CD-sourced vinyl — myth or reality?

I have a question please excuse my ignorance -

when a vinyl is a 'cd tranfer', does that mean they take the digital cd file and then essentially master it a second time (from the mastered cd file) in order to put it onto the vinyl? (i.e. they have to make appropriate eq and compression etc changes) - and does that mean that such a vinyl will always be as compressed or more compressed than the cd version? Or maybe they don't have to do anything other than select which songs go on each side, can it be that automated?

 

I have a question please excuse my ignorance -

when a vinyl is a 'cd tranfer', does that mean they take the digital cd file and then essentially master it a second time (from the mastered cd file) in order to put it onto the vinyl? (i.e. they have to make appropriate eq and compression etc changes) - and does that mean that such a vinyl will always be as compressed or more compressed than the cd version? Or maybe they don't have to do anything other than select which songs go on each side, can it be that automated?

 

I've seen it first hand, it happens.

 

As funny as that comment is, it sadly demonstrates the misunderstanding of how digital audio actually works around these forums

 

Also, if the vinyl is mastered from am unmastered digital source, then it's likely that the CD is mastered from the same. So at least they are working off the same starting point.

I actually emailed the label about this last year in regards to The Pains of Being Pure At Heart's "Belong" and got the impression (but not a confirmation) from the label that it was a digital 24/96 master that the vinyl was cut from. I should actually email the labels more, just for pressing information.

I assume that a tool like Spek, used against a clean needle drop with good components, could shed a little light on some vinyl. Another example: I just got a Furutech GT40 and my first needle drop was tUnE-yArDs. Looked it over in Spek and I'm not seeing anything aboe 18khz, and it's not the GT40 as other needle drops of analog vinyl is not showing this. So I'm going to take a guess that the master on this was probably not 24/96 or even 24/48.

Not that it's a terrible blow to life as we know it - as long as its sounds at least comparable to the CD, and hopefully not as loud as contemporary CD normally can be.

 

Thanks to everybody who’s contributed so far to what is assuredly an ofttimes confusing thread, as has been previously stated — and doubtless in large measure thanks to the confused premises of the OP, who is, himself, an ofttimes confused doofus.

It really is too bad that there isn’t more transparency and honesty about what’s under the hood in modern recordings. It’s too bad there isn’t more pride in the work and respect for fans with knowledge and curiosity about the art and craft of recording technology.

 

Thanks to everybody who’s contributed so far to what is assuredly an ofttimes confusing thread, as has been previously stated — and doubtless in large measure thanks to the confused premises of the OP, who is, himself, an ofttimes confused doofus.

It really is too bad that there isn’t more transparency and honesty about what’s under the hood in modern recordings. It’s too bad there isn’t more pride in the work and respect for fans with knowledge and curiosity about the art and craft of recording technology.

 

Holy smokes! I am amazed that it took this long in this thread to get to the point made by our host (above).

I can appreciate that people love a fresh new Lp for the size of the artwork and tactile qualities of the whole package, but to assert that it can "sound better" than a CD when it's just a damn copy of a CD is utterly subjective crap... unless you're a fan of the distortion (ok, I'll put it nicely and say 'alteration of the sound'), however slight, that your vinyl playback equipment may add. Or you have a lousy CD player. Come on people.

 

I concur.

 

Is that what this thread is about? I seem to be missing something here.

Just for the record, I don't think that my Earmark Sabbath LP's are superior to anything. They're redundant at best. The Earmark MOR is dreadful and worse than the Castle CD, although it's obviously sourced from the same source.

 

I would think dance/rap or anything that used pro-tools or edited on computer would only exist in a digital medium. Less reason to get the album on vinyl.

 

Wouldn't just about everything these days exist only as files on a computer?

I still buy modern recordings on vinyl, hoping that the mastering will at least have dynamic range intact. Depeche Mode, for example - they really are different. Some modern metal I suspect is cut from the same source as the CD, if not the commercially released CD itself - they sound the same. I think a lot of stuff is mixed and mastered at the same time, and I wonder if there really is a difference between final mixes and final master (seemingly rare exceptions include aforementioned Depeche Mode, Stadium Arcadium, etc - I'm talking about the metal world, done in small studios with small budgets).

 

I have found many examples of digitally sourced vinyl but it's usually just by coincidence:

You buy a remaster that is no-noised, compressed ot whatever and you eventually track down an early CD pressing that sounds better. Maybe you aren't totally pleased with the original CD but you live with it. You then buy some 180 gram pressing of the album thinking it might be from tape and it's clearly from the CD you hated in the first place, because it has the same qualities as the CD you hated and you can hear it is dehissed or whatever. You do some A/B work and the reissue LP sounds very similar to the CD you don't like, so you sell the LP and the remaster and live with the old CD until you find an original vinyl pressing. Once this happens a few times you learn the labels involved because there are usually patterns with this type of thing.

 

I like to think that even if a vinyl album is sourced from a commercially available CD, it might still sound better because they'd use a really nice CD player for the mastering. Like some 20 000 $ CD player with the best possible D/A converters...

 

Nobody is saying that a LP mastered from a CD sounds better. Most of my albums were made before CDs, but I do like new music and would like to avoid CD mastered LPs.

 

Which was the point of the joke...!

 

Try just about everything created after the year 2000.

 

Not if someone's vinyl rig is better than his or her digital one.

 

Yes but the review in question (Fremer's flip flop from loving the LP to a "meh") speculated that it was from 24/96 digital not redbook.

Ironically, just this morning I read Fremer's review of the Classic Reissues version of the Elton John album, which is sourced from a 24/96 copy of the original master and Fremer says it's very close to the original DJM pressings.

Once more, it's not really the source, it's the mastering.

As for the OP question about whether it's sleazy to source vinyl from redbook, I'd be more concerned about hires downloads or physical releases sourced from digital recordings that were 16/44.1 or 16/48, or for that matter, 24/176(or 192) hires being sold when transfers were done at 88 or 96kHz. Paying extra bucks for a pile of zeroes kinda sucks!

 

That Pet Sounds was sourced for 16/44 isn't a big deal. That is was sourced from a compressed over-eq'd CD release? Yeah, problem. May as well get the CD to avoid any other overlaying distortions, pops, clicks, inconveniences of vinyl.

Good example of digitally recorded modern-day LP release offering benefits over the CD release: Tom Petty's MOJO.

 

Many OJC (Original Jazz Classics) pressings use the CD mastering. Some people claim it's only the CD mastering credits that are printed on the back cover, but comparing the CD and LP shows that the mastering is identical, while it can be a lot different for OJC LPs without the CD mastering credits.

In Europe, there is also the widespread phenomenon of public domain reissues of material that's more than 50 years old. Labels like "Jazz Wax" make cheap LP reissues, and while there is no absolute proof, it's pretty obvious that their source material is a CD, because these labels have no access to the master tapes. At best, they could use a SACD or hi-rez download as a source (when available), but I doubt that they care that much about sound quality, since they don't target the audiophile market.

 

It's all true & most unfortunate.
I have two copies of Comus - First Utterance vinyls pressed by EarMark.
You can actually hear the cd SKIP(!) twice on the first track. Of course this defect reveals the source in an unquestionable way.
Unbelievably shameful.

 

I don't think that version of Pet Sounds was sourced from an already mastered CD. It doesn't sound like any of the Capitol CDs I own. It may have been sourced from 16/44.1 digital, or it may be because Capitol has a 16/44.1 delay head on their cutter. Who knows? It's not the best sounding reissue of Pet Sounds, but it's not bad either, IMO.

 

Bolded section deserves repeating, for every page this thread grows.