LPs from a digital source that kill their CD counterparts?!

Hi Mike,

Upon second thought the Communique probably isn't appropriate b/c I'm not sure that was a digital master. The Brothers in Arms was and may be a good test. I always thought the original BIA cd was one of the best standard cd's I've heard.

Howsabout it Tom?

Jeffrey

 

You can't play a master tape my friend. You can only play what they make from that tape, good or bad. Get a turntable and find out which one you like better. It's not a philosophical exercise. No point thinking about it. Like Nike says, just do it.
TP

 

Thanks for asking.

The SV vinyl KILLS THE CD. KILLS IT! Actually starts to make is sound like a passable recording, which it really is not. Very processed vocals made with peaky mics, very "clean" sound (not a compliment!), no real warmth, overly close miked, dry, modern, bright, yadda yadda yadda.

SV vinyl does what Hoffman would do: warms it up, makes it richer, sweeter, and so on. Or maybe that's what the tape sounds like and they screwed up the CDs with bad transfers. Who knows?

That's with my table, against my CD player. You may get a different result. For me it's no contest.

I actually met one of the recording engineers who worked on Love Over Gold. Wanted to buy the Whispers while I was a Legacy showman, so we went to his house to hear his "state of the art" system.

A ribbon (1) with a woofer (1) and $100,000 (no exaggeration: all Accuphase) worth of electronics. A recipe for disaster if ever I saw one. Then he turned it on. Things really got worse.

The whole area from 200-700 or so was nowhere to be found. No lower midrange. Extra 3-5k, lots of presence, extended top, lean bottom, nothing under 50 cycles, digital, solid state, just a nightmare. Breath of life? Don't know what you're talking about. My friend Kim was with me. It was painful. My head hurt.

No wonder he worked on Dire Straits' albums. He likes that sound!

With the exception of the first album, Dire Straits is no good for judging any audio parameter with which I am familiar. You may like the music, but the sound is artificial in the extreme, and may lead you in the wrong direction. Don't go there. You may not be able to find your way back. This is a common audiophile mistake. That kind of sound is fine for twenty minutes, then brain fatigue starts in and it's time to hang it up for the night.

First album is nice and warm sounding, very natural. Then they learned some studio tricks and it's all downhill from there.

But the vinyl helps cure some of that digital hash and coldness, IMO.

TP

 

Besides the Robert Shaw stuff, what doesn't have an extra 5 db at 30 cycles on Telarc? My house can't take the strain of playing those records; I fear for the foundation.
TP

 

I fear for my foundation when I play that one too.

I actually had a customer complain that that record was defective, it had all sorts of low frequency noises. I said "What?" So I played it, and every time Nat pops the microphone, it sends a very fast, very deep bass wave through the house. Now if your sub or woofer has lots of overhang, bloat, slowness and distortion, like most of them do, that wave sounds terrible. But if it's fast and tight like it should be, and it disappears as fast as it comes in, then it's really not a problem.

The customer's solution? He turns off his sub when he plays that record.

Ya gotta love it.
TP

 

Hey Uncle Al - RUN and find some DCC digital drinkcoasters of CCR - wooooof, they C-I-L-L any other pretenders to the throne - can't vouch for the new vinyl, but I'd guess it's c-i-l-l-e-r, too... I just got a cd of Willie via Ebay for under $30 with postage, and found Green River at Circuit City for $24 before Xmas (nope, no more are there at my local branch...)

 

If the master tape is 16-bit, what's on the CD *should* be what's on the master tape. Now, there might be issues in the production stages, but if done right, what's on the CD is what's on the master.

Not the case with the vinyl.

 

lukpac,

You stated...

That's true, but only for 16 bit masters. In most cases, those "digital masters" ARE NOT at 16/44, more usually at 24/48 or nowadays at 24/96.

Take a 24/48 digital master, and you have to downsample it to 16/44 for standard redbook cd. You lose even more "bits" of the original digital master when that master was recorded at 24/96. That's why people are so excited about DVD-A and SACD. All formats where you don't have to downsample to 16/44, which just tosses out bits of information. Especially with pure 24/96 PCM or pure DSD (SACD) masters.

Take that same 24/48 or 24/96 PCM master, and there is a strong chance that when it was prepared for vinyl, a 24/48 or 24/96 D-A converter was used to preserve and deliver as much of the bits as on the original. Just like what DVD-A provides.

That's why it's not always true that what is on a digital master is on a standard redbook cd.

I concur with Tom Port's comment, for me, on my system, I prefer vinyl in almost all cases to cd. That doesn't make it the better format for everyone, just for me. I like both, just like a blonde or a brunette. You might marry a blonde, and I might marry a brunette, but we can appreciate each. Neither may be right for the other.

 

While that's true today, it isn't for older masters. Stuff like Brothers In Arms is most likely 16/44.

Of course, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but...

 

In a perfect world, the process of mass manufactoring of CD's (or even home burning) from a digital master (16/44.1) would be an exact clone but sometimes it just doesn't turn out that way. I've read articles in the past where sometimes the "tone" gets altered in some ways. Mistakes are made and sometimes the choice of CD media plays a part. I remember reading an interview with McCartney (about 'Flaming Pie') and he said that they did several test pressings of the CD and they could hear which was the best media/process to keep the "tone" of the album true to what they mastered. All formats and especially when mass production is thrown into the equation have their flaws. The simple rule of the universe (which seems like it will always hold true) is that nothing is perfect.

Todd

 

Well, I've never had a full range system so my foundation is quite safe

I was thinking of a Robert Shaw recording of The Firebird, and the Frager playing Chopin LP.
Dan C

 

I'm fully aware that many CDs out there aren't exact representations of the (digital) master tape. However, that's not to say they *can't* be. At least if that master is 16/44.

Simply put, a correctly made CD will be a more accurate representation of the (16/44) master tape than an LP will.

 

I agree with your statement if all things were perfect and ideal but I really do not think that any of these formats can provide a better or worse representation from a master. A record, CD, 8-track, etc. will always be a "copy" in one way or another. A copy will always be a copy (something will usually be different in one aspect or another). D/A convertors are also part of the equation. Is the D/A jobie being used to translate the digital master to analog more accurate than the one in my cd player? On the other hand, how much coloration will my turntable set-up add to the sound? Is a cigar, a cigar?

Todd

P.S. I'm just trying to look at this stuff from a different angle...

 

Maybe no extra bass but some of the worst sound I have ever heard on a piano recording.
TP

 

Uh.....

You play any 8 tracks lately? On your stereo? For your audiophile buds?

So all copies are different but equal?

Okay...

TP

 

Tom, so I take it that you wouldn't want to buy these telarcs I have sitting in my closet gathering dust?

 

Mista Port,

I was trying to be respectful of different formats (I'm not into 8-tracks but some are)... Of course all copies (software formats) are not equal. That wasn't the point of my post. I just meant to say that some formats have positive/negative benefits as a "copy", representation of the original source. I added 8-track just to take the focus away from the ye old CD v. Lp thing (which only blew up in my face/cough, cough). Copies have flaws in one way or another. Maybe after I have some more coffee and wake up I'll be capable of being less confusing.

Mista Fredericks

 

Luke wrote:

Weren't most DAT recorders operating at 16/48 since 1986 or so?

Arne

 

Soundstream was something like 16/50 in the late 70s! They had to downsample these early recordings for CD release, resulting in poorer sound than was captured on vinyl (from what I've heard).

But my knowledge on this topic is rather limited, so maybe someone here could fill in with specifics?

 

Those early Soundstream recorders were more like 12 or 14/44.1, or some other weird sampling rate. The use of the 48kHz sampling rate didn't even stabalize until the late 80s. The use of DAT in the studio helped to do that. The use of 16-bit became common around 1983, when it was certain the Compact Disc would be a success worldwide.

Master tapes were routinely recorded in 16-bit all the way up to the mid 90s!

I have to agree with Luke, here. If done properly, a 16-bit CD *should* be what's on the master tape. The early tapes would more likely be upsampled and converted to something higher, or transferred to analog from the original formats. Whether any of it translates into "better" sound could depend on what was done to the tape before and/or during the transfer.

Of the late 70s/early 80s LPs of digital masters i've heard and have compared to their CD couterparts, I have heard little or no difference, without the advantage going either way.

 

Saying one thing is different from another is meaningless. Everything is different from everything else. This is not news. In future discussions, we can assume its truth.

How is it different is the question. If everything is a copy, the question to answer is "Why is this copy better than that one?"

Steve's DCC copies are better. That information has value because I can act on it and get a benefit.

Help us to understand what you believe are the strengths and weaknesses of any copy with which you are familiar. We look forward to reading your future posts. "We" meaning "I", of course.

TP

P.S. And why be respectful of bad formats? Are bad formats your friends? Would they be offended? Call a spade a spade. Tell us what you really think, not what you hope won't offend someone. We're big boys and girls. We can handle it.

 

No, it's not the truth. Copy a song to a computer. Make a WAV file out of it. Make copies for all of your friends. Every copy will be exactly the same.

 

To you it will. Not to me.

And that's not the point anyway. It's what KIND of copy you make, because the copy does not sound like the original from which it is made in the first instance. After that, who cares?
TP

 

Tom,

I'll try to explain why I think there can be differences between cd and vinyl "copies" (I feel like I'm being set-up to be pounced on).

The original master tape is the truest, purest form a recording is stored on. A copy to tape, vinyl, CD will always be one generation away from that master. It will be different in one way or another. Compromises are made to each medium and all will reflect differences from the original. Digital copies will have sonic difference because of sampling rate limitations, choice of D/A convertors, type of media, error correction, jitter, wires, etc. For vinyl, eq and compression needs to be used for in one way or another to prevent the stylus from jumping out of the grooves, outer/inner groove resolution compromises, type of vinyl, stylus, phonostage, VTA settings, etc. I agree with Steve about what really counts with a CD or vinyl is the mastering. He makes choices about how he carves and tailors the sound from the master tape to the medium he's working on while staying true to the tone. There have been many posts about why he used different choices for the Doors CD and vinyl because of each medium's limatations/strengths. So which format or which mastering job is the best representation of the master tape? I guess an answer would be to do one of your shoot-outs with vinyl, CD and the original master tape (If you have, please post your findings). I love DCC's vinyl and CD's because of the mastering choices that Steve has used. I haven't heard the original tapes to compare but I enjoy the way the music sounds.

Todd

P.S. I am usually a very direct and to the point person but life has not been very kind recently. In time, I will be myself again...