Does vinyl only make sense if they're pressed from analog tapes?

Yep.

 

Agreed on your first point. I don't have to ask the studio what they use, because I am happy with the sound. Early in the 2000's, I hated what they had with LE and chose to do more work with EMTEC 900 or whatever Quantegy/Ampex 499 I could find.

This is, however, a project where 24 tracks aren't going to cut it; we have all kinds of vocal overdubs, sound effects and things going on. Being able to digitally manipulate certain sounds is key. Even if I had a budget, I would still choose PT every time for a project like this one. 4 or 5 piece live band off the floor? Then we can talk 2". But not this.

Again, I have heard the horrible earlier A/D's. It was like the inboard DAT ones of the late 80's/early 90's. They sounded abysmal. The new stuff just does not have that problem, and PTHD(I believe we're up to 11 or 12 now)does retain the sound of things tracked on 2".

I have used that UAD plugin. I respect it, nice GUI and all, but it still doesn't do what tape does.


Dan

 

Vinyl 'records' only makes sense if they are mastered from the best available sources.

 

....and so do CDs, DSD and SACD, can be said for any/all formats really

 

Right on. Would like to hear the album when it's done!

 

let your ears be the judge of whats good or not.

 

Yes and I try to avoid all albums that were done this way. To me they sound like crap and make records sound LESS GOOD than they are..... (The late 70s really started to suck as far as this)

I WANT ANALOGUE ON MY ANALOGUE MEDIA! (Records,cassettes,8 tracks)

 

Digital masters in the late 70s?

 

No digitally mixing in the late 70s (I have heard sone )

 

Maybe just a hair more fatness to the sound. It already sounds pretty big. Then again, we may not like what it does. We certainly won't like what it does to our wallets!


Dan

 

Yes, sometimes the vinyl version is the only chance to get a non-brickwalled version of new music.

 

I would probably say "almost always" the vinyl version is the only chance to get a non-brickwalled version.

 

Where do you get the information that a different master has been used for the LP vs. the CD? It's perfectly common for an LP to be cut from the same master as the CD. A cutting engineer might lower the overall level when cutting an LP from a hot, brickwall-limited master. But the cutting engineer can't uncompress the master. There's a good chance with popular music today, that the same master is used for both formats. The LP may be cut from a hi-res master, the CD is obviously converted to 44.1/16. But you can't undo whatever dynamics processing the mastering engineer has done. There may be separate LP and CD masters, but unless it says so on the back of the album, you can't know.

 

I think you're reading too much into the statement. It's not that it's positive that a different master was used, it's just that when you compare a CD that is brickwalled to the same title on LP, the LP doesn't have all that brickwalled unpleasantness. It doesn't mean that it's DR-13 audio paradise compared to DR-6 purgatory, it just isn't the squashed mess on LP that it is on CD. If you're skeptical, try a couple of titles. I understand even the notorious Death Magnetic sounded much better on LP than CD.

 

Some labels will advertise that they use dedicated masters for LP from the original mixes, namely Blood Music.

There is even a dedicated discussion if it uses a dedicated master for LP from the Metal-Fi.com forum thread here: Metal-Fi's Official Dedicated Vinyl Mastering Thread -

 

It's false to say it doesn't make sense to cut a record from a digital file because if you download the file it would sound the same. Actually, a digitally sourced record will never sound exactly the same as a digital file of the same take/mix/master. It may sound better or worse depending on multiple factors. If it sounds better, then it makes sense. If it sounds worse, then it doesn't. Since sounding better or worse is somehow subjective and system dependent, it makes sense to release both so the consumer can chose.

 

And in some cases it's the bricked dog-log that's already been damaged (shaved) making it's way to format as well. I have a few.
Nothing is guaranteed with new release mastering, pretty much why I've stopped buying them on this format.

 

In the case that it is the same master then how would it possible to be less compressed? Doesn't seem possible. I understand you are hearing this but I can't figure out a logical cause, if it's the same master. Can you?

 

Nope, I'm no technical expert, I'm just saying that I've either experienced or heard reliably about the phenomenon more than once. I intuit that it has something to do with the inherent limitations in the LP format - there's just some compromises you have to make when pressing it to an LP that circumvent some of the nastier consequences of brickwalling. I can't tell you how it works though.

 

It's just re-leveled for the format most likely
Band of Horses latest, Bellman probably used the 24 bit brick, it looks identical on the lp cut except dropped in dB's- same shaved file.
These guys are only as good as the source being given (imo)

 

Usually the engineer uses limiters and EQing the sound from the same CD master to make it "fit" into a record while cutting it to DMM or lacquer. Which is total crap if it's a totally brickwalled release (see releases from Back On Black Records/Let Them Eat Vinyl).

Sometimes this happens when the label either do not want to spend the money in creating a dedicated master or if the original post-mixes cannot be found. It's a good idea to practice due diligence before buying an LP release.

 

I'm not a technical expert either. But I do know what compression is. And I don't think it's possible to alleviate it in any way just cutting a laquer w the same comirsssed file as was used in the cd. You'd have to go back a couple
Steps to get the uncompressed music.

I think somewhere along the line there was a logic leap between people saying "analogue vinyl cuts where uncompressed and dynamic but modern cds since the 80s are compressed and turned way up" [which is true], and "today an lp of the same album/master is your chance to hear the un-brickwalled version of the same cd". Which is mostly untrue. Like how truth gets messed up in a game of telephone. Then it becomes something you hear folks Say a lot....

 

Well, dangit, I have bought a CD version of an album and then later bought the LP of an album (months later, not talking 30 years later), and found that the LP sounded much better. It's happened multiple times. I'm not lying, I'm not making up a buncha crap to shill for LP's. I don't claim that it makes the LP format "superior" and I don't claim that there's a super-special Secret Squirrel master prepared for LP's. I don't even claim that the vinyl version scores that well on the DR meter - we're talking 10 instead of 8. So anyway, if my ears can make "logic leaps", I'll have to live with it, because I don't think my ENT can treat it. I'll just have to be happy buying the LP version of something, as I usually am. YMMV, and if it does, you've probably got a CD version available.

 

There's probably umpteen variables at play DK
I wouldn't sweat it too much. For me and the music I enjoy new release wise I'm just going to go with the much cheaper compact disc (unless it's a favorite where I think I need all formats)

 

I read reviews and check the Dr loudness database before buying anything. In the Dr loudness database, it sometimes shows vinyl versions with greater dynamic range than the CD version. And sometimes not.