 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: SACD vs. Vinyl - could mastering be the culprit? posted by tv69 on March 11, 2003 at 06:12:08:
>>>Look at the Stones re-issues on SACD/CD, Bob Ludwig (and ABKCO) went through painstaking means to try and master the new releases to match the best vinyl that could be found. In doing this, Ludwig EQed the SACDs to sound the same as the best vinyl they were able to find.<<<Why? If you want the vinyl "sound", get vinyl. If you don't want the vinyl "sound", why should it be forced upon you? When you put that album on the "table" or that disc in the "tray", don't you want to get as close to the original master (first generation) as possible? Any medium is a compromise -- there are benefits and weaknesses. Why would someone want an SACD, DVD-A or cassete tape for that matter, to be a "copy" of a second generation medium? Wouldn't you want your selection to be as close a copy of the first generation medium as possible?
Follow Ups:
Joe, I agree with you 100%. I want whatever goes to the consumer to be as close to the master tape as possible. At the same time, I would like to see minimal compression used in the mastering process.My reason for this post is to simpy inform that when you do compare vinyl to SACD/CD, vinyl is premastered differently due to physical limitations of the cutting head on the lathe that cuts the vinyl master.
You cannot take a master prepared for SACD/CD and use it to cut the vinyl master. If you do you would destroy the cutting head on the lathe.
My argument is that if you want to have a fair comparison (ONLY for the sake of comparison) between vinyl and SACD/CD, you should use the exact same master for all 3 mediums. Since there is a physical limitation with vinyl with respect to the lathe cutting head, the version mastered for vinyl should be directly digitized to SACD/CD without any additional eq-ing.
In the case of the Stones' new releases, I think that they were trying to keep them accurate from a historical point of view. I think the music should still be presented as it was originally, without any additional equalization or compression applied by the mastering engineer, who wasn't there for the original releases.
In the case of the Stones' reissues they spent a lot of time trying to dig up the original master tapes (they even obtained one through ebay) and found that the tapes used as masters on the original pressings were actually generational copies. They still needed a reference on how to equalize these newly found master tapes, and they turned in most cases to the best vinyl pressing they could find.
As a side note, if you were to send the same tape to be mastered at 4 different mastering studios, the results would all sound different. This has been demonstrated, I can't remember where. If I find the info I will post it.
Ted V.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
