CD-sourced vinyl — myth or reality?

Wasnt the Stones' 1971-2005 vinyl box confirmed as souced from 16/44?

 

It surprises me that our host has not either encountered (and if he has, mentioned) the fact that pressing plants , at least here in Europe accept ONLY a 44.1/16 CD as a source for pressing LPs.
I know this because I am a musician and have looked for pressing plants to do an LP run and was flabbergasted to find out that they do not want a a 96/24 Source!!!

 

Which plants did you get that info from? I'm curious here as I know a lot of vinyl I personally own have been pressed in Euro plants.

 

I have a Tim Hardin Live LP from Russia. Looks very nice, but it even has the track breaks like a bad CDR

 

Not the smoking gun the OP was looking for, but the first Tindersticks album originally had 22 songs on vinyl compared to the 21 on all CD versions - have a guess how many on the recent Plain vinyl reissue from a few months back? Add the fact that the band and their management only found out about their first two albums being reissued by Plain through questions from fans on their forum, and it's enough to convince me that the suspicions people have about that label are probably justified.

 

Prices are premium for plenty of the new vinyl out there anyway. The prices aren't being kept down at all.

 

Plenty? I rarely spend more than $20 for a new release.

Trying to think of one "premium price" new release in recent times that wasn't marketed as "audiophile"... Can't think of one.

 

G'day,

Going a bit off topic, but there was a comment from Steven Wilson recently (on one of the Aqualung threads) that "now we work with digital we can hold on to frequencies that for years analogue just couldn't maintain through 3-4 generations (recording, mixing, cutting master, vinyl..etc)", so maybe there isn't much information above 20K anyway (edit: 'direct-to-disc' recordings excepted, I suppose).

Regarding vinyl sourced from CD master: I'm assuming it costs money to make a new vinyl master, and with small vinyl runs it may not be economical to do that. There's more than a few examples on SHTV of people buying an LP only to find that it sounds as compressed as the CD.

--Geoff

 

That's completely ridiculous. It sounds like they either don't want to deal with the sizes of the 24/96 files or they don't have the software/hardware to support from. Either is unacceptable with today's technology and storage.

Did you ever get to ask them why?

 

Maybe that is simply as good as they offer for an all-in-one service. Clearly if one were to send their 24/96 master to a dedicated vinyl remastering engineer, the latter would cut the lacquer from the 24/96 source and then that lacquer would go to the pressing plant.

 

I disagree that it is "sleazy" to master an LP from a 16/44.1 source. It would be sleazy if the label used language that implied the LP was mastered from original analog sources when it wasn't, but mastering from digital (16/44.1 or otherwise) is not inherently "sleazy" or dishonest.

When you buy an LP, there is no promise, implied or otherwise, that it was recorded, mixed and mastered 100% analog (unless of course the label makes some statement to that effect).

I recently emailed Music On Vinyl to ask if their Neil Diamond Bang Years LP was mastered from a different source than the CD. I received an answer from them the same day that said the LP was cut from the CD files. I wouldn't call what they're doing in this case sleazy at all, they are simply putting the release out there on vinyl for people who (for whatever reason) want it that way. If you want better sound quality than the CD release, you'll have to look elsewhere, but Music On Vinyl never claimed their release would sound better than the CD, only that it was "music on vinyl."

If a label is cagey or unresponsive about the sources used to cut an LP, I assume that it was cut from a 16/44.1 source unless I see some compelling evidence to the contrary.

 

Steven Wilson generaly works 24/96 Hi-rez which would explain his comments. There is no saving using low res digital source for LP. The mastering process to a wax disc is the same as well as plating, pressing etc. You just ruin the quality. What is the saving in using CDR v copy tape? - a few pounds secure courier delivery thats what. A lot of late 80's through 90's recordings were transfered to DAT and that may be the only usable or existing source remaining. It's quite likely many original LP issues in the 90's used DAT for mastering but later DAT was up to 24/48.

It is a gamble on major label titles as to the source used. It is best to avoid certain reissue labels that are known on this forum for using low res digital. For anything else refer to forum feedback on individual titles. I have come across very few vinyl versions that sound like a CD, though digital sources are often obvious. With sources from 24/96 and good LP cutting digital origins are not at all obvious as with the recent King Crimson reissues and the Doors box. You can be pretty sure Audiophile labels use analogue sources unless reissuing a title from the last 20 years. Analogue to hi-res and back to analogue is going to sound 'analogue' using a proper analogue cutting chain.

 

My "Best Of Kansas" is labeled that way and it really shows. It sounds pretty bad. I recall the songs from the Leftoverture album ie: The Wall, Carry On Wayward Son sounding just dreadful. Play the cd's that were issued or better yet the original vinyl Leftoverture and they sound great.

 

The only reason digitally sourced vinyl doesn't necessarily bother me is because usually the mastering is way better than the CD counterpart.

 

Is a 30 ips 1/2" analog tape really cheaper than a CDR, even when considering shipping costs?

 

The Black Sabbath LP's from Earmark have been said to have been sourced from CD. It is pretty much certain that they are digitally sourced, they sound just like the '96 Castle remaster CD's.

 

The much heralded "Bod Ludwig" mastered "Moving Pictures" is 16/44 sourced! That alone tells me not to worry too much about it so long as the mastering is good and material worth listening to.

Maybe someday super-hearing space aliens will land on earth to only hear 1's and 0's from the digitial achives, and then we'll have a problem.... until then...

 

I did not know that. Thanks for the info. However, I have a couple of Earmark titles (not Black Sabbath) and even if they are cut from cd, they sound good to me.

 

THIS.

As long as it sounds good, that's all that matter to me. Sometimes my vinyl sounds better than the CD, sometimes it's a tough call between the two and sometimes it just flat out sounds the same. But it's rare that it sounds worse (although I have one contemporary LP that definitely does - so I can attest to the fact that it does happen).

I'd love all my new vinyl to be analog or 24/96 digital sourced, but I have no control over it so I'll just let my ears be my guide.

 

Yeah, my Earmark Vol 4 is one of the flattest, quietest LP's in my collection, but I can't get over the fact that it has the same reversed channels as the Castle CD. Nice big heavy hunk of vinyl, shame it's not analog-mastered.

 

I hear ya. I have G.B.H. and Motörhead LPs. Not sure if they're analog mastered or not...

 

Earmark did the same digital sourcing on the Kinks reissues. However the pressing quality and packaging is very good with originals in any reasonable condition expensive and difficult to source. I still hope for all analogue releases some day.

 

I think it's obvious that some are sourced directly from cd master (i.e., Maggot Brain - 4 Men with Beards, MGMT - Oracle Spectacular).

It seems like a lot of the new releases of modern bands are getting the high rez treatment (i.e, Deerhunter, TV on the Radio, Wilco). These tend to sound good but just not as good as analog sourced vinyl. Some new release still get mastered from tape (Third Man - Sometimes, Wilco - Sometimes, Spoon, John Frusciante).

Of course, we know about the good reissues that are done all analog. These will usually, but not always state it.

 

Wasn't there some big controversy a few years ago when a previously praised Pet Sounds vinyl reissue was found to come from a digital master?

Also, wasn't there a recent Elvis Costello (I *think*) project that involved Hi-Rez files either as a source for the vinyl or a download with the album? The story was the engineer in charge of using them didn't know how to open them and just used the redbook files instead.

 

I got the latest album by english group The Trembling Bells on vinyl. I haven't heard the CD but I wouldn't think it sounds this bad - it all sounds like it was recorded from a 128 kps mp3 file. Maybe they couldn't afford even the cost of sending a CD-R in the mail to the pressing plant and sent an email instead. The packaging is fine, the vinyl is good quality, the songs are good - but the sound is awful. Hugely disappointing.