|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.54.141.64
I've never really see anyone address this issue on this forum. It has been demonstrated that in some cases a recording that was originally mastered in analog will sound better when played back in an analog format such as LP record. Something gets lost in the translation when the recording is digitized.
It has never been demonstrated to the best of my knowledge that a recording that was mastered in digital will sound better than or even as good for that matter when recorded to analog. Why would it?
So then what is the point of buying a vinyl record that is esentially just an inferior copy of the CD? Why not just listen to the CD or better yet, the digital files directly?
Follow Ups:
I can't work up much enthusiasm for anyone who claims to know how something sounds based on logic without ever having heard it.
Have complete respect for anyone's opinion of how something sounds based on actually listening to it.
Mixed in digital, and I heard it in the studio during the mix sessions, but the vinyl is better. Maybe Ryan Smith's great mastering? (It wasn't Greg Calbi, who was credited.) Maybe my modded-to-death VTL phono stage? Donno what it is, but it just seems more glued together on the LP.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
I don't think it matters one bit if a record has digital engineering in it at some point as long as they know what they are doing. I guess pure analog has the benefit of remaining in one domain but a good engineer will know how to go between domains just fine.
What makes sense to me is that vinyl is necessarily intended for dedicated two channel listening so they engineer the playback to sound best in that environment. Digital suffers from its convenience. You can listen to it in your car, on a crowded bus or while jogging etc... They have to engineer digital to sound good when competing with road noise and everything else. I love headphones but they make you want less dynamic music. If one track is quiet and the other is loud you blast your head off on the one or can't hear the other. All this pressures the sound engineer creating a digital recording to get rid of dynamics, make all voices identical and really just washes away nuance and subtlety. For me, many of the musical qualities that engage me are things like articulation, dynamics and voice separation. That is hard to do when engineering to compete with road noise or cheap ear buds and an iPhone.
I record a lot of my vinyl because I travel a lot and for the convenience. I went on a long road trip recently and my digitally recorded vinyl sounded terrible in my car, just terrible. I couldn't hear a thing!!! Through my stereo though it sounded wonderful.
None of that is a problem with vinyl because the engineer can just focus on dedicated stereo playback in a living room or listening room etc... I bet digital engineered for that environment will sound just as good if not better than vinyl.
Nate
You can't cheat an honest man, never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump -- W.C. Fields
Whilst no one would be able to successfully defend CD as an accurate digital medium when compared to the higher resolution digital master or analogue master using the definitions in Communication Theory, it should be remembered that the effect of mastering in combination with different dithering and noise-shaping algorithms will affect the subjective quality of a CD when trying to compare to other media. It is impossible to directly compare LP and CD simply because of the different mastering process applied to each - the CDs are often very compressed and normalised to 0dB peaks which can cause clipping distortion according to some white papers discussing the effect of upsampling in the playback chain.
Similarly the quality of the analogue output stage of a DAC strongly influences the resultant sound. Certainly at the consumer level, engineering is all about compromises with respect to the cost of the product. I have countless cartridges and they all sound very different. Some sound silky smooth like a fine Scotch whilst others sound remarkably like a redbook CD with an incisive top end.
LP can never be "more accurate" since (certainly in the past) the mastering process involved additional EQ to tame HF energy in order to prevent excessive heat being dissipated in the cutting head (causing failure) which is necessarily more pronounced on the inner grooves since the lower groove velocity limits the maximum recorded wavelength. Given that LF signals must also necessarily be summed to mono given the limitations in maximum vertical modulation that can be cut to avoid fill issues in pressing, there is no way you could even consider an LP to be more accurate on playback with respect to the analogue master or even compared to redbook "digital".
Factor in the effect of stamper ageing and pressing faults....
It is probably best to accept that CDs are just a different flavour, which may or may not be to your taste depending on the mastering and playback, but has little to do with "accuracy" using accepted definitions from Communication Theory.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
- I can tell you that if the producer of the LP has any common sense, then the LP mastering engineer is working with the master file that has not been adulterated with some of the DSP that infects CDs.At the very most the only processing in the file should be normalization.
Quite often the source file has greater resolution- 24 bits, maybe 88KHz or 96KHz scan frequencies, that sort of thing. Some of the higher scan frequencies like 96KHz don't break down well to Redbook and so don't sound much better at all (on CD), even though the source file is quite a bit better.
So under these circumstances its usually pretty easy to turn out a project that can sound better than the same thing on CD. The LP mastering system has wider bandwidth and amazing dynamic range- much more than most people realize. The limitation of the LP is in playback, not record.
Now if the producer of the LP is an idiot, he will have given us the same master file as used for the CD. At that point the LP will sound nearly identical.
So as others have pointed out, there is no hard and true answer here.
Edits: 06/25/15
Check the loudness war info site: www.dr.loudness-war.info
Even a cursory look will show you that most mastering for LPs, even when sourced from the same original digital files, has usually much better dynamic range than the masterings done for CDs. Sad but true. Only the CDs from the 80s are free of this plague (but I guess those have another problems), and some modern exceptions.
I guess this came from the realisation in the 90s that CD sounded thin when compared to vinyl: The so-called mastering "engineers" decided to squeeze the CDs dynamic range to attain an apparently more powerful sound. Utter trash which is common nowdays.
Joaqu
It seems there is more compression on digital files for CD than those for LP, simply for no other reason than they want it to sound good in a car. There is no such expectation for LP, so the master file often has no compression.
nt
Dman
Analog Junkie
nt
My experience has been that the difference between good vinyl and good digital (all digitally sourced) is the mastering.
I recently downloaded the new Alabama Shakes album (Sound and Color), it was a 24 bit 44.1 KHz file (if I recall correctly). As much as I enjoyed the music the recording itself didn't sound very good, volume compressed. Later I saw a vinyl copy at my local record store so I picked it up to give it a try. Wow - this sounds good, all the way through.
It appears that the final mastering to media was done by different people who handled the controls differently. Clearly the person mastering the CD decided to "crank it up" and cooked the music, btw the CD sounds fine on a crappy stereo. My listening of the album tells me that the person mastering the vinyl kept the dials (gain I guess) low and the result is a smoother sound with actual dynamics - worthy of a better stereo rig.
.
nt
But this forum has been around so many years, you have to expect some repetition. I think this question is going to come up even more often as more people are able to buy and play the original 24-bit files that were mixed down to make many 16-bit CDs (edit:) and LPs.
Edits: 06/25/15
Many of the indie groups of today give you both formats when you buy the LP and some include a download as well. I generally find that the LP still sounds best of all. With that said, my analog front end is much superior to my digital format.
Tom Collins
That's true, Tom, but those downloads may only be 16-bit CD quality or less, while the LPs if not fully analog may be made with 24-bit masters, as was the case with the new jazz release discussed here a few days ago.
Anyway, my plan is to let issues like this work themselves out without me getting too deep into them.
Best,
Roy
i prefer an analog master but some are deteriorated. a digitally mastered LP CAN sound very good but of course that depends on its source and the people that are doing the remastering.
it pays to read as many reviews as possible of the different incarnations. discogs has been a great source for my friend who has had great luck there with discs he has bought there.
http://store.acousticsounds.com/index.cfm?get=results&searchtext=midnight+blue
...regards...tr
I always pickup the Soundstream Lps I run across, as I have great luck with them and think the sound is excellent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundstream
Keep in mind that the masters are at a much higher resolution than the CDs (at least they should be).So when you buy a digitally mastered LP ,it should still sound better than a CD all other things being equal.
enjoy,
mark
But what if you can get a digital copy at the original, higher, sampling/bit rate?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
At that point I think it depends on the quality of your playback equipment.
enjoy,
mark
It seems there is no hard and fast answer.
Is the media itself most important or is it the skill of the person doing the mastering? I believe that every step in the process from recording through to home playback "leaves a mark".
Anecdotal evidence that proves nothing:
I have CD and LP copies of the Beatles Yellow Submarine Songtrack and Clapton' Unplugged. Both of the titles sound better on LP than the CDs. Though the Beatles material was originally analog, the LP is certainly cut from a digitized file, as was the CD. The Clapton was probably digital from the get-go, yet sounds better on vinyl.
On the other hand, I recently bought a Blue Note re-issue (one of the cheaper ones) of Midnight Blue. It sounds awful compared to my RVG series CD. This Kenney Burrell title was certainly recorded analog, and there are probaly better sounding viny issues than the one I have, but it serves to illustrate that there is no simple answer to your question.
Good luck.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: