I just read this article that maintains that any new vinyl, like my daughters new , "Nicki Minaj" album sounds the way it does ( please be objective about this, please) because it was recorded digitally then transferred to vinyl, instead of recorded onto tape then transferred. Apparently tape is no longer even made!
I thought it was the way they mix new music. As most people listen to compressed mp3 i figured they make it sound like that so it sounds good on a car radio or an ipod.
Anyway, I would like an informed opinion as it sounds like hi fi b/s! What is more important, the method of capture or the method of playback?
The result would be that anything recorded since about 1990 isn't worth listening to on vinyl ( again, objective please).
I thought it was the way they mix new music. As most people listen to compressed mp3 i figured they make it sound like that so it sounds good on a car radio or an ipod.
Anyway, I would like an informed opinion as it sounds like hi fi b/s! What is more important, the method of capture or the method of playback?
The result would be that anything recorded since about 1990 isn't worth listening to on vinyl ( again, objective please).
Last edited:
I wouldn't say tape was all that good. On some records it was possible to hear tape hiss above the background noise that vinyl produces. Dolby did well out of electronic processing to improve the perceived dynamic range.
On others it was possible to hear tape print through even on on vinyl records.
On many multi-tracked and processed old records the sound quality was poor. Tape is hardly a uniform frequency response / low distortion, wide dynamic range system. Despite this some old recordings could sound pretty good.
I agree that the problem is the way they mix new music. I think that the way it has been used is more important than the technology.
In my opinion records are poor so if it is available on CD it will be generally better than how it sounds on vinyl. Vinyl is also a relatively high distortion, not brilliant dynamic range or particularly well controlled frequency response system. Some people prefer the sound quality of vinyl but I think that it is less realistic than CD. Either Vinyl or CD are OK and probably less of an issue that the loudspeakers used or the mixing process.
On others it was possible to hear tape print through even on on vinyl records.
On many multi-tracked and processed old records the sound quality was poor. Tape is hardly a uniform frequency response / low distortion, wide dynamic range system. Despite this some old recordings could sound pretty good.
I agree that the problem is the way they mix new music. I think that the way it has been used is more important than the technology.
In my opinion records are poor so if it is available on CD it will be generally better than how it sounds on vinyl. Vinyl is also a relatively high distortion, not brilliant dynamic range or particularly well controlled frequency response system. Some people prefer the sound quality of vinyl but I think that it is less realistic than CD. Either Vinyl or CD are OK and probably less of an issue that the loudspeakers used or the mixing process.
Greed and sale are the driving forces of the record industry, but let us just hope that there is just enough headroom for the sound engeneers to still take a little pride in their work. If the source of good recordings is drying out, this forum could as well change to be about Ipods and Mp3`s😕
It seems clear that 'quiet bits' in a recording will just not be audible to someone listening to headphones on a bus or in the street, so there must be pressure to reduce the dynamic range of recordings. The same goes for radio in cars. Presumably vinyl pressings will often simply use the same compressed source material.
Nowadays, however, applying compression at the playback end would be so simple and cheap, it's a shame that they can't sell/broadcast recordings with the full dynamic range and allow the user to select the compression level themselves.
Nowadays, however, applying compression at the playback end would be so simple and cheap, it's a shame that they can't sell/broadcast recordings with the full dynamic range and allow the user to select the compression level themselves.
Vinyl pressings have always needed careful manipulation of dynamics, particularly at the bottom end. But I think analogue tape was always the weakest link in the chain. We were stunned by those direct-to-disc releases. Breathtaking.
And I was amused listening the other night, at only reasonable domestic levels, to a vinyl recording of mediaeval music, where you could easily hear the tape hiss start a second before the music, and cut out a second after it finished. And this on an old album that had hardly been well looked after, and played with a Stanton 681 broadcast cartridge (the only one I have left!)
I used to make my living with analogue tape. But it was never adequate to the task.
I often wondered if vinyl and tape were mutually antithetical. A good tape recording wasn't bad. A good vinyl direct-to-disc was great. But a vinyl pressing of a tape recording was very ordinary. Hmmmm.
Terry
And I was amused listening the other night, at only reasonable domestic levels, to a vinyl recording of mediaeval music, where you could easily hear the tape hiss start a second before the music, and cut out a second after it finished. And this on an old album that had hardly been well looked after, and played with a Stanton 681 broadcast cartridge (the only one I have left!)
I used to make my living with analogue tape. But it was never adequate to the task.
I often wondered if vinyl and tape were mutually antithetical. A good tape recording wasn't bad. A good vinyl direct-to-disc was great. But a vinyl pressing of a tape recording was very ordinary. Hmmmm.
Terry
I have purchased a significant number modern vinyl recordings, most are digitally mastered, some are analog mastered. Analog recording tape is still made in Holland by RMG, and sporadically here in the USA. (Quantegy last time I knew, but very spotty from this source)
What I can say is that those recent recordings where vinyl was part of the original release plan seem to be universally good. I play them on a TD-124/II with a Schick arm and one of two Ortofon SPUs. (Meister Silver and GM E II)
The old RCA LSC and Mercury Living Presence analog tape seems to have been pretty quiet, but they often recorded at 30ips on very heavily tweaked machines. I have some of the originals on vinyl and some reissues, tape hiss isn't a problem with these recordings, but I do have plenty where the tape hiss is audible at the beginning and end, tape print through is also audible in some cases, and I have recordings that are clearly over cut as well - both recent and 1970s vintage. (Pre-echo LOL) I've also heard a number of the Tape Project reissues of RCA Masters, and these are usually breathtaking in terms of dynamics, resolution and are quiet - they're also insanely expensive.. 😱 😀
What I can say is that those recent recordings where vinyl was part of the original release plan seem to be universally good. I play them on a TD-124/II with a Schick arm and one of two Ortofon SPUs. (Meister Silver and GM E II)
The old RCA LSC and Mercury Living Presence analog tape seems to have been pretty quiet, but they often recorded at 30ips on very heavily tweaked machines. I have some of the originals on vinyl and some reissues, tape hiss isn't a problem with these recordings, but I do have plenty where the tape hiss is audible at the beginning and end, tape print through is also audible in some cases, and I have recordings that are clearly over cut as well - both recent and 1970s vintage. (Pre-echo LOL) I've also heard a number of the Tape Project reissues of RCA Masters, and these are usually breathtaking in terms of dynamics, resolution and are quiet - they're also insanely expensive.. 😱 😀
I would prefer to send a digitally mastered track on to vinyl than any analog format. Personal preference, but there are people that like the previous, I don't subscribe to "formatisim" if it sounds good, and it was tracked and mixed well, it will be enjoyable by any enthusiast.
Ditto on tape project recordings ...🙂
Funny way back when recordings we're done on tape and Playedback in the studio, that sound was never ever captured on vinyl releases. Im willing to accept somewhat that the problem with digital today maybe in the recording and mixing technique. Aside, digital recordings lose a lot of the recorded space vs analog, its apparent on instruments , voices , everything really ...
Funny way back when recordings we're done on tape and Playedback in the studio, that sound was never ever captured on vinyl releases. Im willing to accept somewhat that the problem with digital today maybe in the recording and mixing technique. Aside, digital recordings lose a lot of the recorded space vs analog, its apparent on instruments , voices , everything really ...
Last edited:
Its all the in the technique and experience of the engineer. Digital formats don't lose anything, compared to digital recordings. As a matter of fact Digital in terms of quality playback far out perform digital media here are some facts:
-
.
-
-
-
And then there is 16 Bit Digital and 24 Bit Digital
-
-
And we haven't even covered SACD or Sigma-Delta Modulation (DSD).
It is all in the quality of the song writing and the ability of the tracking and mixing engineers to capture and produce an exceptional song. The medium in which it is played back only really has an importance factor of 1%. When people talk about some format sounding superior it really is all about the "emotional" connection people make with formats and standards and nothing to do with the caliber of the engineering that goes into the production (It's really the audio/music industries version of the placebo effect). If more focus went into hiring caliber engineers rather than "cutting out the middle man" projects would sound a hell of a lot better regardless of formats.
Listen to some of Cookie Marenco's DSD recordings (noted recording engineer) available as DSF format downloads from bluecoast records and be prepared to be impressed. The recording technique is interesting and they do capture the ambiance of the space they recorded in..
Here: Home | Blue Coast Records
This should help to put to rest just how good digital can be, not that I don't generally still prefer vinyl. 😀
Here: Home | Blue Coast Records
This should help to put to rest just how good digital can be, not that I don't generally still prefer vinyl. 😀
Placebo effect is interesting , much easier than saying I dont understand, failure is eminent because of 🙄
I have heard recordings done by "claiber engineers" in "caliber studio's" and it's different, you know analog when you hear it , you know digital when you hear it , this is no "placebo effect " , music is about emotional connection, no 1 or 0's is going to define that and while digital is superior as a storage medium there is no clear cut reason as to why some find it offensive and others not .
So yes there is bad analog and it's worst than bad digital, but i would like to keep the discussion focus on the absolutes and digital is not absolutely better than Analog, quite the contrary ..
Music is about emotional content, distortion is our constant companion, maybe what we really need is a sounds good meter vs thd ...
🙂
Thanks for the link ...
Digital can be fantastic , actually i have Reels , LP's and digital all enjoyable, IMO none are mutually exclusive , so why bother .. 🙂
Everything else equal, an analog master tape played on a $5000 Studer player sounds better than a high resolution digital file through a $20,000 DAC. Most people who think digital recordings are better than analog are really just saying that they ought to be.
John
John
All vinyl cutting machines must have a delay somewhere in the chain. Because the cutting master wants to know how the record is gona sound. In the old day's this delay was just a detour of the master tape, but these old machines are mostly gone and the delays used today are digital.
So most vinyl pressed since the mid 1980's has passed a AD/DA conversion stage even if the recording, mixing and mastering were completely analogue.
And we all know digital sucks salty balls.....
So most vinyl pressed since the mid 1980's has passed a AD/DA conversion stage even if the recording, mixing and mastering were completely analogue.
And we all know digital sucks salty balls.....
Just yesterday I was listening to some Motown from the early '70's, then Mark-Almond from the early '70's, then Ry Cooder from the late '70's, all on CD. Only the Ry Cooder was digitally mastereed and mixed. The Mark-Almond has extreme dynamic range, with subtle intricate quiet segments and loud crescendos. The single-pass analog recording hiss really interferes with the experience, even on CD. I have it on vinyl too, in good condition, but it's about the same as the CD. The delivery medium doesn't matter when the capture was dirty. I'd imagine more modern digital re-mastering techniques might be able to remove some noise now, but it's too bad it's so bad to start with and of so little interest it will never get done (unless maybe I do it). Some Motown tunes have 3 layers of sound-on-sound, and the first tracks they got down sound horrible by the time they make it to 2nd or 3rd generation and maybe 4th is the disc-cutter, but they just didn't have synchronized multi-track analog decks in Detroit studios to keep everythign first-generation as they layered? As good as some of the performances are, I just wish they'd been captured digitally. And then the Ry Cooder recording is comparativley spectacularly clean for it's day. There are a few years' difference...
Most analog recording was a temproary capture that degrades from that moment and degrades more with use. It doesn't have to be that way, but the sad fact is that it was basically abandoned before refined IMHO. There's no reason we couldn't use non-contact recording lasers and non-contact laser readers for a superior analog recording system, except that it would be seen by many as a "half-way" solution to a gamut of problems and cost more than a digital system of comparable specs, and the digital version could still have superior read-error correction.
At least now most analog is archived digitally for posterity...
IMHO if you don't like digital, that's because you're using inferior consumer formats and have little exposure to the really good stuff. In my computer career I've never had a data loss, copy degradation, read "use wear" or uncorrectable error, and that's a minimum standard I expect now. I'm never going back to analog, except to read old material for digital archive or to play what's brought to me.
Most analog recording was a temproary capture that degrades from that moment and degrades more with use. It doesn't have to be that way, but the sad fact is that it was basically abandoned before refined IMHO. There's no reason we couldn't use non-contact recording lasers and non-contact laser readers for a superior analog recording system, except that it would be seen by many as a "half-way" solution to a gamut of problems and cost more than a digital system of comparable specs, and the digital version could still have superior read-error correction.
At least now most analog is archived digitally for posterity...
IMHO if you don't like digital, that's because you're using inferior consumer formats and have little exposure to the really good stuff. In my computer career I've never had a data loss, copy degradation, read "use wear" or uncorrectable error, and that's a minimum standard I expect now. I'm never going back to analog, except to read old material for digital archive or to play what's brought to me.
Then one copy of that analog master exists to be enjoyed. That sucks.
Baloney IMHO. But obviously our experiences and criteria must differ significantly. Or perhaps our definitions of "high resolution digital". I would never tolerate the hiss, print-thru, drop-outs, skew and alignment, media defects and other analog problems anymore. I don't have access to any Studer-Revox stuff anymore, but went to a friend's house and listened to some live recordings that were captured on the same 2-channel 60-ips half-track Crown deck with Dolby as it was played back on and it was pretty disappointing, 1 generation played back on the same head as it was recorded with. It was OK but just not up to modern standards IMHO. And duplicated it would degrade further unless digitized.
Analog is romantic temporary beauty, like a picked flower that wilts.
Last edited:
No one is arguing storage ... and where can we find this really good stuff you're talking about..I thought i had the good stuff already .. 🙂
Not storage so much as perfect copies, endless perfect generations, noiseless mixing, noiseless editing... But that's still not addressing his quality claims.
LOL I apologize for even stepping into this subject, like an atheist blasphemer on a religous site. I'm sure a real pro Studer (not consumer REVOX) sounds good or it would not have inspired such nostalgia.
I went to the motorcycle races and took many rolls of pictures. My friend is a professional photographer and captured much better shots. I asked how he did it...he asked how many pictures I took...I replied "a few hundred" proudly...he said his camera took a few hundred thousand, several a second and all bracketed with 3 exposures each. I kept a dozen. He kept 2. Of course his 2 were incredible. Yes, many fine-arts photographers still use film. And until recently film had superior resolution, though the giga-pixel project is now old-news. But commercial pros use digital for good reasons which I'm learning to respect. I'm feeling the same way about digital sound recently. Though I'm not quite there with guitar amps and effects, where I still prefer analog effects to most digital.
LOL I apologize for even stepping into this subject, like an atheist blasphemer on a religous site. I'm sure a real pro Studer (not consumer REVOX) sounds good or it would not have inspired such nostalgia.
I went to the motorcycle races and took many rolls of pictures. My friend is a professional photographer and captured much better shots. I asked how he did it...he asked how many pictures I took...I replied "a few hundred" proudly...he said his camera took a few hundred thousand, several a second and all bracketed with 3 exposures each. I kept a dozen. He kept 2. Of course his 2 were incredible. Yes, many fine-arts photographers still use film. And until recently film had superior resolution, though the giga-pixel project is now old-news. But commercial pros use digital for good reasons which I'm learning to respect. I'm feeling the same way about digital sound recently. Though I'm not quite there with guitar amps and effects, where I still prefer analog effects to most digital.
In the consumer realm, I admit don't know; I'm still looking for better digital sources outside a studio. Even SACD equipment and material is hard to find. Maybe I'm too easy to please.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.