Is there a way to know if vinyl reissues are taken from original analogue masters?

Agreed.

I've been actively buying vinyl for over two decades, but I've never thought that "vinyl sounds better." That's really simplistic thinking. Vinyl that is lovingly mastered, properly plated and pressed most often DOES sound better than any alternative. Our host (who has more hands and ears on experience with this stuff than just about any of us and has done direct comparisons) has said that a well-cut lacquer disc sounds closest to an analog master tape than any other format. That's good enough for me. On the flipside, vinyl often sounds WORSE than any other alternative (see Plain Records reissues). I've A/B'd really bad reissue vinyl against an MP3 of the same album and I would rather listen to the MP3!! I'm not against digitally sourced vinyl. The Rolling Stones DSD albums sound wonderful, and there are many other examples. All things being equal, I'd much rather spend my money an all-analog album. As I said before, with albums that were produced 100% analog, there is no good reason other than the aforementioned tape degradation/ damage/loss to not cut the lacquer 100% analog. It's just laziness/corner cutting on the labels' part.

 

I'm not sure SH meant that in a literal sense, I have never heard vinyl in the studio to sound closer to the mix down master than digital to its mix down, ever. That is technically not possible, particularly with a digital master...

 

This is exactly how I feel. Listen to the record.

 

Yup. And the Springsteen set too.

 

He was talking about analog masters, not digital.

 

But you can't do that until after you've bought it.

 

Coming back to this thread a year later, I just want to add that there is quite a few labels that are cutting corners; that are simply sourcing the audio from CD masters; which really defeats the purpose. They really stopped pressing vinyl from an analog source in the 1980's. It's a new trend lately of sourcing from analog, unless they make a point to come out and say that it's sourced from the analog master tapes like the latest Beatles Vinyl box set, you can bet it's from a digital source. Then you can't get the full effect of an analog source without using analog tubes in your sound setup, come on you've got to take it all the way! ;-)

 

There were all kinds of analog reissues in the 70s and 80s of material recorded earlier. Most of them were inferior to original pressings, but some were excellent and arguably better, particularly with classical music. But even those second, third etc pressings may sound better than a mediocre digitally sourced current reissue. However once the engineers discovered how much easier digital is to work with than analog, the end was near.

Posters above who said to do some research before buying are giving wise advice to those who don't have the money to waste on poor sounding reissues.

Yes many master tapes from the 60s are fading away. If the original analog recording was good and some well preserved copy tape close in generation to the master exists, I would prefer that to a digital restoration. But many marginal or poor analog recordings can often sound better from a judicious hi rez remastering. If it's not judicious they will still sound bad. Such is life.

 

This entire issue could settled if all the labels agreed to use the sourcing code info you see on some CDs (AAD, ADD, DDD, etc.). That way, you pick up the record, look at the code, and pretty much know exactly what you are buying. They would need to come up with another code to define the bit rate and freq. if a digital source was used, but no big deal. Instead, as many here have already pointed out, they prefer to keep the general public in the dark regarding such matters. They make more money that way.

 

The labels won't do squat about any of this until $ starts talking to them. The labels are in the business of selling music not selling high quality music. We sometimes forget that. There aren't enough people wanting high quality sound to make it a priority. If that wasn't the case there would be no need for these smaller boutique labels to produce the AAA albums we want. If people stopped buying the digially sourced lps a label might do something about it or they might find a different way to increase their profits.

 

but what is the point. if the music is what matters way pay more money for the record when you can buy the files that were used to make the record. the files wont degrade and you won't put as much wear and tear on your needle because you wont use it as much.

 

If you care about listening about vinyl, the best way to avoid all the angst expressed in sad, forlorn threads like this one is to use this forum as a way to get reliable feedback about what sounds great and how well specific LPs are mastered and pressed.

Or just embrace the idea you're a passive victim who's getting ripped off and go with that.

 

'Twas always that way. You never knew whether to trust the AAD code and you never knew what analog source they used in the first place. They used to put stickers on the CD remasters with some sales pitch like "new remaster from the original master tape!", somehow implying that the original master tape wasn't used for the old editions. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Maybe their idea of an "original master tape" was just whatever they had lying around at the time, even if it was just a copy made for foreign pressings. Heck, living in Canada back in the 70s it used to drive me insane that they'd just copy the country of origin's credits regardless. Sure, the Canadian copy would say on the cover that (for example) Bob Ludwig was the mastering engineer, but the disc inside would clearly be a Canadian mastering, and who knows who did that, or what they were given to do it with. You just knew that the credits were a lie, and whoever was in charge of putting the LP out up here didn't care enough to bother to correct them.

 

in the early days of cds, many times they just took the old master or sometimes a copy of the old master and put it on the cd.

 

I'm not set up for it, nor am I interested.

 

All analogue costs more than a digital conversion to a working digital file. Hence record companies will go to digital as early as possible to save money. Claims of "from the original master tapes" or "mastered from the original tapes" are just that. I have taken the stance that unless the producer and company issuing the release unequivocally state that the issue is all analogue, I will assume that there was a digital conversion in the chain. The problem is that buyers want a release as close to the master tapes as possible, so clever marketers and record companies use language designed to confuse, but is just short of a lie. Creating a new digital master from an original analogue tape is indeed a release made "from the original master tapes". Omitting the disclosure of digital is just that, an omission. This issue comes up all the time on MF web site. And even he (with all of his connections) has frequently been unable to find out the truth. So how are we to be sure ?

Conversion to digital can mean that a fragile master will be preserved, and that a "working" master will be available well into the future. Disappointing on one hand, but if the alternative is for the master to flake away from use, then conversion is justified. My problem is failing to use the highest possible resolution when converting to digital. It seems that many new releases sourced from digital conversion, were sampled at 24/48 or 24/96. Why not 24/192 or DSD ? Why not use the best possible resolution ? The difference is audible. A hi-rez master can be downsampled. A carefully remastered issue, sourced from a 24/192 or DSD file can sound very nice, and can come very close to an all analogue pressing. I would rather purchase something like this with full disclosure, than a hyped reissue with vague language surrounding the provenance of the source.

 

Lacquer cutting a vinyl press run will create a different animal altogether than what the source is, the person mastering the cut is responsible for creating something that sounds good when played back by a stylus.
It could be very accurate and balanced, or different and arguably better, or different and arguably worse.

Tubes are definitely tools for coloring your sound, this can go several different ways too. You can hear an old tube cut record with solid state gear and still get that sound, or you can hear a SS cut record with either tubes or SS and still get a great sound. Solid state equipment isn't really that different than tube equipment: The parts that impart certain sound characteristics in the current chain in a SS setup are hard wired in, they too can be changed out for possible improvement but it's a lot more work. The valves or tubes in a current chain can be easily changed out for possible improvement. People I have known who actually build this stuff and teach this stuff told me a long time ago that tube equipment is fine for people who like to have their sound colored a certain way. A good number of people on this forum and here and there I've noticed do seem to have that opinion as well. I like the tube sound and have had tube equipment in the past, but I like accurate SS better.
Saying you need tubes for analog sources is like saying you need a moving coil cartridge, when the reality is that there are a ton of great moving magnet and moving iron cartridges that sound amazing.

 

Honestly I can't afford the nice stuff I have heard. When I used to bug a friend of mine who was WAY over anyone else I knew about tube equipment that was his basic philosophy, so yes it got me started in that direction.
He was building recording studios when I met him and he teaches at Columbia University now. He had done some build out work for Steve Albini and possibly Patti Smith. I know he used to build some speakers similar to John Van L in Chicago and helped start a shop called Decibel in Chicago. The point is he (Andy Sickle) was and is a good source of info in someone I could actually talk to, and yes sometimes when it gets to writing charts and things my head will hurt, but that was his opinion of tubes in general when it came up.
Are they not both means to the same end? I knew I was treading on thin ice in (I guess) giving the idea that I am dissing tubes -but I was simply pointing out that tubes aren't the only way to get a good analog experience, probably when I said 'accurate SS'? I know there are accurate versions of both to be sure.
My tube gear was a Pioneer receiver from the late sixties and a friend of mine also had some vintage gear -definitely nothing fancy, but I must say I can usually enjoy the SS stuff I have now to the point that I don't worry about jumping into the world of tubes.
If it sounds like I'm repeating what someone else is saying maybe it's because I have limited knowledge, other than what I have absorbed like osmosis, but I'm not quoting anyone.
What do you expect? I'm a sign painter, although I do know a lot about turntables now, and maybe I'll start picking up a soldering iron when I really feel like learning sometime, but yeah, I'm not the true gear head around here...

 

A turntable setup can sometimes colorize the sound in a pleasing way, to the listener. At least that's been my experience with digitally sourced vinyl.

 

sure and you can do that with stuff like eq with the files.

 

yeah because there is a lot to set up compared to a turntable ... or just not buying digital sourced albums.

 

Absolutely.

 

Its my choice and I'm quite happy with it. I suppose one day I'll go the Hi Rez route but not now

 

This is good advice for anyone who wishes to use their turntables less often.