CD-sourced vinyl — myth or reality?

Well, as long as you're not smug, or anything.

 

Don't take it personally. I also hate those who listen to CDs. And don't get me started on people who listen to downloads.

 

I like threads like this. The more things change the more they stay the same. Back in the days before digital and we knew that recordings were 100% analog there were good sounding albums and some not so good. Some had a lot of depth and some were as flat as a ... Gasp... CD!
The technology has changed, perhaps not for the better, I know I wish things were as before, just analog records and the money I spent on digital could have gone into a better turntable. But that's what we got today and the reality today is the same as before, good sounding albums and bad sounding albums, and the fun in this hobby is seeking out the best sounding pressings of those albums we love.
What matters to me is the level of enjoyment I get from listening and I don't care what it's sourced from as long as it moves me.

 

Your posts hits it on the head. I grew up in the digital era and just came around to appreciating well recorded music, analog and digital. I'm not going to pass up on a title on lp because I know it was recorded digital. I will pass if I'm skeptical or I know it has bad SQ reviews. I think many people assume a lot of modern or indie music is all mastered to vinyl from cd and in most cases they are wrong. Many times these artists seek a better vinyl mastering because they enjoy the medium and they know their fans do as well, other times the artist has no idea and just assumes vinyl would nice format addition.

I've only been into vinyl for 3 years and continue to try to learn. I've consumed a lot of information but learn something new all the time. As far as playback systems I have about $3K invested TT/Phono and $0 invested in a cd player. Actually, I've never owned a home cd player and have never been interested to own one. Listening to music at home only became entertaining once I got into vinyl. Although, I will use any media for music enjoyment in different environments.

 

(Edited)

Back to the original question, is this whole "CD sourced from vinyl" just speculation because of cut-offs at 22 kHz in a frequency spectrum, or has any mastering engineer or record label ever confirmed mastering an LP from a CD source?

 

100% agreed on all counts. One thing I would add, for clarification:

Unmastered digital source, at 44.1/16, not taken from CD - to vinyl record = could sound good or bad, depending on the mastering...

yes? no?

 

I think that is how Beggars is releasing some of their lp's like the new Cocteau Twins retrospective.

 

That’s an extremely helpful rundown of distinctions that are otherwise easy to overlap, blur, or mix up through imprecise terminoilogy. And it’s that final, bad category I was trying to point to in the OP.

 

This is from http://www.sonicscoop.com/2009/06/1...ing’s-new-all-analog-vinyl-mastering-part-ii/

So what exactly is "CD Master"??

 

Holy moly. That’s one of the most breathtakingly cynical comments I’ve ever read. There’s something extra-poisonous about encouraging a musician to sell snake oil to the die-hard fans — i.e. the ones who love and trust you the most.

So the original question has definitely been answered: Reality, not myth.

 

G'day,

It's not snake oil ... it's an LP of the artist's music. It's only snake oil if the seller claims that the LP is substantially sonically different to the CD from which it is sourced.

Still ... I recall reading this quote before, which is why I mentioned in an earlier post that it may cost more to create a vinyl master.

--Geoff

 

You’re right, snake oil was too strong and pernicious. I withdraw it.

But what seems unseemly is the thing you allude to — there’s an implicit promise in producing a vinyl version of a record that you’re offering something better, or at least different, than the equivalent of the Apple Lossless rip of a CD you’re adding to your iTunes library. And the real problem is the habitual and widespread stonewalling about the technical specs and sourcing of vinyl, which raises suspicions of hipster-fleecing and a touch of bad faith.

 

Every single "digitally mastered" or "digitally recorded" LP which was released prior to the late 90s was necessarily sampled at or below 50 Khz because today's high-res digital technologies simply didn't exist back then. And so yes, most LPs were indeed produced from the CD masters which would have been recorded at 16 bit, 44.1 kHz resolution. Nobody in the industry (except for audiophiles) was even concerned about this back then as LPs were considered to be a dead technology.

 

Don't hate nothing at all except hatred. I think Abraham Lincoln said that.

Goodnight all!

 

Ooh slam dunk although one could argue hearing an LP through a boutique tubed pre-amp sounds 'pleasing' because distortions inherent to vinyl/tubes, etc make the listening experience 'easier' or maybe just more familiar to some ears. That which sounds better is in the hear of the beholder.

 

It'd be great if we had a thread that identifying such vinyl, so thread members could beware!

 

I can understand if an album was recorded or mixed digitally, then there are few options available in having records cut. If the mastering will be the same as the CD, why bother? It's a waste of everyones money, a waste of plastic, not to mention the massive carbon footprint left behind just from one pressing job.

Don't waste the money/energy/time.

If the digital master for vinyl will have a greater dynamic range, go for it!
See Kanye West - 808's and Heartbreak. Pretty good mastering, very dynamic.
Also see Blink 182 - Neighborhoods - Dynamic, also sounds as if some analog "warmth" filter was added to the files prior to cutting

If an album was recorded analog, and you want to make an analog product, stay analog. If you plan to use a digital console, or delay head in the cutting process, or decide to cut from a digital copy, even if it is hi-rez, wait for it.... Don't bother!

Analog records should be made from analog recordings. End of story. it is only acceptable to me to cut from digital if there is an improvement over all available digital versions.

 

buying CD sourced vinyl is a waste in every way imaginable

 

I had the same view but having heard excellent vinyl cut from high res copies using the latest technology my mind has changed. Refer to the King Crimson Court thread.

 

All those people who have been enjoying The Nightfly and Moving Pictures on vinyl for 30 years have been wasting their time?

It's not analog vs digital. It's brickwalled and compressed and clipped vs not.

 

Yes, I've referred to this article a few times. I have a number of recent pressings from Sterling. Many are all-analog but of course, if it was recorded digital then the mastering is going to be digital. Of the digital masterings that I have from Sterling which have Ray Janos in the deadwax, I'd say most are high rez masterings. A prime example being TV on the Radio Return to Cookie Mountain. One that I know is the 'cd master' is MGMT Oracle Spectacular.

Good question at the end too because they would have access to the original digital master and why would they cut from the cd (not cd master)? I guess it could take more time? I do know that this may happen when a very low budget artist might just ship their 'cd master' via cd-r or email to United or some other pressing company to cut the cheapest vinyl product possible. For the merch table.

Now all of this brings me to a question I hope someone can clarify. If Ray Janos or Kevin Gray cuts the vinyl from Steve Fallone or Bob Ludwig's digital master then who masters the lp version? My assumption is the guy cutting the vinyl (i.e. Kevin Gray)? Essentially it is a different mastering right? I think our host talked about this in a thread a while back but I can't exactly recall if it was this particular issue.

 

Buy yourself a vinyl copy of the 1985 album 'All Fool's Day' by The Saints on TVT and give it a listen. It sounds like a cd played through a cheap player. If that does not convince you that it has been commonplace since it was possible to do it, nothing will convince you.

Many industry people still believe that cd is superior to vinyl, and a lot of people on this board feel that way as well. They believe that what you source your records from is irrelevant, you should not be buying vinyl anyway because it's inferior.

 

How common was this though? Weren't most lps still being mastered from the analog tapes except for some of the extremely wealthy artists that thought digital recording was the best new thing? Even in the 90s a lot of the best artists were still recording and mixing analog.

My observations are that after 16-track, recording quality went down as a whole. I guess you can see that in that in the quote in my signature. It's just an opinion though based on my observations.