. If they are doing high quality mastering from tape and/or digital sources and making sure the vinyl is top quality, all the more power to them, tho. It won't get me to buy their vinyl, tho....

 

[TLS Guy]

Do you think that big labels like RCA, British Decca, MCA, Philips, Odeon, Polydor, Universal etc. use analog tape machines to produce new LPs? That would imply that artists and orchestras would have to perform twice for the same recorded music, the first take for the CD and the second one for the LP.

The number of vinyls produced by the facilities you mention represent a very small percentage of all the vinyls released.

You would not have to perform it twice. You can make an analog recording and a digital one at the same time. Analog tape with Dolby A or dbx 1 is the equal of any digital recording. You can send the feed to the DAW and an analog machine at the same time.

The problem comes making the dub from which the LP master will be cut. Both tape and digital will have a higher dynamic range than the cutter can handle, also the bass may be excessive in parts. The latter can be handled with an equalizer. Dynamic compression is usually done with a gated compressor. Skill is required to set the attack and release times, so you don't have noticeable artefact. You can also do the dub manually and gain ride it be reading the score as you so the dub. If there is a skilled person around that is the best way to do it.

 

[TLS Guy]

The original tapes are limited for sure. The remix/remastered job on the 5.1 bluray is very good and the disc format has capabilities beyond the tape to begin with. Contemporary's catalog is more extensive than I'd have thought. I believe Bernie and Chad also believe in magic cables IIRC, so there's that, too. If they are doing high quality mastering from tape and/or digital sources and making sure the vinyl is top quality, all the more power to them, tho. It won't get me to buy their vinyl, tho....

The tapes will be a little limited as far as S/N ratio if made before Dolby A and dbx 1 etc. After that analog can easily stand the comparison with any digital recording, is made with care.

I hope to find out more about this process. I'm not a fan that most records are digitally sourced but at the same time, I think the majority of people getting back into vinyl don't do HD Tracks or Tidal HD or whatever so the records sound pretty good still.

What do you want to know? I have made professional analog and digital recordings. I still have my analog rig in tact from before the digital era. I also have my original digital rig and now a pro DAW. I still have my mix panel and my microphones. But I don't do live recording anymore.

I used to do my own editing, and still do digital editing and EQ. Occasionally I am still called upon to do an analog edit. I keep a supply of one sided razor blades, my EMI editing block and splicing tape handy. All my tools are still with me.

That is my digital and analog recording systems. Analog tape machines, a DAW with pro mixer DAC. 16 channel mix panel in a pull out draw below the digital mixing desk. Dolby A & B, dbx 1 and 2 noise reductions available, including dbx LP disc decoder. There is also a DAT recorder. All accumulated over 50 years.

I used to record and master for LPs. and for many years I did the outside broadcast work for the public radio station as a community service.

 

[lovinthehd]

The tapes will be a little limited as far as S/N ratio if made before Dolby A and dbx 1 etc. After that analog can easily stand the comparison with any digital recording, is made with care.

 

[lovinthehd]

The tapes will be a little limited as far as S/N ratio if made before Dolby A and dbx 1 etc. After that analog can easily stand the comparison with any digital recording, is made with care.

More going on the comments made by the people involved at both ends of the timeframe. They did a good job in transfer to a 5.1 mix in any case. IMO in this case vinyl just can't compare, it's simply not capable.

 

[highfigh]

So you think that big vinyl manufacturers are still using analog tape decks to master vinyls. I strongly doubt that and believe that they have been using digital recordings to produce vinyls since the early 1980's. Early CDs sounded like crap because some sound engineers were incompetent with the serious O dB limit with digital recordings.

They will if the artist might sell a lot of LPs.

They used some digital recording in the early-'80s but it was early days and they still had a lot to learn about what they could get away with. The first CDs were old titles, not new recordings and when the Sony CDP-101 became available, Columbia only had 25 available discs- I worked for one of the first 50 dealers to receive this model and remember it well- I can come up with a partial list from memory, but if you want to see how a CD was recorded, look at the SPARS code- it uses a simple letter for each step- basic tracks (recording), Mixing and Mastering.

I don't know if you heard many of the first CDs, but most sounded like crap because they were mastered by people who were familiar with analog, not digital. Anyone can back off the peak signal but what do you do about the dynamics if the quiet parts will be lost to silence or, if the level is jacked up, lost to dither? They needed to squash the dynamic range via compression/limiting and that changes the overall sound but another problem is that they didn't re-equalize for a playback medium that can provide a flat response- they sometimes. Also, the marketing was terrible- they made people think there would be no noise, although some of the people whose complaints I heard weren't thinking about when the original was recorded, or where. I had one guy call and complain about the hiss on The Who- Live At Leeds.

 

[highfigh]

Do you think that big labels like RCA, British Decca, MCA, Philips, Odeon, Polydor, Universal etc. use analog tape machines to produce new LPs? That would imply that artists and orchestras would have to perform twice for the same recorded music, the first take for the CD and the second one for the LP.

The number of vinyls produced by the facilities you mention represent a very small percentage of all the vinyls released.

Why would they need to replay the performance? I guess you didn't consider the possibility that two completely separate recording rigs would be used or that the sound on the multi-track recording is far from what the final product becomes. They don't just change the levels for mastering- they add effects, change the EQ, adjust the phase, adjust the pan pots to create the illusion of a stereo image- there's a lot going on in the pre-mastering period. The basic tracks are for getting the 'take' and finding a sound they can use for the final product, not making a finished recording- most non Classical or Jazz artists wouldn't do this but that's what 'direct to disc' and 'direct to tape' did.

Most people have come to expect low noise recordings but some will allow a bit of it if the performance is great and they prefer the sounds from analog mixing and recording- In a software package like ProTools, someone has the ability to use emulators for all kinds of amplifiers, effects (rack-mounted studio type or stomp boxes), synths and other devices. They sound good and on casual listening, they sound very real but in a direct comparison, there's usually something that's different. If a recording uses only devices that have been traditionally used pre-digital, there's no emulation, no approximation- it's the sound made by those instruments.

 

[highfigh]

Red Hot Chili Peppers and Jack White are all about the analog these days.

Jack White has his own LP pressing plant. Yeah, he's that serious about it.

 

[highfigh]

I get that the mastering is different, but at the end of the day it's still the digital recording being used for most modern releases. There are exceptions like we're discussing, but those don't seem to be the norm.

What will be really interesting is when folks decide to bring back cassettes and 8-tracks. Let the nostalgia wash over or whatever.

Cassettes and 8 Tracks could never sound as good as a well-recorded/produced/cut LP or CD, or even a decent open reel tape made on a good machine, reputation of the Nakamich Dragon included- the limitations of the medium and the tweaking that needs to be done WRT noise reduction, finding the correct bias & EQ for the tapes on cassette make it too variable. 8Track was never for sound quality- it was for portability and decorating road signs.

The number of exceptions is growing, though.

 

[TLS Guy]

More going on the comments made by the people involved at both ends of the timeframe. They did a good job in transfer to a 5.1 mix in any case. IMO in this case vinyl just can't compare, it's simply not capable.

The biggest limitation of tape in production was that you had to make iterations, so errors comport. You had to be a really good tech.

So you have the master in code, then you have to make a copy in code to do razor blade editing. You dare not do it on the master. The you had to do a dub that your could use to make the master disc.

Although noise reduction solved the problem of additive tape hiss, you had to keep your machines in perfect order. The reason is that copying in code, doubles FR errors. The next issue is that in making the tape for master you had to remember that and listen carefully as your Eq changes were doubled.

This is all a highly skilled operation. I can not begin to tell you how much easier it is to work in the digital domain.

Having that the LPs I produced are a very faithful copy of the master tape within the limits of what can be cut.

I have many LPs in my collection that I bet if I played them you would not know it was not a CD.

 

[WookieGR]

We were listening to a lot of music last night that were a mix of 24/96 files, CD rips to FLAC and LP's. Mostly all 24/96 but when someone left the room and came back, I had a normal CD rip to FLAC playing and that person noticed immediately how harsh and difficult it was to listen to at the volumes we were at compared to the other formats. It doesn't take long to realize the higher resolution file formats and great vinyls have a certain easy listening to them that are lacking in traditional 16/44 CD's. Even Amazon Music at CD quality was hard to tolerate after getting use to the higher res.

I would certainly hope that if someone was listening to a well mastered LP there would be no doubt it was not a CD.

But I get the analogy that it will be clean and free of a roaring campfire in the background.

The way we interpret artificial sound isn't that far off from how we interpret artificial sight. When watching something at 24fps like a movie, it looks normal but shift it to 60fps (HFR) like the theatrical release of the Hobbit or Gemini Man and you pickup more in the fast pans and subtle movements. For gaming, 60fps over 30fps is the expectation to avoid jitteriness. But pump it up to 120fps or even 144fps and 60fps suddenly looks stuttery when it was once buttery smooth. I've witnessed this on my own gaming setup. I don't have the horsepower to run everything at 120fps/4K but I could I would. Not because I coul dbut because it's a phenomenal experience at 85".

Sound is the same way if you spend enough time really paying attention to it and have the right components to resolve those differences. The problem with noticing it is it becomes a drug and you start to pursue more of it and your requirements start to change. That's when you get booted from the hobbyist camp and enter the enthusiast camp that teeters on obsessiveness. It's out of reach for me since I am a mere commoner, but I have tasted a bit of it with my new system.

I would like to believe there's no way to audibly tell 24/96 from 24/192 and I likely never will since I doubt I could afford the kind of system needed to resolve that or ever hear one in my lifetime. Naturally, the nature of vinyl prohibits that possibility because it still has a limited range but in the digital realm it's doable. Which is why a lot of people online tend to think it's all a scam to sell higher priced digital content.

I don't believe records are the audio nirvana most "philes" believe they are simply because that's where they stopped. But I love them anyways and will still try to clean them up when I can.

 

[Squishman]

I use https://vinylvac.net/ to clean my records. It does a nice job. Here is the cleaning system you can build:

 

[WookieGR]

I've seen many use wood glue on older records with great success. More for restoration than simple cleaning though.

 

[lovinthehd]

The biggest limitation of tape in production was that you had to make iterations, so errors comport. You had to be a really good tech.

So you have the master in code, then you have to make a copy in code to do razor blade editing. You dare not do it on the master. The you had to do a dub that your could use to make the master disc.

Although noise reduction solved the problem of additive tape hiss, you had to keep your machines in perfect order. The reason is that copying in code, doubles FR errors. The next issue is that in making the tape for master you had to remember that and listen carefully as your Eq changes were doubled.

This is all a highly skilled operation. I can not begin to tell you how much easier it is to work in the digital domain.

Having that the LPs I produced are a very faithful copy of the master tape within the limits of what can be cut.

I have many LPs in my collection that I bet if I played them you would not know it was not a CD.

The information with the 50th anniversary edition included some info by Eddie Kramer, who did the original mix back in '70 as well as re-mix from the original tapes, which he mentioned were with mostly on 1" twelve-track tapes for this album (vs 4 track 1/2" on previous recordings). Eddie did a really good job IMO on the 5.1 mix, easily differentiated from the 2.0 whether on vinyl or cd....